With all the talk about no such thing as true instinctive shooting, using the point of arrow as reference, ppoper form, snap shooting flaws, etc.,.... take a look at the attached video - the mind is far more capable then what we give it credit for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1KC1Os-_NE

There is no doubt that instinctive shooting is a real thing and many can shoot accurately that way. But, considering what is happening in the video and relating it to the way most of us shoot, it is only entertainment. There is a right way and a wrong way to do most things. What he is doing is not the way a person should learn to shoot. I would like to see him on any 3D course with a group of average shooters from this site. I would bet he would not be the person with the high score. I would bet most of the guys would beat him on score. As an entertainer, he is good. As a true bow accurate bow shooter, who knows.

I think he would kick your butt on a 3D course, but like you said he is an entertainer. This is probable all he does everyday. The above or average person will never be able to shoot like him. He is excellent in his shooting.

This should get good. OK, who's got the pop corn? I'll get the butter melting. Someone start putting ice in glasses for the drinks.......

Well, let's look at this from an alternative perspective. I started doing fast draw exercises with a pistol when I was just a kid. Then I spent 30 years as a cop. It is no challenge to draw and fire from 20 feet and hit the center of a silhouette target in less than 1/2 second. There is no peripheral vision or sight acquisition involved.

All that being said, I carried a rifle with a scope for longer range scenarios.

They are two completely different styles of shooting, one is good for close fast work, the other for longer more precise targets.

Doesn't prove anything about shooting instinctive. Did you not hear the: "After three years of training" part? He wasn't born knowing how to do that.

Kick John's butt on a 3D course? I doubt it!

lol..... I suppose killing doesn't come natural (instinctive) to big cats either? And yet they play (practice) their skills to perfect their natural ability. Just because someone trains (practices) something does not invalidate their instinctive ability.

I'd say the guy is pretty accurate as well as fast and IMHO, I think he would hold his own on a 3D course...... I know one thing, he'd be done shooting the entire course while most would still be at the first target arguing whether he used the tip of his arrow, whether or not he had target panic, used proper back tension, clean release, etc..... Oh and ther would be a need to debate whether his bow was a hybrid, American, self, etc.....

Personally, I choose to believe that the human mind is far more capable then most believe.

OK, NYY - pass the buttah!

Allow me to preface my remarks with the humble opinion that "INSTINCTIVE" IS A LOAD O'CRAP!!!

Look....

Amazing things can be done using highly trained hand-eye coordination, but that's LEARNED behavior. Instinct has NOTHING to do with it, and as JusPassin' noted, sights are a helluvalot more effective for long-range work than "instinctive" could ever be... and Fred Asbell says so, too...

Nobody who is any good shooting a bow without sights ever got to BE that good without putting in the effort, so the very term "instinctive" is a serious disservice to those who are still trying to work it out. "Instinctive" means you're born with it. If you're born with it, then you're basically already as good as you're gonna get, which thought discourages those who WOULD be willing to work hard if they thought it would help, and it provides a handy excuse for those who are NOT willing to put in the effort or apply the discipline that is necessary to make consistent, clean kills.

Not to mention that it's an Ego Trip for those who can shoot well this way, but enjoy the mystique of having been Born Special, and are therefore somehow intrinsically superior to all of us poor slobs who have had to shoot until our bodies have gone lopsided in order to get as good as we believe we need to be in order to hunt effectively....

There are those, like Jeffer, who leave most of us in the dirt. These guys DO have some unusual gifts, but what makes them special is the combination of Gifts AND crazy-cool amounts of Training...

Yep..Entertaining bunch of shooting videos for sure..

That shooter was not born knowing how to do that sort of shooting..

Many hours of practice that may makehis hits appear to be instinctive..

It's not..

It's a matter of disciplined training..Many hours..

You start slowly..THEN and only after one gets the slow deliberate shooting downpat..does the tempo speed up..

For birds, running rabbits, attacking zombies or orcs..or whatever..:)

NOT his first rodeo with the fast shooting exhibitions..:)..

The movie clips were NOT real in case you wondered about the archery prowess ..:)..Jim

..

Archery was a lot more fun before the internet.

Come to think of it, using a bow is still more fun than typing.

Bye!

Once a friend of mine, one who Stump killer called the Old Archer, said that there are some things that some can do because they are exceptional. Howard Hill, Ben Pearson, Stacey Groscup ,Marven Haggler, Babe Ruth and on and on. Others may be able to do it but they are few and far between. If you do what your capable of and works for you and you are having a good time. Enjoy and let the entertainers entertain.

As John Shulz points out in his book, Shootin Straight, "conditioned" instincts is a better description of the technique. I'd bet the guy in the video would be finished in a 3d shoot with a top score before most got through the first few targets.

It's bad enough that we can't agree on a definition for "traditional"! If we add instinctive to it, as in "instinctive traditional" we are only beating a dead horse. IMHO

Traditional shouldn't be in archery to start with. It gives guys a way to make sure everyone knows they don't shoot a compound and do it the "hard" way. Its just bragging rights and something to fight over. The word instinctive has been used since before most of us were born. The only ones who are bothered by hearing it was the ones who can't do it,lol. Ok from now on I shoot dimmledorf.

Btw, do I have to give all my animals back to the woods that I shot this way since it doesn't exist? Call it what ya want n I'll do the same. Whatever it is it works great at night as well as day, and with all different length arrows, since half my stumpin arrows have been broken and cut off.

merrian/webster...b : behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level ..... Yes theres other difinitions but no word fits all of its definitions.

These threads are never about "instinctive shooting" and whether it exists or not, it always turns into a debate about the technical definition of 'instinctive' and whether this word appropriately describes the shooting method in question - it's just semantics. Maybe we should call it the "Semi-Conscience Split-Vision Peripheral Two-eyed-straight-look Shooting Method". That would effectively end the debate...

As tiresome as these discussions can get, I DO notice an evolution in understanding that Instinctive Isn't REALLY INSTINCTIVE. Learned behavior sufficient to allow the archer to make accurate shots while in "automatic pilot" is pretty neat when it happens. But we learned how by practicing enough that the brain can readily calculate the shot AND we trained our muscle conditioning/memory so that the body can actually DO what the brain is directing. EXACTLY WHAT GF AND DIRE ARE WRITING.

Ah well,

R.

yeah n its a shame goldentrout_one. Some guys would do very good at it if they could discuss it or maybe get some in person help with it instead of spending all the time fussing over whether it exists or not.

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! Never fails to amaze me how threads are cast to simply start bs arhery wars. I'm right! No I'm right. Y'all get you asses out and shoot more and quit worrying about shooting, you'll live longer.

Somehow I don't think it would matter what it is called as there is always going to be some here tha will ALWAYS try to force their interpretation/opinion on you.

After having spend a couple days on here searching and reading all the arguing about FPOC, Form, Longbow or recurve, hybrid or hill style, and instictive shooting or POA, etc., - I offered a video that to me showed that the human brain is far more capable then what we give it credit for...... AND THAT WAS THE INTENT OF MY ORIGINAL POST. In fact I restated in all three of my posts.

My Mt Curs have treeing instinct. Its taken me 2 squirrel seasons hunting them 2-3 days a week plus taking them when I could during the off season to develop their instinct into squirrel dogs. We are still aren't done either.

Well, I've come to believe that I am a Splitstintive Riser Gap Shooter, and my best shots are the ones when I notice nothing other than my back tension and the target. In these shots I have a completely clear mind and clear vision, seeing only the spot I wish to hit.

Now, in answer to the learned behavior part...I supposed I learned my body position by shooting enough and I learned to clear my mind by concentrating enough and I suppose i should have learned enough not to comment on these kind of threads...guess that part hasn't become "instinctive" yet :)

Those who are mistaken here are those who choose to use the wrong definition to suit their anti-instinctive agenda.

The definition of instinct that suits the aiming method is:

Instinct: behavior mediated by reactions below the conscious level.

That's it. It fits quite well. There is no requisite declaring the behavior must be inborn.... or 'unlearned'.

Good posts and much wisdom. People have began to understand that it is all just labels and rhetoric. Very pleased to see that there has been education and regard to NOT argue. Kudo's!

I agree with GLF..... When people ask me what I shoot with I just say bow and arrow. As far as instinctive I believe Im an instinctive shooter..... That being said I don't know what I use as a reference when I'm letting an arrow go?

If you break down how each style is learned from the beginning, then you get the difference in instinctive and the rest. Plain and simple. Definitions, sight pictures, etc........matters not. Every other method involves judging distance and/or size of gaps through a conscious thought process. Now, do the other methods get to the state of not having to put much thought into those things, yes they do for the good shooters, especially at hunting distances. Speck

I've never met anybody claiming to be an instinctive shooter that was any good past about 15 yards.

To me the claim of ""instinctive" is just made by people that don't really know what their doing to begin with and are to lazy to advance past the first stages of shooting a bow, so they claim "instinctive" to make it sound like their onto something all mystical and mysterious.

Instinctive is like a kid in a sand box trying to tell a digger driver how to do it better when he's never actually done it himself.

"Intuitive" short range shooting is the very first thing any archer learns,,,,some simply never get past that point.

Instinctive huh, first off it's the wrong word anyway ,second it's just the baby steps of learning to shoot.

How does the instinctive shooting technique work at clout (180yard) distances?

BTW ... there are (as far as I know) only two published studies that have imaged the activity of the brain durng the execution of an archery shot. Both studes indicate increased levels of neural activity in areas of the brain associated with highly conscious low frequency control of motor function and diminished activity in the areas associated with subconscious engramatical output.

Well Jack, all I can say is you must not get out much. Speck

Glad I've been isolated from other shooters all of my life. I don't know how I shoot, lol! I just know Lars Anderson is pretty darn good.

Joe

Fred knew it was better to ride than to walk.

He would also say that it doe's not matter what you call it. The Animal died with the arrow and we ate it. I do not think Fred really cared much when this picture was taken what someone would call how he he held the Bow and drew it.

So,,all the discussion about aiming methods should be broken down by which "YOU" prefer?, and NOT by whether or not it is an "Instinct" or learned by repetition because all this is water which has passed beneath the bridge of BS in the past. I think we can all agree that "Good Archery Form" is Universal no matter how you aim!

Phil, if I ever decide to shoot at deer at 180yds, I'll let you know. Speck

I ask all of you to pray for my good friend and Archer John Conaway who is going under the knife this Friday for major heart surgery. He is a good and Godly Man and needs your prayer. This is a picture of him Bowhunting last year and pray that he is back there hunting again this fall.

I think the first time you shoot.a bow its purely instinctive. After that you can call it whatever you want.lol

I wrote this on here back in 2011

The Bernstein Problem and Instinctive Archery.

There’s been a avalanche of debate recently on the topic of Instinct and the techniques adopted by the “Instinctive Archer”. The robust and forceful nature of the debate reflects the passion, dedication and enthusiasm of archers who have attempted to describe and analyse aspects of human activity that are commonly considered some of the most complex and complicated of all human neuro muscular and neuro locomotor activity.

The debate is centred around explaining how the instinctive archer is able to concentrate all his visual attention and focus on the intended target of the arrow and executes the shot sequence without reference to other peripheral factors. The popular explanation of the technique is that, the execution of the shot sequence is made at a sub-conscious mental level without conscious intervention and relies on the “instinct” or reflex action of the archer to co-ordinate, regulate and monitor all the various movements and component parts of the body necessary to send the arrow to the intended target. There is little doubt within the archery community that there are practitioners of the Instinctive technique who are able to shoot with astonishing consistent accuracy and precision at both static and moving targets and the success and popularity of the instinctive technique has led to a library of books and magazine articles supporting and promoting “The Instinctive Archer”.

The conflict arising within the debate is not the instinctive technique itself, but the explanations given as to how it works. How is the human brain able to control, regulate, adjust and executes the shot sequence with repeatable accuracy with all the archers attention concentrated on a single intended target while ignoring any and all peripheral stimuli and how is the human brain able to make the necessary strategic choices required for the shot to be successful?.

This phenomenon has been known to Neuro scientists for decades and what the Instinctive archer is attempting to explain is commonly referred to in academic circles as “The Bernstein Problem”. (not to be confused with the Bernstein mathematical differential equation)

Nicolai Alexsandovich Bernstein was a Russian mathematician and Neurophysiologist who first wrote on the subject in the 1920’s after observing Russian metalworkers at the Soviet Institute of Labour. Bernstein observed how metalworkers could accurately perform repeated hammer blows on an anvil while all their concentration and attention was directed to the target of the hammer blow without reference to the position to the hammer and any moving parts of their body. Bernstein wanted to understand the mechanisms used by the human brain to perform these “locomotor tasks” and explain the underlying neurophysiology to the scientific community. His investigation into this complex problem would dominate the next thirty years of his working life.

Bernstein began his research by studying the spatial trajectories of the shoulder, the elbow, the wrist and the hammer head of the metalworkers as they performed repeated hammer blows. He achieved this by constructing a crude version of the sophisticated three dimensional motion capture apparatus we use today in modern movement analysis. Bernstein attached small light bulbs to the joint centres of the arms and the hammer head and filmed the movement of the lights during the hammer blow movements. He then analysed and plotted the spatial location of each light bulb on each frame of film relative to each other and relative to the fixed location of the target position.

Bernstein discovered that there was no single trajectory pathway of the joint centres but large multiple variations in the trajectory pathways of the joint positions. He also discovered that the position of the hammer head at the end of the blow always remained constant, in other words the hammer head was always delivered to the precise spatial location without the metal worker paying any attention to the movement of the shoulder, elbow or wrist and that somehow the brain had compensated for variations in the movement pathway of the body parts.

Bernstein developed the concept that the brain was capable of producing “Engrams”, small learned pieces of movement information contained within the brain that are capable of being used individually for simple tasks or grouped together to form more complex and sophisticated “repeatable” patens of locomotor activity. Many researchers in Neuro sciences throughout the world, would, in years later, confirm the existence of neural engrams often now commonly described as “Patten Generators”. Bernstein also knew that, although the activation of neural engrams was controlled by the central nervous system, information coming into the brain from sensory receptors contained throughout the body in the peripheral nervous system could influence the activity.

Bernstein then began his ground breaking research into how the brain organised and processed the sensory information coming into the brain and how the brain used that information to ensure the hammer blow was always in the correct spot. Bernstein discovered through experimentation that the brain is capable of processing sensory information in both series (one thing at a time) and parallel formats (many things at the same time). Movements of the human muscular-skeletal system are capable of an infinite amount of degrees of freedom at any one time within three dimensional space, Bernstein discovered that the human motor cortex was able to disregard degrees of freedom movement not relevant to the task and that the human brain produces a hierarchy of high frequency compare and contrast algorithms from sensory neurons to regulate a paten of activity executed from the Cerebellum. Decades later, this pioneering work would, become the foundation knowledge of Neuro science research in institutions around the world.

So Bernstein discovered that humans are capable of performing movement actions with repeatable precision while focusing all their visual attention on a fixed spot but there are large degrees of variation to be found within the movement pathways. The brain initiates an orchestrated series of pre programmed commands to execute the task. That task is consistently receiving feedback stimuli from specialised sensory neurons located throughout various parts the body and at any time the brain is capable and willing to accept or disregard the information that may compromise the quality of the task.

So when the “instinctive archer” describes concentrating all his or her focused attention onto that small target object or hitting that small aspirin thrown into the air, that’s exactly what they are doing. But, when they describe the activity as “instinctive, reflex or sub conscious, they’re attempting to answer the Bernstein Problem with an answer that is incorrect, and this is where I and I suspect Nicolai Bernstein would have to respectfully disagree with the instinctive archery community. What they’re actually describing is the initiation and execution of a complex, co-ordinated paten of neuro-muscular and neuro-chemical activity, learned and refined over thousands of arrow shots, regulated and controlled by some of the most complex human neural activity over which they have complete and conscious cerebral control.

I suspect archers will be discussing, debating and arguing this topic with the same degree of passion, enthusiasm and love of archery and hunting for decades to come and we’ll all eventually come to the same conclusion .... who care’s .... now ....shall we go and shoot some arrows?.

Just about to do that very thing Phil. Speck

We get too hung up on the word instinctive not fitting whats happening. It never will fit for everyone.

Kinda like the front of the bow is really call the "back" and the back side is called the "belly". The words don't always fit but we know what they mean. :)

Well?...I'm loving life cause I just replaced the brass crimp on nock points on my Bushmen RD Longbow with BCY SureGrip Nail Knot tie-on nock points and my bares are cruising right with the fletched and flying like bullets with 25gr less point weight than I used to use with these 29" long arrows...and I was tearing up an empty cigarette pack at 15yds...and my point?...was somewhere in the dirt between my feet and the target (and I know because I looked once! LOL!)as I like a lower anchor as well...even though I do shoot this bow 3under.

What's it all mean?...this...

5 more posts were added to this thread while I was out shooting! :)

Prayers sent for John... And as Hiram has said, it is all water under the bridge.. If you need to feel you are right on this, find out what it is you are actually needing to feel right about.. Instinctive was just a class of shooting competition, Don't over think it... It works just fine as is.. If anyone feels the need to make a great change in archery with their self important wisdom, please have at it in a noble direction.. Otherwise, this really has been covered and settled long before most were born..

Prayers sent for John, Hiram. George

Hey Stan....who settled it and what did they conclude?

I disagree with Bersteins method and conclusions at least partially. From my first experience with a bow as a child I have aimed instinctively. In other words my brain (or your brain) can work out complex math problems without need for conscious thought. This has been proven many times over. How does a pitcher hit the strike zone? How does a golfer hit the ball near perfect every time? The tool is your brain, practice is a calibration process. There are way too many variables at play to be a simple matter of repetition. Even Einstein recognized the power of the subconscious mind.

That's my .02 YMMV

Phil I remember the first time you posted that, it's an interesting read.

I've heard the argument that the conscious mind is only capable of one action at a time, it's seems that Aiming and shot sequence do sometimes conflict when trying to hard to control both, having defined steps in your sequence and learning them to a highly automated action does seem to allow for more focus on the point you want to hit.

Is it possible to be 100% focused on aim and expand release and follow through, does the aim stop for a moment and continue or can the conscious really multi task?

Well Pago if you can show evidence in what your sayng is true .. there's a Nobel prize waiting for you. As for saying that Bernstein was incorrect, well I think the entire global Neurosciences community would disagree with you.

Ahhhhh, the perpetual philosophical debate littered with semantics. I'm over it because it doesn't matter.

Today I messed with a few new 'techniques'. First, I tried willing the arrow off the bow to the target, but for whatever reason it never happened, so I figured that was problematic. Then I remembered what a holy rolling colleague gave me as advice that's supposed to solve all of his personal problems, which is to just put all of life's issues in God's hands and pray......so I did. Wouldn't you know it, nothing happened. So, I figured maybe I was using the wrong God and went to a reserve God and apparently he wasn't so inclined or amused either. Eventually I went through all of them: God(you know, THE God), Allah, Buddha, L. Ron Hubbard, Neptune, Dave Koresh, Barrack Obama......everybody. The arrow never once moved.

Tough to know what to do when your fresh out of ideas. So, I surmised that the best course of action was just to do as I've always done and shoot it.......the arrow that is. Damned if it didn't work just the same way it always has for me. I really do hope you all find an actual reason to care about this, but in the meantime I'll be shooting the bow if you need me.

Phil that is why I said at least partially. I think your comparing apples to oranges by trying to use Bernstein's work to make the problem fit a preconceived solution, in lieu of a solution that accurately fits the problem. Like I said your mileage may vary. It will be necessary for us to agree to disagree but I enjoy the discussion.

Thank you for the prayer Fella's. Could not be for a more gentle and Giving Man.

I shoot instinctive,that said its a learned shot,no I don't snap shoot,or use the arrow on purpose.but I use something I am sure,or my minds eye does.my 2cents,if your gonna shoot at foam,do your gap or whatever,but for me,hunting and shooting in general is a lot more fun shooting instinctive.

Phil, I was with you until near the end when you said... "regulated and controlled by some of the most complex human neural activity over which they have complete and conscious cerebral control."

I disagree with that statement as it stands, but would agree with it if it said 'over which they CAN have conscious cerebral control.

They are complex human nueral activities for sure, but they can all be regulated and controlled, or 'mediated' as Merriam Webster defined it, by reactions at the subconscious level.

So what should "it" be called?

Well Jack nz.....?????? I call myself instinctive in my shooting and have made my way quite a few yards past your self written limitations about what you've seen..... I'm also not lazy and hope I've gotten past the "baby steps" of archery. Every kiwee I've met said they can drink fight and shear sheep.....instinctively!

DT1963 that cat is the real deal! Thank you for sharing! Jim

Skullz,I don't think they ment "shearing" sheep,,,,but that's really Aussies anyway,,,not us,,;^)

For those new to the debate: nobody claims it is a true instinct. We did not spring from the womb knowing how to shoot, or throw a ball. We learned. But in many sports shooting or throwing without conscious aiming is called 'instinctive.' Maybe not the best word for it but one that has been widely used for many decades.

It can be done with great accuracy to considerable distances in archery. Many world, international, national, regional and state championships have been won using instinctive aiming at the shorter distances. Many champions have said so. I won mine shooting instinctively out to about 45 yards, aiming off the arrow or the bow thereafter. Some transition to gap aiming at shorter distances.

I believe that most of the great bowhunters have done most of their game shooting instinctively. Some archers who haven't the knack doubt that it exists and they turn up at these debates.

It is a very good way to shoot a the short to medium distances. With practice it enables accurate shooting on movers and fliers. I recommend and teach it to newcomers. Children learn it easily. Some adults overthink aiming and have difficulties.

Some choose another aiming methods even for the short distances and do very well. There are a number of ways to aim a bow and arrow. Instinctive is the simplest and polls shows it is the most widely used.

I believe this is the truth of the matter. - lbg

Goldentrout said it perfectly. This argument is pure semantics. When I shoot, all I focus on is the target. I never look at my arrow or bow. I dont care what its called, but it works well for me. We should just call it "unaided focus." I don't know....whatever.

well said lbg

Again well said lbg!

ok i'll chime in and stir the pot a bit.

I am a gap shooter. I look at the point of my arrow, been doing it for 37 years, i line it all up and release...but...i been doing it so long it's no longer a calculated, that gap looks about right kind of thing.

Now just for kicks, and to poke a little fun at the whole.....

"i'm instinctive" , "your not instinctive", gap shooter, gun barreler..no such thing as instinctive.."I see the arrow".."i don't see the arrow".."you gotta see the arrow", Zen loving crowd.

I occasionally, while shooting will purposely abandon my gap shooting way's, and focus entirely on a small dot on the target draw and shoot, and no i am not looking at the arrow.

I find my accuracy isn't much different, and is entirely dependent on my concentration level on what i'm trying to hit.

Now you guy's can discuss the matter all you want, and shoot candle flames in the dark. Then debate and use scientific theory's to explain it all, because I realize it's all so confusing to some.

Me? heck i just pick up a bow and shoot an arrow. It's all really so simple.

Jack NZ...15 yards!!! Must be something in the water down there effecting everyones neurons.

When a major league pitcher can consistently paint the outside corner of the plate with 97 mph fastballs, that's exceptional talent and practice. If Stevie Wonder does it....that's instinctive!

Sorry but that logic doesn't fly. A major league pitcher that can paint the outside corners is a combination of God given talent and practice. You can take 95% of kids playing ball and coach the crap out of them and have them practice until their blue in the face and few if any will ever consistently have that kind of control..... much less ever be able to throw that hard.

I made a mistake yesterday when I shied away from using the term instinctive shooting. ThE term Instinctive Shooting has been around far before most on here were even born. I shouldn't quit using a term because some can't ”handle it” and decide they need to “define it” for me. I KNOW how I shoot and I know what it's called, if you can't shoot that way that's fine…I accept that, but PLEASE quit trying to define how I shoot - you really have no clue.

Jack in NZ - you said very few instinctive shooters can shoot well to 15 yards? I bet you would feel differently if you were a deer standing fifteen yards in front of me or any one of the guys I know that shoots instinctively. Matter of fact, you’d be in danger at twice that distance most of the time. Can they keep a 2 inch group at that range? Probably not. Can they place their arrows in the vitals consistently at that range? 30+ years of doing so says yes…. I wouldn’t want to test their instinctive ability if I had horns on my head.

Another guy used long range rifle shooting to discredit short range instinctive shooting???? Hogwash. The human predator was designed for short range lethality (that is why we have limited depth perception, no real speed and can't fly). We use OUR brains – that IS OUR God Given INSTINCTIVE weapon. I will say this, for all you point of aim, gap shooters, long range rifle scope shooters, MOST (I did not say all – but MOST) are totally tied to some "aid" to know the distance before you shoot. I have seen plenty of sight shooters, POA/ gap shooters and rifles with scopes that blew relatively easy shots in the mountains because they couldn't judge distance worth a crap. I was a far worse shot when I tried the compound with sights thing in the mountains. I am a much better shot using my longbow and instinctively letting my brain do all the calculations for me. How many times have I heard "I must of used the worong pin", "he was closer than I thought", I can't believe I shot over him", etc., and these were from guys that shoot 2 inch groups on the range blowing 20 to 25 yard shots.

I shoot instinctive and keep my shots to 25 yards and under because that is what my God given abilities allow and it is a limit I have imposed upon myself. Yes I can hit pie plats further than that, and it is not because my brain can’t Instinctively work it out…. IT’S A CHOICE AND THERE ARE LIMITS TO MY INSTICNTIVE ABILITY THAT PRACTICE ISN’T GOING TO OVERCOME..... I am good with that jsut forces me to be a better hunter and not rely on shooting aids to voercome poor hunting ability. With my compound with sights and range finder I can hit a pie plate out to 70/80 yards pretty consistently, and with a rifle 300 yards is not all that hard.... but that is NOT what I choose. I CHOOSE to rely on my instinctive natural abilities to get within close range. If that offends some or fries their brains because they cannot accept my definition of instinctive archery - then all I can say is THIS “your opinion is none of my business, thanks for sharing.”

Instinctive aiming is a learned behavior. Nothing in the most relevant definition of instinct says it musn't be.

The building(sometimes with use of conscious thought) of a foundation of good form, and use of a straightforward learning system that ultimately gives the subconscious the tools it needs to mediate/regulate the shot process and aiming will help the instinctive shooter surpass the 15 yard mark without much trouble. "Grip it and rip it" as a learning technique is less effective and less efficient.

HOW we learned doesn't necessarily define the method that has completed its evolution. Whether one utilizes instinctive aiming from the beginning or their shooting morphs into instinctive by way of another system is irrelevant. We are where we're at. If one's aiming is mediated by reactions below the conscious level, they're aiming instinctively.

zetabow...

"I've heard the argument that the conscious mind is only capable of one action at a time, it's seems that Aiming and shot sequence do sometimes conflict when trying to hard to control both, having defined steps in your sequence and learning them to a highly automated action does seem to allow for more focus on the point you want to hit.

Is it possible to be 100% focused on aim and expand release and follow through, does the aim stop for a moment and continue or can the conscious really multi task?"

Bingo for me here...but....for me?....it's the conscious side that can only process 1 act/thought at a time and it's my subconscious that can multi-task and carry out several thoughts/acts at a time.

Furthermore (and this is the part that screws with me and is why I'm dedicated to instinctive) is that along with the conscious side of my mind only being able to single task?...it also seems to require multiple questions & answers decision making...such as...am I drawing with and maintaining back tension?....is my bow arm shoulder locked down?...have I reached bone-on-bone locked form?...is my grip pressure in the right spot?...is my anchor repeating in the right spot?....where's my string hand elbow?...and now that the physical aspects are sorted out?...next comes the conscious aiming process thoughts...is my arrow still aligned to the target?...how's my gap look?....where's my string blur?...is everything cool?...can I release now?...I dunno...let' run a double check! LOL!

and then folks wonder why they get TP! LOL!

and the answer is this simple...keep pushing your own personal mental capabilities too the limits and reaching beyond?...and sooner or later somethings bound to break...and it does...

"Your Conscious Mind"

as now it's worn out, burned out and broken left in a state of rebellion as to what it is your attempting to force it to do yet one more time after time after time! LOL!

Meanwhile?..."The Subconscious Mind" is like...

are ya done yet?...cause I can get all that chit done in one, fluid, thought free moment! LOL!

anyways...that' how it is for me these days and just felt compelled to share even though my name is Bill and not Phil. ;)

Jeff - I agree to disagree - I don't aim. That to me is the core, you "aimers" just can't believe that some fo us really don't aim we let our mind determine when we are at the right place to let go.

I think for humans the ability to use and trust our mind to factor unknown variables and then work out a solution is totally INSTINCTIVE to the human species. Getting better at it the more we trust it is also pretty instinctive.

Would you agree that breathing is Instinctive by YOUR definition?

Well guess what, you can practice breathing techniques and get far more efficient and proficient at it - and that is scientifically proven. You can also use "Aids" tools/equipment to get even better at oxygen intake - but it doesn't mean that breathing is not instinctive.

But then again "I ackowledge YOUR experience - Thanks for sharing"

Thanks. ..... it's always good to go back to "square one" and remember what real archery was .... oso

Speaking strictly as a card carrying member of the brotherhood of totally instinctive archers.. Yes, of course we aim.. Not in the sense of aligning the arrow or sight to the intended target.. But being only as good as we can focus our eyes on the smallest part in the middle of intended target.. After thousands of reps, we do this without conscious thought.. Much like a person who is skilled with his dukes can whip a punch to the tip of your nose or chin, the bow arm points the same way, ( different methods of this as well)..

We all do our best to explain, but the truth is, you just cannot change peoples minds, if they close them to doubt..

By the way - I practice to work on form, grip, anchor, release, back tension, etc.... as those are all human variables that I have some ability to control. I don't practice to make my mind better at calculating everything and putting an arrow where my eye naturally looks (that comes instictively for my brain). The way I see it the more variables I can control the easier it is for my mind to make those instinctive calculations. Probably some scientific law that states the less variables the more consistent the outcome?

I also tune my bows to shoot where I naturally look rather than manipulating the arrow to make it fly straight. Hopefully during tuning I get both worked out and the arrow and broadhead I choose flies straight and to the point I naturally look. But I will ALWAYS take an arrow the flies where I look (I can correct flight problems with fletching easy enough) over a straight flying arrow that doesn't fly where I naturally look (I am just not good enough to fix that or remember those corrections during the moment of truth)

DT1963, for some reason you seem to think I use a conscious aiming reference? At least that's how I took it when you addressed me as "you aimers". I aim instinctively... meaning all conscious thought is focused on the mark while relying on my subconscious to judge distance and execute the shot.

Great Post and Ditto Stan! No doubt we aim but...we're just not aware it taking place as it's being handled at a lower level of consciousness.

and I think it's a case of much like folks have "Ingrained Their Form"?...we have "Ingrained Our Aiming".

Thanks for posting that, Bill. ;)

Sorry Jeff - I was typing in between other things - I must have misinterpreted your reply.

At this point I am getting confused on how I shoot lol (Not really I am being facetious - Instinctive all the way). Matter of fact, when I consciously try to "aim" my shooting goes to crap. The best shots I make just seem to happen and sometimes they are from weird angles that I know I have never "practiced" before.

BTW - I do believe there is far more that we share and have in common than our few slight differences. I'd share a campfire with most here no matter what they carried or how they chose to shoot.

Everyone is an "aimer." How we go about it is always up for debate and never resolved. Perhaps we should just not worry about monikers and just shoot the damn bow how we like.

I "aim" with a sight picture and arrow tip relationship to what I want to hit.

Byron Ferguson said he practiced abou a half-hour or so at lunch, 3 arows at a time, and maybe an hour after work. Folks, that's a whole lotta arrow launching! Which probably explains why he hits the mark most times?

I'm just sayin'

TinHorn

You guys still argue about this $hit???

Reason #473 why I rarely visit this forum anymore.

"Byron Ferguson said he practiced abou a half-hour or so at lunch, 3 arows at a time, and maybe an hour after work. Folks, that's a whole lotta arrow launching! Which probably explains why he hits the mark most times?

I'm just sayin"

The other end of the scale is Korean Olympic shooters shoot 500+ arrows a day and they hit the mark with great accuracy also.

How many arrows you shoot to maintain Form is personal and directly linked to the type of shooting you do.

For me shooting IFAA Field more than normal number of arrows are shot (200 arrows per practice session), mainly because the distances shot are so varied and it's not just about Form but building confidence over those varied distances as well. Shooting IBO distances maybe not so much practice is required because the distances involved are shorter, most of Byron's shots are very close range and likely his training is less demanding to maintain his high skill level.

Just sayin

interesting how offhand is the dismissal of phils posts! he really is the only person on this forum that absolutley knows this subject.

I've shot my bow with what I felt was good repeatable Form only to see on video a whole bunch of Form errors.

I imagine explaining what we perceive to be a subconscious action may in fact be something entirely different that we don't understand, I always enjoy Phils posts, he makes me look on the other side of the coin.

Phil, I enjoyed your post. It reminded me of a weekend we spent in Creede, Colorado watching a mining competition. We saw a lot of amazing skills but what I could not believe was all the contestants using the star drills(I think that's what they were called)to drill holes in huge boulders. They would bend over that rock, concentrate on the drill bit, and swing a heavy short handled sledge with all their might as fast as they could go. After every blow they had to lift the drill, twist it a quarter turn, and place it again while the entire rest of their body was swinging that sledge for the next blow. They appeared to be concentrating totally on the head of the drill bit. I told my wife that's at least a 10# sledge and those are mighty men swinging them with all the force they can muster. If they miss even one blow, their other hand will be mush!! In many "heats" of this event, not one miner even had the hammer strike a glancing blow! Every one was dead on the spot they intended! I've never seen anything like it, before or since!

Larry,

My intention was not to dismiss Phil "offhand" or otherwise, he brings an interesting point to the discussion. I get it, that the discussion may be tiresome for some, but for some of us it is interesting and new to be able to discuss with other archers.

As others have eluded to there are multiple definitions (in the dictionary) of instinct or instinctive and depending on how narrow or wide the view can mean very different things.

We all must try and explain based on what we "know" and can conceptualize. For instance I know that for me, I make a conscious decision to let go of the string to shoot the arrow. However, the cue that the time and placement to do so is right is subconscious, I shoot a gun the same way. The only time I have problems is when I get my timing off between the cue and performing the action or try to "think" about it.

But it is hardly out of bounds to call the kind of shooting we do with bows instinctive. I even shoot my compound "instinctive" without using sights.

I'm of the opinion that instinct (or whatever we want to call it) plays a big role even when you're gap shooting. The arrow make a pretty poor (low resolution) sight but some archers can really stack them anyway.

At the same time I notice that "instinctive" shooters often do better with a high anchor (arrow closer to the eye. I can't help but wonder (I'm not making a claim) if many "instinctive" shooters don't use the arrow more than they realize.

Maybe there's some overlap in technique? I guess I'm a gap shooter although I couldn't tell you how many inches my gaps are. I just know what they look like. But, depending on the shot, lighting, or maybe just my mood, I sometimes focus on the target and barely remember taking notice of the arrow and sometimes I focus on the arrow as you would the front sight of a gun.

Anyway, more questions than answers from me. LOL

@ Larry - didn't see anyone dismiss Phil's post.... but I also wouldn't claim that he is "only person on this forum that absolutley knows this subject."

There are a lot of "scientist" and "Mathematicians" that also believe in Global Warming, Big Bang and a host of other "Theories" that I personally do not, and will not subscribe to.

Here's a question - Was Bernstein an Atheist? Once you find the answer to that question then let me know if you think he was correct in all his "Assumptions"

BTW - his work focused mainly on biomechanics and to simplify his work - the brain creates new neurons and pathways the more often a task is repeated. It does not invalidate that the ability to use your brain to coordinate hand to eye coordination is instinctive in nature. Like stated over and over again - of course the more times you practice or repeat something the more efficient and proficient you will become – but that occurs both in instinctive and learned behaviors.

Protecting one’s self from a preceived threat or danger – Instinctive? So does Martial arts make you better at it? Still an Instinctive behavior

Fight or flight – running away – Instinctive? So does learning better mechanics at running make you faster? Still an Instinctive behavior

Eating – Instinctive? Learning to use a fork does that make it more efficient? Of course but guess what EATING is still an instinctive behavior.

Ever see a baby placed in deep water? They instinctively know to hold their breath from the moment they are born – that is an instinctive behavior right? Well guess what the more you practice the longer you can hold your breath and stay under water – makes you more proficient but it is still INSTINCTIVE to hold your breath when your head goes under water. In fact it is very hard for anyone to undo this basic insticntive reaction no matter how well they learn to swim.

Anyways, anyone that read the first post with an open mind, and actually watched the video, would have gathered that my point was that the archer in question did not AIM with his arrow tip or gap shoot, did NOT use proper form, did not have time to "Line things up consciously", was not standing 90 degrees to the target, Did not always have a consistent anchor, didn’t always draw the arrow consistently, was moving in different directions, and had a host of variables (or let me guess the three flying discs always fly to same spot) and yet his BRAIN INSTINCTIVELY over came all this and made corrections and he was pretty dang good at it.

I will always believe that the brain’s ability to coordinate movement with visual stimuli is INSTINCTIVE and gets better the more you repeat/practice it. I have wasted far too much time here. I acknowledge your experience - thanks for the input.

Now I am going to practice my Instinctive Shooting.

What someone "believes" has no impact at all on reality. Great video

Shooting recurves, longbows and selfbows is extremely fun, challenging, and rewarding, no matter what aiming method you use. Speck

I know many here have prayed for my friend and an update for you and continue to say a prayer that Brother John will be back with a Bow! Thank you for your prayers

"John is coming off bypass and being closed up now, surgery went well and should be in recovery shortly. Kate(his daughter)"

That is good to hear Hiram

Great news!!!!

I shoot without the aid of sights, gap , or using a reference point. I only look at what I want to hit and let my brain take care of the rest. Not sure why people get so bent out of shape about this topic and the words used. And yes Fred Asbell through his books and shooting clinics taught me to shoot 25 years ago.Call it what you want.

One more - watch it till the end and you can detemine iof she is accurate or not - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o9RGnujlkI

The mind is far more capable then we think

Have a blessed Easter

That guy was amazing, no doubt about it. He show's what he can do after years of training. Is that instinctive? Imho, yes. Here's why; when a person practice's martial arts for years, their particular discipline become's second nature to them. They can react instinctively. Their body will react to a given situation. An example off the top of my head; in the movie "Shogun", Buntaro (the archer) give's Pilot Blackthorne a demonstration of his abilities by shooting some arrows thru the paper wall of the house into a gatepost, in rapid succession. He did this from a seated position, instinctively. He knew where the gatepost was, he did not have to see it. Even tho it was Hollywood, I believe this would be possible thru many years of practice.

That guy was amazing, no doubt about it. He show's what he can do after years of training. Is that instinctive? Imho, yes. Here's why; when a person practice's martial arts for years, their particular discipline become's second nature to them. They can react instinctively. Their body will react to a given situation. An example off the top of my head; in the movie "Shogun", Buntaro (the archer) give's Pilot Blackthorne a demonstration of his abilities by shooting some arrows thru the paper wall of the house into a gatepost, in rapid succession. He did this from a seated position, instinctively. He knew where the gatepost was, he did not have to see it. Even tho it was Hollywood, I believe this would be possible thru many years of practice.

DT1963,,Thanks for the confirmation.

I knew I was right.

After all,Howard told me so an he was right as well.

this is where the tongue poking out bit goes,,,just so you know seeing as how you missed it last time.

bit like instinctive shooting aye .

MStyles you made an interesting comment ...

"That guy was amazing, no doubt about it. He show's what he can do after years of training. Is that instinctive? Imho, yes".

Your comment assumes that instinct can be acquired after repetition of the task

Instinct in Cognitive neuroscience assumes the ability to perform a task to a successful conclusion without prior knowledge or experience of either the task or the outcome of the task.

"With all the talk about no such thing as true instinctive shooting, using the point of arrow as reference, ppoper form, snap shooting flaws, etc.,.... take a look at the attached video - the mind is far more capable then what we give it credit for."

Do the laser pointer challenge in the pitch dark and get back with us and tell us how it went.

Who cares how you do it, for myself everything from the arrow tip to every reconizable thing on my bow is a reference point . By every natural means possible is my mott , still need to figure out the yardage on the lower puff ball though . And yes I can still grab and rip em if I want.

Phil, I have no educational background in cognitive neuroscience, so I am not familiar with the neuroscientific definition. However, you are describing "instinct", whereas, I believe with training and repetition, the task can become "instinctive".

Forums are getting as useless as any other media. "My way or the highway, even though I don't know you or your archery goals". Keyboard quarterbacks, "I can't do it, never seen it done, so YOU can't either". A joke. Speck

Instinctive,,overused and mostly a misunderstood term by some,,good repeatable form and mechanics,and good disciplined (sp)practice is what matters, wheather you look down the shaft or create a space between the arrow and the target or neither. The term doesn't matter and shouldn't matter but there always is an argument over it. Shooting foul shots, playing pool, bowling,,driving a golf ball,,it's all the same.

Never understood how "form" was such a mystery to folks. You would think that was a "given". Speck

I always compare it to casting a fishing rod, shooting a basketball or throwing a rock at a can on a fence post. Do it over and over and over and you get better. Call it instinctive or muscle memory, the name makes no difference. When shooting an arrow you can do it without aiming or you can use the point of the arrow to aim. The name really makes no difference, you are going to shoot the way you want to shoot. The only difference is if you can hit what you intent to hit, not what you call it. Call it a hit or a miss.

x10 Sipsey. Ten rings, bullseyes, and dead critters, I've never heard any of them ask how the arrow got there. Speck

I'll weigh in for grins. Over thinking is a sign of under practice. If you do not fully understand the action of shooting a bow or you have not commited the practice to body memory your conscious memory plays the largest role. if you have commited the action to full body memory your subconscious then takes over the larger role. Call it what you want it's still conscious versus subconscious shooting. Even the greatest target Archers using sights etc rely mostly on subconscious shooting.

There really is no reason to get caught up on the semantics of Archery as it is a losing battle that ends with a huge rift among Archers. No shooting style is at its best with out hours and hours of practice.

Think of it in the same terms as traditional Archery it's just a term coined by afew to describe a certain style of Archery. Is it the correct term? To some yes to others no but at the end of the day we still know exactly what they mean.

if people would spend more time practicing whatever style they use rather than trying to explain, justify, or convert others on these forums, there would be alot better shooters in the world...

What difference does it make? This dead horse has been beaten so many times.....

When someone mentions "instinctive", we all know what it means, whether it is the correct term or not is not important to most of us....semantics arguments are just that..semantics.....

Barry Wensel, Fred Asbell, and others state they shoot instinctively, and they have killed way more critters than I can hope to....so who am I to argue they don't?

The deer I have killed,nor the report I fill out to the Game Commission never asks me what shooting style I used....it is merely fodder for internet arguments....arguments which neither side will ever win.....

Hell, it's too nice a day to sit here and read this diatribe...I am heading to the archery club to SHOOT my bow....my style..

Lee Vivian, exactly.......well stated.

It isn't so much that I want to side with one camp or the other, and really both make compelling arguments, but I can't wrap my mind around whys some care so much about a label. At the end of the day nobody's changing what they're doing now and there's simply no need to get emotional over it.

Just go shoot who cares about all this drivel Happy Easter.

As far as I know John is breathing on his own and in good shape.

I'm thinking focus on a good form foundation and aim however you want. If you have good form, you will be hitting the Target.

Good form is consistency and even if a guy doe's not have so called Olympic type form, if he/she doe's the same thing exactly the same from shot to shot? They will be having consistency.

wolfies instinctive on you tube

Trivia question....what does this post and Freddie Krueger of "Nightmare on Elm Street" have in common? Where are mods with a stake and sledgehammer when you need 'em?

I was just having a strong feeling of deja vu and realized it's just the bi-annual instinctive thread here at the Leatherwall. ;)

I think maybe guys that use the term instinctive don't necessarily believe they were born with it. It has to be practiced. I think of it as shooting without consciously using the point of the arrow or having to know the distance. For most people it is for short range targets of 50 yards or less. Jmo

I don't mean any disrespect, but as someone who has only been shooting recurves and longbows for 18 months, and with no one around to help me learn, I needed a resource. So like everyone else I started searching the internet for resources and came across Jeff Kavanagh. I have paid close attention to his youtube videos, have tried to mimic his form, and I am happy with my progress. His video on "the vertical line in archery" was very helpful. I know I DO NOT REFERENCE THE ARROW POINT IN ANY WAY, when shooting, and only focus on my target. I concentrate on doing the same things the same way for every shot. I think this will serve me well in hunting situations.. I have no desire to shoot at 3D targets 70 yards away.

Look, Pull, Release....Repeat.....Nuff said.

Mods, I apologize... kill the "Massive up front tip weights" post first. It has had 4 times as much unwarranted air time!

Lee Vivian you said it well. I'm heading off to the range myself to try some new arrows.

Howard Hill - quote taken from Hunting the Hard way... not the whole chapter but the parts pertinent to this conversation.

"This brings us to the most important point in field or hunting archery; namely, aiming. I believe the question I am asked most often is: How do you aim when you are shooting at game? I use the same method of aiming all the time, and I call it split-vision or secondary aiming. It is also sometimes referred to as the indirect method of aiming. To anyone wishing to learn the split-vision or secondary-aiming method in shooting a bow, here are practical directions to follow: Select any given object to represent the target to be hit, and focus your eye on that object. Using the right hand, closed except for the index finger, bring that finger into your field of vision. At first it will be difficult to keep from shifting your direct vision away from the original or primary object, but after some practice it will be easy to hold fast with your direct vision on the original object, looking at it primarily, while secondarily you will be able to point your finger at any other object inside the scope of your vision, without looking directly at either the finger or whatever secondary object you have selected. Keep both eyes open at all times. As soon as the eyes have become accustomed to seeing in this manner, you are ready to begin using the split-vision method of aiming an arrow. You merely have to substitute your arrow for your index finger, using only the tip end of the arrow when it is at full draw to aim with. As a practical illustration of this method, suppose there were a basketball fastened to the side of a bare wall. Around that basketball suppose there were a baseball, a tennis ball, and a ping-pong ball also fastened to the wall. Suppose you choose the basketball as the target to be hit. Take your object, looking at it primarily, while secondarily you will be able to point your finger at any other object inside the scope of your vision, without looking directly at either the finger or whatever secondary object you have selected. Keep both eyes open at all times. As soon as the eyes have become accustomed to seeing in this manner, you are ready to begin using the split-vision method of aiming an arrow. You merely have to substitute your arrow for your index finger, using only the tip end of the arrow when it is at full draw to aim with. As a practical illustration of this method, suppose there were a basketball fastened to the side of a bare wall. Around that basketball suppose there were a baseball, a tennis ball, and a ping-pong ball also fastened to the wall. Suppose you choose the basketball as the target to be hit. Take your shooting stance and look directly at the ball with both eyes. While concentrating on the basketball with both your brain and your vision, draw your arrow its full length and bring the tip of it up into your field of vision. Point the tip of the arrow at the baseball and loose. With another arrow do the same thing as before, except that this time you point the tip of the arrow at the tennis ball and shoot. Then with a third arrow repeat the performance as before, except to point the arrow head at the ping-pong ball and let go. When you are able to do this without letting your eyes shift from the basketball, you are using the secondary or split-vision method of aiming which I employ at all times. If, however, you allow your eyes to shift away from the basketball to the point of the arrow and back again to the ball, you have not yet trained your eyes enough to use this method of aiming. At first it will seem impossible to aim in the manner directed, but after a few hours of practice, it will be easy to do. In order to use this method of aiming in the field when hunting, suppose a deer were standing broadside to you at thirty yards. The object to be hit, naturally, would be the deer; the spot on the deer to be hit would of course be the heart. Look directly at the spot on the deer just back of the fore shoulder where the heart is located. Focus your eyes and mind on that particular spot, and draw your arrow. When the point of your arrow comes into your field of vision, aim the point at an imaginary spot ten to twelve inches below the spot on the deer you intend to hit, and loose. If you have selected the proper imaginary spot at which to point your arrow, you will hit the deer in the heart; naturally, if you have failed in your calculation you will not do so. After a little practice, however, you will be amazed at the ease with which you will be able to select the imaginary aiming point. If an archer uses this method and misses, it is easy to make a hit with the next arrow, because he only has to compensate for his mistake by shifting his imaginary aiming point right or left, up or down the same distance by which his arrow has missed the spot he was trying to hit on the first shot. After this correction, the second arrow is bound to hit the mark, provided, of course, the two arrows fly alike. If one does not use the method I have described, but aims purely instinctively, seeing nothing but the object to be hit, then he has no way of compensating on his second arrow, and so is likely to go on getting a series of misses, only because he has been forced to shoot all his arrows without having anything concrete to help him compensate for his mistakes. I have used this split-vision method of aiming in hunting for many years and have found it much faster and more accurate than either the sight Method, the instinctive, or any other type of aiming. When one has mastered this method of aiming, it can be used as well on running game or flying birds as on still targets. The one fault that defeats the efforts of many archers when using the method I advocate is that they allow their eyes to shift away from the target to the point of the arrow and back to the target again. If the archer allows himself to do this, he may just as well forget this type of aiming; it will not work that way. Anyone who desires to use this method must realize the importance of understanding it thoroughly, and must be willing to spend enough time to train both the eyes and the mind to perform rightly. Naturally, the imaginary aiming point at thirty yards with a 50-pound bow is nowhere near the same place as it is with a 75-pound bow. I think a fellow will become so acquainted after practice with the various bows and ranges that after one or two shots he will be able to shoot the 5o-pound bow almost as accurately as the 75-pound. A good field archer should be able after a very few shots to shoot almost any weight bow and arrow fairly accurately up to thirty-five or forty yards, provided of course the bows and arrows match. It isn't possible to be so dogmatic about this indirect method of aiming as it is to explain a direct point-of-aim, or sight, but it is possible to perfect it to a degree where one can hit fairly small objects pretty regularly up to fifty or sixty yards. Of course, it is hard on a man who has been shooting by the target method and who decides he wants to hunt with the bow, to have to learn a new method entirely, like the one I have outlined. It would be grand to use a point-of-aim or a sight for hunting if the archer had all the time he needed to establish his sight or point-of-aim, or if he knew to the inch how far distant the creature he wanted to hit was from him. But most game animals are funny that way - they just won't stand and let a fellow get lined up. The first shot is the one that should count, and by practicing shooting at various distances and from different angles with different types of backgrounds and foregrounds, one will soon become able to judge within a few feet how far away an animal is and almost instantly to know where his own imaginary aiming point should be. This judgment can be accomplished so quickly that by the time the two hands are in shooting position and the bow drawn, one will have already estimated the distance, picked out the desired spot on the animal to hit, located his imaginary aiming point, and be entirely ready to shoot. At first it will seem like a tremendous task, but it will become easier as one goes along, and soon the hunter will be enthusiastic about the results he is obtaining. It was not before I had tried point-of-aim shooting and sights of various and sundry types that I adopted this cheek-draw method of drawing and the secondary or indirect-aiming method. I am sure that in my case, at least, there's no other method yet devised that would serve me so well. There are many more aspects of this kind of aiming that could be discussed. However, most of the essentials have been set forth. Therefore, if one will understand these as they are written here, the points covered are sufficient for success."

If you look at HH's writing, even those writings above, he isn't consistent in what he is saying. Maybe because he was not trying to answer the stupid questions that plague us, and was mainly trying to communicate a method, that varied a little depending on whether the audience was thought to be made up of beginners, or something else. Hunter vs Target, etc... There have been some long threads on Howard's thoughts elsewhere.

" It isn't so much that I want to side with one camp or the other, and really both make compelling arguments, but I can't wrap my mind around whys some care so much about a label. At the end of the day nobody's changing what they're doing now and there's simply no need to get emotional over it."

I have never started a thread like this myself, but I don't think there is anything wrong with discussing stuff any more that it is incomprehensible why people would go to the range year after year to shoot at targets even though they never shoot a perfect one.

The people I don't understand are the people who go to the tournaments, or the threads to just ask why the people engaged in writing something sensible, or shooting their best arrows even bother. Why not just crab away from the sidelines like they do.

merriam-webster dictionary:

Instinct: a way of behaving, thinking, or feeling that is not learned.

To answer the question posed by the Opening Poster, I do not believe that we come out of the womb with the "instinct" to throw a baseball, write our name on a piece of paper, shoot a basket, drive a car, hit a baseball or shoot a bow. I am absolutely certain that these are all skills that we have learned by doing. Only through considerable repetition and through a learning processes do we master these skills. That is, once they have been learned, we are able to perform these skills without thinking about them. At that point the become "instinctive", or second nature to us.

You are no more an instinctive archer than you are an instinctive reader. You learned both skills and through repetition they became "instinctive" to you.

By way of analogy here's the "little detail" about shooting a bow "instinctively" that is difficult for "instinctive" archers to come to terms with.

If 100 people were in a competition to see who was the best instinctive free throw shooter, how many of those 100 people would emerge as the number 1 (best) instinctive free throw shooter? Exactly one person, correct? Conversely, how many would emerge as the worst shooter of the 100? Again, exactly one person. And every one else sort of fell in line base on the degree of "instinctive" ability that they possessed.

The illusion - and the contradiction - of instinctive shooting is that everyone has the "instinct" to be an accurate "instinctive" shooter. The truth is, in a group of 100 "instinctive" archers exactly one person is going to be the best, and every other archer is going to be slightly worse. The contradiction is that people who shoot poorly in the "instinctive" method feel that with enough practice they can learn to become better "instinctive" shots. But then by literal definition instincts cannot be learned.

Labs4me, that's ONE definition, but not the one best-suited to the instinctive aiming method, IMO.

By the way, we're referencing the best-suited definition for 'the instinctive aiming method', not for an 'instinctive archer'.

I think this one is a better fit, again, from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary...

Instinct: behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level.

This definition has no requisite in regards to whether the behavior is learned, or how, and so in fact, better describes the method, and even better suits your own description of it.

BTW, I never said I was an "instinctive archer", which would, ironically enough :) align with the definition you chose above (not learned), which I disagree with, but rather, I'm an archer who uses the 'instinctive aiming method'... which I learned.

Claiming to be an 'instinctive archer', which some may understand to mean 'natural born' would fly in the face of all of the hard work I and others put in to learn the instinctive aiming method.

We're defining the aiming method... not the archer.

"But then by literal definition instincts cannot be learned."

Incorrect. They certainly CAN be. See my definition. It debunks your argument.

The illusion is yours.

JD,

The illusion- or misrepresentation- that I was referring to is that anyone can be a good instinctive shot. This simply is not true. It's like saying that anyone can become a good instinctive free throw shooter.

Some people will excel at "instinctive" shooting. Some will remain average "instinctive" shots. And some will flatly suck. This reality is inescapable whether we're discussing shooting a basketball "instinctively" or a bow "instinctively".

And personally, I don't care how someone describes their shooting method. But saying that something is so doesn't make it true.

Wow! This debate was going on when I first came on here. Here is my opinion. I believe instinctive shooting is mainly for hunting. When it's that first shot that counts. Also it's for bow hunting distances. Say twenty yards or less. I'm sure there will be some exceptions. But mostly its for close shooting. Also everyone will not be great at it. Most instinctive shooters won't be able to keep up the concentration needed to complete most shoots. Doesn't mean they are bad shots. This style of shooting was meant for hunting. It can be explained. Example look and burn a hole where you want to hit. I don't think it is something that can be taught. The bow hunter has to feel it. And its obvious when he's doing it right. Shoot straight Don

Maybe instinctive is only for old school hunters. Any young bucks doing this kind of Shooting today? I wonder Hmmmmm..... Or is it a lost art?

I shot instinctive for a few years. Was never consistant day to day. I started gap shooting. It improved my shooting and hunting a ton. I was brain washed in the beginning that if you shot trad you shot instinctively. Not saying instinctive don't work just not for me.

I aim instinctively wether it's a target or an animal. Can't imagine trying to have multiple shooting techniques. Who cares how someone else aims anyway? My focus is on where the arrow is going so I'm calling my style instinctive. Do some think it should be called something else?

Labs4me, I said the illusion is yours because I HAVE no such illusion. I don't believe the 'in-born' definition that you chose is the best-suited definition of 'instinct' to use to describe the aiming METHOD... not even CLOSE. So, I don't agree either that all/any humans have an in-born ability to excell with the instinctive aiming method of a bow and arrow, or pistol, or ball, etc... notice I didn't call people 'instinctive shots' or 'instinctive archers'? Yeah, check my post above... we're describing a type of method, not a type of person.

I can direct one arrow with instinctive aiming, the next by gapping, and the next by point of aim. In order to describe how I directed each arrow, I should use a term to reference each method, not myself. In other words... "I used instinctive aiming on that arrow", not... "I'm an instinctive archer." That sounds rediculous.

Does it really matter, how you shoot as long as YOU are happy and are enjoying archery.

Yes, it matters to me very much how I shoot... depending on what, when... where, how near or far, etc.

John is up walking around,,,,preciate this thread cause it has sealed the deal for my buddy to get the needed prayer.

Wow Hiram... First time something positive came from a instinctive thread....lol...

If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here