How about a thorough explorative thread into this seemingly very popular technique of drawing a Bow?
Start off with a bit of plagiarism by a quote from Joques Bonin.
"Lets take a look at he swing draw. First, assuming the archers holding the handle of bow correctly, please note, the shot cannot be done correctly or repeatable if the grip is incorrect. Let's assume you are holding the grip as Howard did, you first start with the bow shoulder at right angle to target,then you slowly swing bow arm up in line with target to be hit, as you swing the bow up with the bow arm slightly bent or broken, you start the draw, as the bow arm reaches the correct elevation, note the minds eye will pick this up after repeated shots, drawing only about 3/4th's during the swing and drawing the lasts 6 inches straight back to full anchor, ready to release as you are already on target. Now this may sound over simplified, however it is not, it takes regular practice, breaking down each step, as Howard did each time he practiced, working on one item each practice session! Please note, the bow hand doesn't move after the shot, it actually moves in a small oblong circle, the size of the egg shaped circle is what we are trying to control! Some archers side cast to the left, some to the right, some up ward, and some in a downward motion, all of these motions are incorrect. If wee cut a bow directly in-half, in the center of the grip, left to right, place a small black dot on the flat surface in the middle. For a right-handed shooter the little dot should move to the right toward the shooter, then hook to the left and forward, forming a small egg shape circle, this the by product of the arrow trying to push the bow out of the way! What we are trying to do is control the size of that egg shaped circle, the smaller the better!
Now, I will describe what Howard wrote in his diary, basic fundementals are as I described above, however with a huge difference, shoulder in line with target,Howard intentionally swung up with broken elbow, to the right of target, as he did so he was strecthing bow arm out to the correct length and getting the correct elevation, while doing this he still was only 3/4ters drawn, here is the special ingrediant! Howard would then raise up in a reverse arc, much like the shape of a reverse candcane,correcting the alignment and finishing his draw, hitting anchor and releasing the string! What Howard was doing was preloading the muscles used. Now if you look down at a full drawn archer, his arms, shoulders, the arrow should form a basic uneven sided triangle. If you look at the triangle from the side, as if the triangle is flat, like a coin, these are the muscles around the triangle in Howards body he is preloading. When done correctly, the arrow is sent on it's way with more direct force and total control, straight to the target, the drawing hand stays a the corner of the mouth and bow hand stay right where is was before the release creating a better follow through. This whole process takes quite a while to learn, but as you attempt this, you have to get the feel of each aspect of the shooting sequence! I think you are going to have to read this over and over to understand, what is actually happening. If you are overbowed, by that shooting a bow that is too heavy, my suggestion is to start with a light weight bow, that you can handle easily. This process is much easier learn. If done slightly off one time and then correctly, the speed of the shot and the control of the shot will show the great difference between the correct shot sequencce and the poor shot sequence. Take time to understand what has been written, then practice each aspect, as you get each one down, move to the next, then go back and break it down again, practice each sequence, till it becomes a good habit, Howard did, he broke it down, every practice session, his whole archery career, practice, the right practice, his great understanding of the whole process involved in shooting, the dilligent practice, is what separated "Howard Hill" from the rest of the crowd!Enjoy the read and have at it! Jacques "
Pretty sure Fedora is a swing drawer. I watched him demo a heavy bow draw that way once at Denton.
I tried it and it felt uncomfortable for me as a form. When I draw I lean into that's what I mean by baring down on the bow. And I cant bow I can see my target better like that and been doing it as a game shot and not knowing that others shot like this too.
Ok, my question is; Are you guys that love this "style" doing it right?
Let's explore!
1....Schulz draws the bow with his drawing hand aligned under his eye and actually brushing his cheek until anchor (which means on a moving target if he short draws a little the arrow is still aligned ) 2... Schulz allows his bow hand to rise above the target during the draw then settling down on the target...this allows the muscles to preload and makes the bow arm steadier during the shot ( Hill also did this in a larger fashion ) 3...Schulz releases as he pulls through the shot. He doesn't pause at anchor and doesn't short draw. He pulls to his anchor and releases as he continues to pull, maintaining back tension and true draw length."-Nate Steen
Since my quote was mentioned above, I'll make these comments on the swing draw as pertains to the Hill style as I was taught by Schulz through video and personally....and those who practice archery, that think a target score is the most verifiable method of quantifying proficiency....well, you're wrong, it's not. These are my personal beliefs, I retain the right to believe and practice them as others have to disagree with them. To each their own.
The swing draw has been used more or less lately to generalize the method of swinging up a bow and shooting quickly. Hill's style of drawing the bow, as told by he and related by Schulz is one component of the Hill shooting style. Schulz said the Hill style is simple yet exacting. Just swinging up the bow and releasing through anchor doesn't mean you're shooting the Hill style or that you'll ever be proficient. You must start learning the process very slowly and methodically, totally committing each part of the form to muscle memory, just as you do for other methods of shooting. The biggest difference in my opinion with the Hill style is the ability to be on target once the full draw is reached and hence no need for a long anchor time...you release once anchor has been established. But you do anchor...or even pull througb the anchor. There is never a loss of back/shoulder tension.
The true Hill style of shooting a bow looks almost haphazard but in reality it is very precise. That part is lost on shooters wanting to shoot fast and accurate but do not want to put in the time necessary to ingrain the proper form.
If you watch the Hill movie shorts, watch the Schulz DVD, read both of their material in depth and go slowly, you will learn a very accurate way of shooting that is fluid, smooth, casual and relaxing. Watching Schulz shoot from beside his elbow I realized how good he was. At 84 yrs. he could still group arrows with feathers touching at 20 yards. Shooting with Schulz taught me to shoot fine tuned accuracy shots. At 15 yards, splitting sticks as thick as my arrow, both vertically and horizontally. One arrow at a time, then retrieve it. Not much room for error and for fun, sure beats shooting 2" groups. No center shot recurves either. Arrows had to bend around our bows. Then Shooting 90 yards at the 2" wand. Amazing how close your shots start grouping at a distance if you practice it enough.
As far as tournament accuracy,its no secret that Hill was out of his element in standard fixed distance American or York rounds compared to other tourney shooters. However, with archery golf, field archery, trick shooting and bowhunting he excelled. So there are different ways to measure the level of accuracy attainable.
Seems to me, when these sort of topics come up, the only videos showing accuracy and proper form ever posted are modern target archers....no one ever posts the videos of Hill, or even the Wilhelm brothers demonstrating phenomenal accuracy without holding at anchor. Why do you suppose that is?
""...While this may provide for a quicker shot, it's not as efficient as the set arm draw, less consistent, and potentially more harmful.
Using the swing draw, the shoulder is initially forced upward in the socket, and may not return to the seated position at anchor. The drawing arm is initially pulling the bowstring at an upward angle instead of a lateral one. That hinders an efficient transfer of force from the back muscles and recruits shoulder muscles that should not be used in the draw. Combining the force vectors exerted on both shoulders, the shooter may find himself in a hunched position at full draw. That position not only makes efficient shoulder alignment impossible but may also overstress the joints and lead to injury..."
Duh of course the swing draw requires a lot of practice have you read John Shultz book? What's your point if you have one. PS while it's good to see a young girl that shoots a bow she is creeping forward before the shot and also pausing before releasing two things you won't see John Shultz do. There are probably as many variations of the swing draw as there are people trying to do it. Your not the first wannabe genius that has had it all figured out some are fans some haters but if your not doing it like John your not doing like he was taught from Howard Hill and what you are doing is trying to fit your watered down half assed attempt to fit the swing draw, and then trying to make a case for some new discovery "only you saw " after watching the video 1500 times or trying to discredit the swing draw because no matter how many times you watch the videos or read the book you ain't got it and never will lol
"You can see Howard's and John's shoulders are not rotated around. They have back tension because they are pulling the string with the back and shoulders (not arms) and because they don't hold at full draw, they never lose the back tension. Hill's form is best thought of as when shooting a shotgun...why don't you go get a gun and try it? the tilting of the head is the same as in tilting the head to sight down the shotgun barrel. the drawing arm elbow is in almost exactly the same position when drawing the bow or shooting the shotgun....that's one of the hardest things in the Hill form to drill into student's heads....you can have back tension without the elbow pointing behind you."Steen
Considered by many in Archery as a great craftsman and a faithful student of the Hill style Bow and shooting method is Nate Steen. I wish him or Bonin would post in this thread, Both know the method as good or better than most.
See above. That post and this will be my only contributions to this rambling. Sam....by your own eyes you can see that Lucy's form isn't the same as Hill's or Schulz's but hers is a swing draw and it is effective. Kudos to her and her father for teaching her a shooting method different from standardized target archery.
I have talked to Nate about your threads yesterday, he may or may not respond. No matter what he would add, you would just throw your crap at it. John Schulz advised me many years ago, there comes a point when there is simply no point in discussing or participating with certain people. Getting away from target archers was the best advice John ever gave me in our conversations. I agree Longspus, some can and quite often, nay sayers cannot. I will not waste anymore time on the Sam posts.
dean, you may do as you wish! I certainly did not ask you.
I asked Nate, he chooses to label this thread as a "rambling" and that is Ok, respect his decision to not represent anything "Hill" here or anywhere else.
"Seems to me, when these sort of topics come up, the only videos showing accuracy and proper form ever posted are modern target archers....no one ever posts the videos of Hill, or even the Wilhelm brothers demonstrating phenomenal accuracy without holding at anchor. Why do you suppose that is?" Steen
I think it is because of you and others properly schooled in the "Hill style" of shooting a bow seldom post to educate!
You may be afraid of anyone who might disagree with you but I can assure you that I would not!
I would say that the reason is a lack of participation on your part and that of others who really know what they are talking about.
Note that; I have not written here or anywhere else anything derogatory about you Nate, never!
I would venture to say that the opinion you may have is based on those with biase of some sort? Just guessing!
It's a great technique for Longbow, short range shots and Aerial targets.
I was teaching a guy with Longbow, he was struggling with front shoulder, and showed him basic swing draw i.e. to put slight loading at pre draw and scoup up the bow arm as he's drawing, it cured the high shoulder and improved his groups. It's not something I teach everyone but one size doesn't fit all and it just happened to work out a perfect fit for this guy in particular.
I know someone who shot a 3D tourney with Schulz, he didn't shoot any more impressively than anyone else, all techniques have their place and limitations. You can stay within those limits or make yourself more versatile, which I think is why Hill was so good at everything, he could adapt his style to any type of shooting.
Thinking there may be several who label themselves as a practitioner of the "Swingdraw" but as Nate pointed out, there are several different styles of incorporating it into their shooting, as in Lucy's case.
I would invite anyone who has a real understanding of the method, beyond basic at least, to comment as to their understanding of how the basics actually work?
It, the swing draw, may be a difficult thing to duplicate by the majority of shooters?
It goes very quickly, and an intuitive or instinctive aiming style may be one reason why practitioners are quoted as saying, "Not a Target method, but mainly a hunting method".
That might be a conflict since that would need a clarification of the word "Target" since we see Howard shooting Targets in the video above.
Howard's anchor and string position do not utilize any "string blur" as opposed to some. Not a derogatory statement by any means, only pointing out the difference. You will notice the head position is similar though.
Hill was also much more than just a so-called, trick shooter, Hill is credited with setting up the first 'field archery' course, in El Segundo, California, in 1934, on the coast just south of the Los Angeles airport. He also figured in setting up the Pasadena Roving Archers field course in Pasadena, near the Rose Bowl in 1935. In 1942 the standard two 14 target field course distances and protocols, with walk-ups, fans, etc were set up. Those courses still exist. Howard Hills string of victories would likely have started around then.-Longbowguy
I never used string blur with Longbow, because of the slight cant of the bow. Switching to ILF was fun, I sometimes had issues keeping the bow vertical, it was the Longbow in me trying to get out lol
"Zeta : It's a great technique for Longbow, short range shots and Aerial targets." Yes!"
May I ask you from where you know this? Or Zeta for what is worth? He said he studied horsebow techniques and if I watch videos of their tournaments they shoot way longer than the spitting distance you both claim.
From what you said in other topics you didn't have the discipline to shoot decent until you started to follow BB shoter's shooting sequence. The misleading starts with believing what others are saying without actually trying to see if is true or not.
Draven short range to me is under 40y so not quite spitting distance. I shot Longbows for over 15 years Field, 3D tourney and fun stuff like Aerial targets, I have 3 World and 1 Euro title in Longbow and Euro champ with Barebow (shot BB since 2014) and 50 National titles in Longbow, Compound and Barebow and around 20, 2nd and 3rds from World European tourneys. Last medal was last year in France at World Archery 3D worlds.
I studdied horsebow speed shooting technique and taught myself one Summer after meeting Lajos Kassai I got pretty decent but no where near the skill set of the good mounted Archers. I would love to have done horseback archery but don't think I would get up again if I ever came off the horse.
I've shot most bow types and styles, sometimes just fleeting trys like the Olympic bow to see and appreciate other skill sets.
Seems like your'e calling me out and quoting me on something I'm supposed to have said, point me to the post and I'll try and clarify.
Thank you for your answer Zeta. On LW "short range" means under 20 yards. Your 40 yards accuracy is at least double the distance a hunter will take a shot. I call you out to clear things because you are used as buffer for all the believes in this world by some.
Thank you for your answer Zeta. On LW "short range" means under 20 yards. Your 40 yards accuracy is at least double the distance a hunter will take a shot. I call you out to clear things because you are used as buffer for all the beliefs in this world by some.
Other info about me on Coaching, I have been Coaching 15 years, last 10 years full time. With my partner we own an Olympic Archery school (Indoors and 70m outdoors) in Tallinn, a shooting center 15km outside Tallinn with Conference facilities, Target range, Field and 3D range. We own a tourist spot in Tallinns medieval old town as well.
I Coach at novice level, some corporate events and competitive Archers, mostly Trad styles like Barebow, my parter Katrin teaches mosty Olympic and is Jnr National Coach (She's also 7 times world Euro champ)
32 years in the game and still learning, last winter tried Kyudo Archery for first time.
Sam, one final add, just for you. For years I have written on forums about the Hill style of shooting. It is out there, as easy to find and read as you found those videos of Rémy and Peter. The problem is, and I know this from spending time with Schulz....the Hill style of shooting is precise, exacting....yet simple and most people cannot or will not wrap their minds around the utter simplicity. That part escapes them and they are forever trying to turn the simple Hill Style of shooting a longbow into a calculated, technical, over analyzed process. It is a huge turn off to those who practice Hill's simplistic methods and therefore we abstain from engaging in these conversations.
Is there a right and wrong way? I sure many have personal views and think theirs is right. Can it only be wrong if your not getting consistent results that is deemed below average shooting.
What would be the Benchmark for this SW technique?
For example Barebow Stringwalking has a wide range of shooting styles and even number one and two Barebow at world Field level have very different shooting styles, so obviously some scope for subtle difference in a technique.
Some really good reading here from some knowledgeable folks.
From: Don Teter Professional Bowhunters Society - Associate Member Private Reply Date: 23-Dec-11
fdp, I understand your frustration because I have had to deal with the same problem. In my exerience, the Hill style shooting form is very unlike target style shooting, and this is what confused me for a long time. May I make a suggestion that helped me? Don't change your anchor for now. Bob Weslely told me that Howard stressed the importance of keeping a low and posterior bow shoulder. If one looks at every picture of Howard at full draw, his bow scapula is sticking out so far, it looks like he is getting ready to use to fly away. This position is opposite of the correct position of an Olympic target shooter, according to Kisic Lee (US Olympic coach). This is because in target shooting, one pushes the bow arm and shoulder toward the target, but IMO, with the Hill style of shooting, one relaxes and lets the weight of the drawn bow push the bow elbow, shoulder, and scapula in the opposite direction.
Try this experiment: Stand with a closed position to the target and draw normally to anchor. As the string is drawn, relax the bow arm and let the weight of the drawn bow push the bow elbow into a fairly bent position and the bow shoulder into a low and posterior position in the shoulder joint to the point that the bow scapula sticks out. Let the bow hand relax its grip so the entire bow handle pushes against the base of the bow thumb muscle. If one stands at a closed enough position to the target, when the arrow is released the bow will not move off target, because its position is so posterior there is no place for it to go, and it will stay on target without effort.
This is, IMO, the basic feel of Hill style shooting. The archer relaxes his bow hand, arm, elbow, and shoulder, as the weight of the drawn bow pushes against them (This relaxes the string fingers as well.).
Once this feel is obtained, one can gradually change to a square and then an open stance to the target, while maintaining the same relaxed feeling; but it takes a lot of bow shoulder and back strength to do it. This is where a rhythm of shooting comes in because of the strength required in the shoulder and back muscles, while the fingers, hands, elbows and arms stay relaxed. If the relaxed feeling is lost, simply go back to the closed position to the target until the relaxed feeling returns.
As I began to relax, my anchor gradually changed to a more natural position. I am like you: I do not feel a tooth. But there was a certain place against face that I found was a natural anchor for me, especially as I began to relax my string fingers (and string thumb). Now, if I can only do this with a deer in front of me!!
I hope this helps.
From: longbowguy Private Reply Date: 23-Dec-11
Don Teter makes some good points. I just checked some of my DVDs of Howard Hill shooting to confirm and it looks as if his front shoulder is not much in line with the back one. This is different from what the Olympic style coaches, and I, and the compound coaches advise these days. It is very well known that he shot with a bent front arm. Now this comes naturally to some archers, especially muscular or stocky men, but some women and slender men as well. It does not come naturally to many of us. If it does not come naturally to you, I do not advise trying to do it. As to Howard's tooth anchor. He was missing a tooth, a second bicuspid, on his right side. And remember he used his own design of shooting glove, with double leather and a stiff insert. These gloves are stitched into a sort of truncated cone shape at the tip and extend nearly a half inch beyond the finger tip. I just checked and I cannot comfortably reach my second bicuspid with my finger, but I can with the tip of a Howard Hill glove. Anchoring that way is not a short anchor, fairly long, in fact.
I happen to be just about Howard's size. At least back in my prime I was about his size in his prime. That was 6'2", 215#. He was heavier boned and had huge hands, as many farm boys developed in those days. I was a towny. I once could have drawn his 110# elephant bow, maybe farther than he drew it.
I have studied his shooting style for years and can shoot very much like he did. I can also shoot a more extended target type style. I practice both. Now I believe Howard had very good, classic, form on this right side, the string side. He got his forearm and elbow in line with arrow and followed through straight back and long. This is evidence of fine back tension.
His left side is another matter. He had a bent elbow and and a sort of bent left shoulder. The combination of the right and the left sides gave him a very short draw for a man of his size and strength. He drew only 27 inches, maybe only 26. I, his size, draw about 29 in his longbow style, 30 with a target recurve. Our style is the same on the back side, but his was much more compact on the front side.
So what about it? Well, accuracy comes, I think from good alignment and form on the back side. A modern extended form on the front side I think is probably more consistant over a long round of target shooting. But for quick, dynamic shooting, at movers, flyers, and wild game, the more compact front side may well be better. Mr. Hill's exhibition shooting, his movie stunt shooting, the 3000 head of game he took, suggest that the flexible front side might be best. - lbg
"Is there a right and wrong way? I sure many have personal views and think theirs is right. Can it only be wrong if your not getting consistent results that is deemed below average shooting."
This is the ultimate truth. Watching John Shultz in parallel with Howard Hill you can see things done slightly different. There is a saying: "Do as I say and not as I am doing it" when someone is teaching. At the end the advanced shooter is expected to find his own shot in the passed down knowledge.
The single person who has the answers IMO is John Shultz. He said 6 things that I consider true: - learn to use the arrow by its nock - bow hand shoulder to always be perpendicular on the target - you have a secondary anchor with the thumb behind the jaw - the speed comes with time and practice - he talked about cant and influence of it in aiming - he never declared the form as pure instinctive shooting. He said it can be enough and this goes with the mindset.
"Since my quote was mentioned above, I'll make these comments on the swing draw as pertains to the Hill style as I was taught by Schulz through video and personally....and those who practice archery, that think a target score is the most verifiable method of quantifying proficiency....well, you're wrong, it's not. These are my personal beliefs, I retain the right to believe and practice them as others have to disagree with them. To each their own. The swing draw has been used more or less lately to generalize the method of swinging up a bow and shooting quickly. Hill's style of drawing the bow, as told by he and related by Schulz is one component of the Hill shooting style. Schulz said the Hill style is simple yet exacting. Just swinging up the bow and releasing through anchor doesn't mean you're shooting the Hill style or that you'll ever be proficient. You must start learning the process very slowly and methodically, totally committing each part of the form to muscle memory, just as you do for other methods of shooting. The biggest difference in my opinion with the Hill style is the ability to be on target once the full draw is reached and hence no need for a long anchor time...you release once anchor has been established. But you do anchor...or even pull througb the anchor. There is never a loss of back/shoulder tension.
The true Hill style of shooting a bow looks almost haphazard but in reality it is very precise. That part is lost on shooters wanting to shoot fast and accurate but do not want to put in the time necessary to ingrain the proper form.
If you watch the Hill movie shorts, watch the Schulz DVD, read both of their material in depth and go slowly, you will learn a very accurate way of shooting that is fluid, smooth, casual and relaxing. Watching Schulz shoot from beside his elbow I realized how good he was. At 84 yrs. he could still group arrows with feathers touching at 20 yards. Shooting with Schulz taught me to shoot fine tuned accuracy shots. At 15 yards, splitting sticks as thick as my arrow, both vertically and horizontally. One arrow at a time, then retrieve it. Not much room for error and for fun, sure beats shooting 2" groups. No center shot recurves either. Arrows had to bend around our bows. Then Shooting 90 yards at the 2" wand. Amazing how close your shots start grouping at a distance if you practice it enough.
As far as tournament accuracy,its no secret that Hill was out of his element in standard fixed distance American or York rounds compared to other tourney shooters. However, with archery golf, field archery, trick shooting and bowhunting he excelled. So there are different ways to measure the level of accuracy attainable.
Seems to me, when these sort of topics come up, the only videos showing accuracy and proper form ever posted are modern target archers....no one ever posts the videos of Hill, or even the Wilhelm brothers demonstrating phenomenal accuracy without holding at anchor. Why do you suppose that is?" Sunset Hill
I made my greatest shot ever last Friday at the range. I had broken one of my arrows and so I stuck the shaft into the ground vertically behind my rolled up towel which I use as a target at 40 yards. My friend saw what I did and said why don't you shoot at the shaft. So I casually nocked an arrow, drew and shot making a direct hit smashing the shaft in pieces with the blunt tip on the 11/32" shaft at 40 yards . It all happened in less than 5 seconds.I doubt I could do that again for the next 20 shots but I would brush it every now and then. Magic sometimes happens.
Pickup a copy of Steve Graf's book and read it. The Hill style is more a philosophy than technical detailed instruction.
All the basics are spelled out in Schulz's video.
It is up to the shooter to religiously practice until everything is automatic and unconscious. Look and shoot relaxed and fluid.....not stressing about each minuscule detail of the execution or gear. Simplicity.
Most who shoot this way just do it....most are using a selfbow and homemade gear. MOst don;t care if YOU think they are doing it wrong. Your trying to over analyze something that has a core principle of simplicity... and I suspect it is for ulterior motives.
If you want to over-analyze everything go ahead. That doesn't mean everyone else has to drink the cool aid too. I enjoy shooting my bow and hunting too much. Good day sir.
The funny part is this: Asbell made a "hunting situation stance demonstration" of HH as the base of his teachings while the Howard Hill stance is not taught with knees bent at all. You can see who copied who and why it ended where it ended.
Okay, my two cents on this because I still work on it, had the pleasure of learning from Bob Wesley, converse with Nate Steen (a great knowledge base of the style and master bowyer). I would always default to Mr. Steen, with the knowledge by the way. Mr. Graf made a book "The American Longbow". It is a great read and should be included with "Hunting the hard way" and Mr. Schulz books. BUT!!!! Reading/watching videos are one thing and doing is another. I "mimiced" the videos and books information for while, until I understood that you had to customize it to your physcial make up. The simplicity is there and it works. We have a tendency to over complicate things, it's really simple. BUT!!! You have to put the EFFORT, TIME and PROPER PRACTICE in to really get it down, (muscle memory). To me this is where Mr. Graf book spells it out and is worth the price of the book. You have to get out and master the shooting, not just shoot at a dot, but get the arrow flight down in the brain housing group, this only comes from thousands of arrows. Now I am no where as good as some of you, do not compare with Mr. Steen or Mr. Ferguson, but when I put the time in, I harvest game with no issue, and do so ethically, that is my goal. Now, wax your string, brace the bow, and group arrows in a field.
I see learning from a natural stance as the easiest way to understand the basics. Once those basics are "taken in" you just adapt them for the situation at hand. But here we are on pure subjective ground.
The key word as todd mentioned is NATURAL for YOU. The bending of the neck, and the knees (unless making a shot on a moving target, or uneven ground) is NOT natural for me, nor is natural for many other people.
One of the manin points in drawing a bow, and being able to shoot it well, FOR ME, are proper alignmnet on every shot, and using as few muscles as possible. I want every muscle in my body other than the ones drawing the bow. to be as relaxed as possible.
Tension when making a shot, whether mental or physical is a bad thing.
In MY opinion, how you get there is mostly irrelevant.
Folks forget the speed that Hill, and Schulz, and others shoot with has been gained be repetitive practice. It didn't happen automatically or overnight.
A good and informative discussion thread...let's see if we can get it back to the top.
BTW, one thing not discussed about Hill's swing draw is the angle of the bow arm as it comes up. Unlike conventional target archery theory (BEST system, Olympic draw style, etc.) the arm is not rotated from the side and into position...rather it comes nearly straight up from a low relaxed position. I believe this approach actually helps with Hill's 'aim as you draw' approach, as one's sight picture is much easier and faster to develop if/when naturally pointing the bow TOWARDS the mark during the draw, not at 90 degrees to the mark and then settling into anchor. The latter promotes a prolonged approach to developing the sight picture...essentially aiming AFTER the anchor is reached...which is counterproductive to the Hill style.
Good stuff, with solid debate and minimal 'strutting' yet still civil and constructive, not to mention interesting. Please carry on.
Ok, some clarification regarding the bow arm and draw arm approach. Lets use a reliable and oft-referred to information source that anyone can refer to and use to develop their own opinions...the John Schultz instruction videos.
In his instructions Schultz makes NO mention of any concerted effort to rotate the string shoulder when drawing to anchor, something heavily emphasized in most target shooting circles. Rotating the shoulder to some degree is a necessity given our physical structure, but it apparently is NOT a MAJOR factor regarding Hill's method. Schultz says 'the draw hand comes across the chest and then takes a straight back (or straight line) motion'...suggesting that conscious rotation of the string arm MAY occur but is incidental. What IS essential for Hill style is to raise the bow hand straight up from a lowered position, which is directly contrary to 'target style' (his words) that uses a an extended arm approach...i.e. sticking the bow arm straight out towards the target before drawing. The latter style DOES preach, and almost necessitates, an emphasized rotation of the shoulder to reach draw and release smoothly. It also leads to what seems to indicate another significant difference between Hill style and target style. In Hill style you 'aim' (point) DURING the draw, BEFORE touching anchor, and with no pronounced effort to consciously follow through by moving the draw hand or shoulder backwards after release. With target style you aim AFTER reaching anchor, then consciously 'pull through' anchor with string hand and draw shoulder, ending the draw end well behind the anchor. Essentially, an exaggerated (artificial) 'dynamic release'.
What isn't so obvious in most discussions about Hill style is the importance of the bow arm, the hand's placement on the grip, and the type of anchor (quick touch vs. hard and prolonged) is used. Somebody did mention that Hill's gloved fingertips promoted touching anchor faster and much farther from the face than do conventional gloves and especially tabs, and IMO this can be an important factor in making Hill style work effectively (a no hold approach). That, and the fact that individuals have different wrist and arm structures that affect how far their arm/wrist can be rotated to achieve necessary alignment when changing cant angles. Without adequate wrist and finger rotation to accomodate severe cants (common with Hill style) the shooter needs to either limit the amount of cant used OR adjust how they anchor on the face..which in turn affects the follow-through (and (potentially string/arrow alignment. The latter can be a problem.
Hill style is simple when it isn't complicated...but it CAN be more complicated than it looks or sounds in instruction demos.
One thing seems to be fairly clear. There are a number of substantial differences in how target style and Hill style achieve their 'proper form'. Almost like two entirely different kinds of archery.
First bow had a draw weight 40% of body weight. First few weeks of shooting, learned to point up and draw down. Suppose that would be a "down swing". Worked pretty good, especially when plum tired out.
One more observation about Hill's swing-draw style that is rarely discussed in detail is that although he was very fast and fluid he wasn't an instinctive shooter. His 'split vision' (as it is described by John Schulz) aiming system involved looking at the target and also seeing the arrow point via peripheral vision, or basically using the target/arrow tip relationship (horizontal and vertical positioning) to guage the shot. For all practical purposes it is basically gap shooting except primary focus isn't on the target. His ability to determine his gap so quickly while still executing a fluid/ uninterrupted draw/anchor/release could be the most interesting, even if least discussed, part of Hill swing-draw style.
Hill realized that by prolonged practice, the eye, mind and hands work together to utilize all the visual input (subconsciously) needed to put the arrow on target. There is no need to consciously ascertain where the hand or arrow is in relationship to the target. The mind will see where the arrow and hand is in relation to the target and where the released arrow travels via peripheral vision. That is all that is needed for hunting accuracy and that is what Hill taught Schulz.
Schulz told me his concentration is on the spot to hit. He doesn't consciously look or "see" his arrow or hand but he knows it's there. His conscious effort is boring a hole in the spot he wants to hit, and relies on intuitive hand and eye coordination to allow all the things to come together as much as normal everyday functions of hand / eye coordination do.
Schulz calls it "Conditioned Instinct". So far, that's the best term I've ever heard it called. The more we practice this style, without resorting to methodical aiming or looking at or seeing the arrow consciously, the more ingrained into our subconscious mind and muscle memory the Hill style will be. When we go back and forth, without fully committing, we only hinder our progress. I know first hand that committing to allowing the hand, mind, and eye coordination to work without a conscious "aiming" or "seeing" of the arrow in peripheral vision allows for very accurate shooting in a very fluid style.
In his book "'Hitting'em Like Howard Hill" (as his video, same title) Schulz says:
"Howard was often referred to as an instinctive shooter. Actually, this was a misnomer.....Howard's term was "split vision, or secondary vision" sighting. In essence, it is fixing the eye on the target and letting the bow hand or arrow point be the sighting means as it is seen in the peripheral vision."
I tend to believe, as Schulz clarifies here, that Hill wasn't an instinctive shooter and that he used split vision to aim the arrow with the eye looking at the target 'spot' while simultaneously letting the 'sighting means'(the spot's relation to the position of the arrow tip) act as a secondary point of reference to complete the aim (i.e., to determine and set the horizontal windage and vertical gap elevation).
In practical terms the two approaches (gapping, split vision) are virtually the same thing, with potentially one difference. Gappers tend to focus more on the arrow and see the target secondarily (much like seeing a rifle sight in focus while seeing the target blurred) while split vision tends to place more focus on the target with the arrow tip being secondary. Unlike instinctive (one point of reference...the target), two points of reference are still key to both split vision and gapping. Both use a connect-the-two-dots or 'conscious grid' type of system to position or mechanically aim the arrow, while instinctive more or less uses a single dot (target) to basically point the arrow much as one would use their car hood to point their car down the road.
Schulz further amplified and clarified his meaning of what Hill taught him in his second book "Straight Shooting" written in 2002, and in his personal classes. He specifically addressed this issue. I stand by my statements based on what he wrote in his second book and what he has told me personally. Believe what you want, but check all the resources before you state things as "fact".
So Sunset, what you seem to be saying is that everyone who took Schulz at his word in his book #1 and his instructional video series #1 should now buy his #2 book/instructions to get the 'real' story? That the first set was just for fun and wasn't really the facts? That to be credible one should ignore the old facts and adopt a new set now conveniently available (from the same source) at a low low price at an on-line bookstore near you? Does that also mean there will be a third (maybe more) upcoming set of 'truths' to dispel the prior versions and once again reset the bar (or shall we say the factual resources) on what Hill's style really involved? Sorry, but real truths/facts don't (or shouldn't be taken to) change on the winds of a new series of book sales or vague recollections of what someone may once have said in casual conversation but never verified...as facts.
As you suggested, people can believe what they want. But it's certainly much easier to access truth and credibility, discuss realities and understand the facts about Hill if those 'factual resources' don't keep changing like colors in a rainbow.
Altek, what you said about Schulz book and video correct. What Sunset Hill is saying is also correct. If you think about, it would be pretty hard pick an actual secondary spot when making a quick shot on a moving target, either flying or running. So maybe sometimes Hill used split vision aiming and other times he probably did not.
There is some article somewhere on another hard drive in which Hill speaks about an aiming point below his intended target and the arrow pointing at this mark. All the while not taking his attention off the real target. It seemed a seeing without seeing kind of thing. Was this his gift?
Schulz's comments in his second book and personal classes were to clarify his earlier teaching, as I said.
I'm assuming that you know what a school textbook is. Do you think the current textbooks aren't a further clarification, sometimes a simplification, or sometimes a current language modification over books that came out 30 years ago? If the original textbooks contained everything known on a subject and needed no modification, why aren't teachers still using them? hmm. must be because the bookmakers want to sell more goods, or they change their minds like changing colors in the rainbow. Get real.
Schulz has attempted to teach Hill's lessons for shooting as they pertain to "hunting" as Schulz clearly says in the opening pages of his first book. He states he will leave the lessons of target style shooting to those who are qualified to teach that style. He goes into the style of shooting that Hill taught him for hunting with the longbow. He acknowledges that Hill did obviously teach a split vision type of shooting. However, Schulz doesn't key on this. People reading the book attempt to put more into it than Schulz did.
Fast forward to the video. Schulz mentions some things to do in regards to form. People keyed on these certain things and in an effort to do them properly, they become more static in shooting rather than more fluid. It has the opposite effect that Schulz intended. Schulz told me himself that these points he wished he'd never said in the video. He realized this after years of input from students, etc. contacting him with questions. He realized that one particular statement resulted in shooters becoming more static because of their trying to maintain this position instead of letting the natural course of hand/eye coordination eventually allowing the shooter to become more fluid.
So....Schulz sets out to correct and clarify his earlier statements. He writes another book. He's a teacher. He gives classes. Those that are very interested in the system buy the book or pay to take the class. Same as those who want to learn a college class....they pay for the class, get the current textbook and learn from it. That's the natural progression of teaching.
While Schulz is alive, and his book is copyrighted, you'll have to read it to learn from it. No pirating of it like the internet piracy of his video. Basically he is clarifying the difference in Hill's shooting transition from target based shooting to hunting and exhibition shooting. From a split vison style to a conditioned instinct style of shooting.
Because Schulz came along in this transition time and he wanted to learn the hunting method, Hill never mentioned split vision shooting to him. Hundreds of hours of shooting with Hill and he never mentions split vision. So there you are. Hill had moved away from it, didn't use it, and teaches the Schulz boys a totally instinctive method.... and Dan Schulz for one, gets so good, that in Howard's words, Dan makes him "knuckle down and shoot". John is an awesome shot and he says Dan was always better. So it's proof that a person can get to be an extremely good shot by only using a conditioned instinct type of shooting. The issue is....people just can't accept that shooting that well, can be such a simple thing. They think there has to be something more to it, that there has to be an "aiming system" involved. Well, I guess that's the way it will always be.
The "Swing Draw",,was used by many people through the years and im certain,long before Mr Hill was even born..Im sure that people using it,developed their own particular style that worked for them in executing it...Thats all fine and well but,,When using or labeling it in the "Hill Style" as was developed and used by Mr Hill,There are certain aspects that cant be ignored,altered or left up to interpretation...It was Said by Mrs Hill,that the only qualified people,to teach the technique as used and taught by Mr Hill,were the Shulz boys.. I have heard Mrs Hill was a force to be reckoned with in her shooting as well and would safely Assume,She was the utmost authority on all things Hill,Including the archery aspect,of the name..Having said that,,i would also assume that since Mr Steen was taught directly and personally by Mr Shulz,,that his knowledge of the "Hill Method" of the swing draw and shooting style is worth listening to and in order....Just my take on the subject..
I shot a fluid motion draw with a self bow when I deer hunted ,and held my shots to 15yds,and in, and was very accurate with that method with a self bow. Shooting 20 yd indoor,and 3D I shoot Jim Blackmon, Arny Moe style. Not space science, and with practice you can shoot both methods, and be effective with either method, and become comfortable either way.
Sunset, I'm going to try and stay objective and factual about the topic without resorting to 'textbook' sarcasm, because I think it's an important topic for those who admired Hill and for those who want to learn his method without having to guess what is or isn't true or factual, based on which of the available tutorial versions (Mr. Hill's, Mr. Schulz's, yours or any others) they happen to read. Lets be clear, this (lets call it a quest) has absolutely nothing to do with disrespecting him, Schulz, you or anyone else. It's about trying to objectively assess what the prime sources and materials have offered to fill in the gaps and determine the truth (I'm guessing we can handle it if we can find it). No guessing, no games, no 'Well he really meant this not that' exercises, just hopefully an objective and constructive review.
Without question, the available tutorial information lacks consistency and specificity (or we wouldn't still be trying to figure out what it all means). Unlike you we have not all had the advantages of personal instruction/conversations with Mr. Schulz. I do have his second book ('Straight Shooting') and it is primarily anecdotal in nature, containing only very basic/generic method references in Chapters 1 (shooting) and 12 (not holding). I don't recall him discussing how Hill actually aimed at all, let alone mentioning any regret that as you say he related to you regarding the content of his first book/video on that issue. You say Mr. Schulz related that Hill never mentioned split vision to him after hundreds of hours of shooting with him, that Hill never used split vision while training Schulz and that instead Hill taught him a "totally instinctive method". I have no reason to doubt you except for Schulz's book and video #1, but if that is so why didn't Mr. Schulz relay that to his readers in his second book? Why didn't he take the opportunity in that book#2 to explain that the split vision reference in the first book was a mistake, that he was never taught it, and that what HILL DID teach him was really a 'conditioned instinct' method (also not discussed/explained)? And, why didn't he actually explain what 'conditioned instinct' aiming is, to once and for all remove any doubt about what Hill taught him and his brothers? Why leave readers thinking that book#1 accurately described what Hill taught him, when it truly wasn't? Wouldn't that be the most sensible approach? Or perhaps there are plans to do that in yet another (future) book and video series, for whatever reason also yet unexplained?
These are real questions, not arguments. I suspect many archers simply want to know the truth, again without guessing or relying on hearsay. It would certainly be appreciated if a specific, clear and factual summary of the complete and true Hill style (soup to nuts) were available. But based on past trends and tutorials-to-date that is beginning to look doubtful.
It sounds to me as if you are arguing. And it seems to me that is was you that brought sarcasm into the matter.
Mr. Hill and Mr. Schulz had long careers in archery and the instruction of it. So have I, and Fred Bear and Ben Pearson. We all progressed and revised our methods and explanations over the decades and got better at it. And we all did it a bit differently.
There is not much point in trying to argue with dead men. - lbg
Altek, If you want to learn how to apply the split vision on the swing-draw you have two sources: Jerry Hill’s book and Jean-Marie Coche. One is HH nephew, the other was (since he is dead now) the best student in swing-draw as per JS. One is not taken seriously by a part of SD followers and the other is unknown because it was french. From the material I translated, JMC learnt the shot sequence and the aiming method - he went back in Europe and made this swing- draw a formal archery system he taught french, italians and spanish students. Google both sources and you will get your info. Now back to HH and JS. From what I could find, Howard Hill was never giving out all about the things he was doing / knowing - who would do it when he was living from archery? Until Jerry Hill’s book everybody was considering HH a self taught archer when in fact he was friend with the most important archery theoretician of his time - Dr Elmer - who instilled in him the importance of execution and he taught him an aiming method - point of aim / pick a point of today - that HH adapted for hunting, founding the (intuitive) gap aiming method. His SD style has all the beats and pieces to be taught as shooting system without the need of an aiming method. I really believe that HH taught JS just enough to improve his archery skills in hunting situation. He maybe told him about his aiming method but I think that most of information regarding aiming method was ignored since it was not necessary for the hunting they were doing in those times. I would venture to say in that time they were hunting more birds, rabbits than deer, and an aiming method like point if aim would have been worthless. Hand - eye coordination, fluidity of execution and close distance were enough for Average Joe to be successful in his hunts. Calling out JS or Sunset Hill now shows just how little you know and brings nothing good.
I liked this part: “it takes regular practice, breaking down each step, as Howard did each time he practiced, working on one item each practice session!”
So I’ll say this again: “Instinctive” shooting is the end result of studious attention to form; it is the OUTCOME. And it is a terrible way to learn how to shoot.
Altek, Since you have both books and watched the video and haven't figured out what Schulz says, well, I guess it is what it is. However, this is my last post on this thread and possibly this entire subject. My head is tired. You must've not have read the entire "Straight Shooting" book or maybe weren't paying attention. How about reading "A Mixed Bag" chapter, paying attention to wording I almost have quoted verbatim. Think about what Schulz is saying, how unimportant he deems the split vision shooting for hunting as compared to conditioned instinct. Compare these thoughts with the Saticoy chapter when you read that Hill had bales of hay stacked only for form work (i.e. close blank bale in today's terms) or as a moving target backstop but used scattered piles of sand for his real shooting. In other words....no conventional target shooting practice such as most archers employ today, but rather, an implied "roving" style of practice. Put this together with Schulz's first book shooting instructions where he mentions Hill's split vision technique using point of arrow or "bowhand" for reference, then subsequently only keys on the peripheral vision of the bowhand, hardly a good finite point of reference in relation to a target if one is using split vision. (Rather, in peripheral vision, the bowhand is actually a blurry blob.) And Schulz then instructs and says how canting the bow and varying the cant has the same effect and is easier to use for hunting than using a set bow position and varying the sighting. In other words, the sighting system mentioned a few paragraphs previously isn't expounded upon, so one can concluded it's not important to Schulz. You've got to read with understanding the teacher's way of teaching and put things together. Some teachers don't give lessons or instructions in simple step by step that any careless observer could follow. These teachers teach by making you dig for their meaning. Make you really want to learn bad enough that you'll study it, dig deep into it until it's a part of you. Have a good day, all.
Hurt my shoulder doing swing draw. Course the bow was a little heavy for me so I blame it on that. I think it's a beautiful thing to watch someone do. I don't practice it personally because I don't swing draw when I draw on a deer. Way too much movement for that.
It is futile to debate a topic where the 'facts' offered by recognized authorities are as fleeting and shifting as fading river mist. Try to catch it now if you can, but good luck. It'll just disappear, then re-appear again in a 'new and more true' form the next time you visit the river.
Straight truth? Hill style is a beautiful thing, the currently available package of Hill style tutorials is not. Detailed generalities fashioned from anecdotal stories are interesting but can't take the place of thoughtful specific explanation, the latter being the only reliable way to get at what something is, how it works and why anyone should consider learning about it. As enjoyable as the romantic aspects of today's Hill style writings are they are of little value for explaining the style itself.
Last points to ponder. As simple and effective as Hill's swing draw style is touted to be in available literature, why is it so difficult for Hill experts to explain how it works? And why does it take reading between the lines of multiple volumes of vague Hill literature to understand this simple style of shooting?
