I see so many coaches are moving to more three fingers under, gap, aiming, POA, etc... is there anyone still coaching for spilt finger and instinctive shooting. I understand the term instinctive causes panic attacks - just using it as most know what I am referring to. When I went to Rick Welch's school he was still teaching it (although he prefers a 3 finger under approach, , just curious of there are other coaches out there?
I'm about 1700 miles too far or I could show you first hand. I don't do well via teleconference though. It's actually very simple and easy to learn, but it starts with good repeatable form. I don't care what they call it, accuracy follows consistent form. Once you learn that part, it becomes pretty easy to do.
Glad to see you posting Chief - how did the surgery/medical stuff go?
I been shooting instinctive for 40+ years - every time I listen to the new aiming coaches my shooting goes to crap. I would love to visit - but I would rather hear some of your hunting and service stories.
Isn’t the whole point of “Instinctive” that there is no “method” to it??
Somehow, the whole idea of an “instinctive” coach makes about as much sense as a guy who shoots three-under and says he doesn’t see his arrow… Give me a break! The point of 3U is that it puts the nock square under your eyeball.
To George’s point - If you get your form deeply ingrained, your anchor will be in exactly the same spot every time - or at the very least, right in line with it. That’s all there is to it - eyes and hands align with the target, arrow shows up as expected.
If you’re having a lot of trouble with an aiming system, my first guess is that dropping #10 might fix that....
I'm not a coach, per se, but that is how I show people to get started. I concentrate on form consistency and a good clean release and follow through. I try to get them to slow down and follow a shot cycle. Consistency and repeatability are the main topic. Usually, the groups start coming together fairly quickly. The arrow only goes where you point it. Instinctive shooting relies strongly on good form.
GF - not sure what post you read I was asking a simple question. I don't recall stating I was having trouble with instinctive shooting? The only time my shooting goes to crap is when I try to aim - be it three under or any of the other aiming methods. I was just curious as to if there were any coaches that teach the way i was taught decades ago.... it seems most of the newer internet and youtube videos lean towards an aiming (using the arrow) approach.
And I disagree with you - I was taught a system/method when I learned "instinctive" shooting decades ago.
I'm getting I can teach you gapping in half the time George takes to teach you instictive. The only difference will be that you'll be a much better shot at distance and if you have to shoot instinctive you will be able to.
G F Asbell has been teaching and writing about "Instinctive Shooting" for years. Couldn't agree more about 'Form" it is everything. Along with that is your on-board computer and shooting thousands of arrows. I don't really know of coaches who teach "Instinctive" I learned by doing and many hours of practice.
Rick Welch is very good, you can also PM Nate Steen *Sunset Hill) and pick his brain. He is also very good, he's more than willing to share his knowledge, and he is very good at explaining his process in writing.
The thing to remember is that just like any other method "instinctive" shooting is based on good mechanics and consistency. It also is not a fast method to learn for many.
lol thanks for the tips. i wasn't looking for a coach per se - I was curious as I don't see them on youtube or social media like i see gap, POA, String walking etc.... When i started four decades ago there were plenty of coaches pushing instinctive shooting like Brunner, Asbell, John Shultz (Sp?), etc.... it was a simple question as it appears instinctive shooting is not so popular among new archers.
Bowmania - I doubt it very seriously, been shooting this way for 40+ years and when i try to use gap my shooting sucks.... especially while hunting.
“‘instinctive’ shooting is based on good mechanics and consistency. It also is not a fast method to learn for many.”
That’s because it’s NO “WAY” TO LEARN; rather, it is the OUTCOME of HAVING LEARNED the good mechanics and consistency.
Not trying to pick on the OP, but JMO, if you can’t hit when using a deliberate aiming system, you must be either over-bowed or suffering from Target Panic.
Everybody says that anyone can learn to shoot a compound within minutes because of let-off and sights; therefore anyone can learn within minutes whether their issues with hitting are the result of aiming error or form errors by fitting a lighter-draw recurve with a kisser button/peep and a sight pin.
But if you don't know where you’re aiming, how are you going to tell the difference??
I've been around the horn with all the typical in it to win it methods and 7 years later?...I've come full circle right back to my roots shooting split-finger with index to corner of mouth as I realized?...
"I already knopw how to shoot...I just need to teach my bow how to shoot where I look!"
LOL!
If I wanted to use my arrows point as a sight pin?...I'd just mount up one of the several sights I have bouncing around in my box but to me?...neither of those options are in the spirit of things of how archery was first presented to me and while I did try and use GAP and even String-Walking methods over the past few years?...it's only by hindisght that I can see that I ran into a conundrum whereby the more direct my aiming system became?...the more I focused on aiming and the less I focused on form and/or execution of the release.
I find that the less direct my aiming system is?...the more I can concentrate on form and execution and also?...the less stressed and rushed I am to complete the shot as I float that vision I have of my arrows flight path (that only exists in my mind yet I see it clear as day provided I've practiced enough) onto that intended spotand I'll take that art form any day over painting by numbers where I dare not color outside the established lines drawn by others.
Here's a tip, or rather my 2 cents. If you've been shooting instinctive for 40 years and with no issues, and then issues only crop up when you listen to the aiming coaches, well sounds like a pretty easy fix to me......stop listening to them eh!
Don't know what part of Texas your in, but have heard Rick Welch in AR is awful good at teaching and may match what your looking for pretty good. Talked to him on the phone once, long time ago, and he seemed liked one fine fellow.
The issue with some coaches, is they want you to do it their way and won't work with you at a different style. Make sure if you do get one, it's one who will work with how you want to shoot and help develop you in that style.
I much prefer Schulz's definition of Conditioned Instinct shooting. It's a process of shooting, learned from consistent, repetitious shooting form and hand/eye coordination.
It is not willy-nilly, and I would venture a guess that most shooters don't want to put in the necessary time to get good. Most want some kind of "shortcut" to shorten the process. However, if you stick with it, and trust it, and let it happen, you can be a very good hunting/game shot using an instinctive shooting style. You may do well on paper targets as well, but scores will never reflect that...because a 2"-3" miss of the bullseye on paper will show a lower score, whereas on game, still results in a clean kill and dead deer.
so a good instinctive shooting coach will only give the steps and form pointers to get started. It takes much effort on the shooter's part to get good.
"My definition of "instinctive" shooting is the same as Jim Ploen's.
It means you don't use an accessory sight. Even Welch, Schulz, Palmer, and all the rest never denied that they saw the arrow."
I can buy into all of that and I see my arrow...always have...but in such an indirect way in relation to the target that I can not use the arrow itself as a sighting component...which becomes more a "Pointing of The Arrow" rather than using it as though it were a sight pin.
Sunset Hill:
"...However, if you stick with it, and trust it, and let it happen, you can be a very good hunting/game shot using an instinctive shooting style..."
extremely well put! :)
I can remember the first creature I took with my solid glass Fred bear kids bow shooting 5 for $1 cedar kids target arrows from Two Guys Dept. store...walking into the woods across the street to see if I could bag a crow...when a bird came zipping straight towards me and walking with arrow nocked I simultaneousli raised and drew my bow and loosed in the blink of an eye and drilled that bird dead center of the breast with is landing deceased but a few feet in front of where I stood and?...I sat down and wept...it wasn't a crow....it was a sparrow...but it all happened so fast?...and who could explain the biomechamics behind that...a slow kids bow that needed only God knows what sort of lead to strike that small sparrow flying full tilt straight at me...and that shot blows my mind everytime I recall it and I can visualize that moment in my head as though it happened yesterday yet it happened when I was about 8-9 years old over 1/2 a century ago...well before folks cluttered their minds with thoughts of GAP, Split-Vision or freaking Back tension! LOL!
Cause if I'd of thought of any of that?....I could've saved myself some tears on that sorrow filled day. :(
Because with split fingers you add additional pressure on the arrow - he favours 3under to limit all the things that can become a factor in "obstructing" the brain to learn the arrow trajectory.
He likes it for the very same reason all the highly competitive archers do which is?...
"3-Under reduces the distance between Eye & Arrow and thereby Closes The GAP (or "Split in the Vision" if you prefer) between arrow point and the target"
which by the very virtues of using a 3-under string purchase begs to challenge whether or not Rick Welch is pointing his arrow in an instinctual fashion or not and I'm betting on "Not" because?....
I've experienced and recognized (many times over) just how difficult it is to truly point my arrow in an intuitive fashion when that gap between the arrow and target is so small that it becomes an extremely tempting distraction that's almost impossible to ignore as my focus is drawn away from intuitive visualization and fully migrates to concentating on that tiny GAP.
Now that said?...I don't doubt for a minute that Rick Welsh can't shoot instinctively but I do doubt that he practices what he preaches when he's in heated competition and his reputation is at stake because it's that reputation that gets him paid for speaking and supports justifying the price tags of the coaching he offers and the bows he builds and sells...which BTW aren't inexpensive.
and please note: This isn't me taking a cheap shot at Rick Welsh as I'm typically real good with anyone who is as passionate about archery as he is and the above is just my unabashed opinion based on personal experiences.
I think just reading about it and practicing is a good coach. I guess if you had an expert near by that would be even better. But it's not essential to have a coach. I have been a instinctive only shooter, then to be better I tried aiming. Then used another aiming system. And became an experienced advanced aimer. For years! And that worked. I killed game. Recently after some marginal shots on deer I began to realize I did better way back when I just concentrated on the spot I want to hit only. It is a lot more fun to shoot that way. It doesn't feel like practice. Its' just shooting and its fun. And I can use any of my bows or arrow combination and quickly get on target. Plus it now seems like tuning isn't so critical any more. Example - When shooting wood I can use 75-80s or 80-85s with no problem. Even if I am at the maximum spread of low or high in spine and get a waggle it seems I can still put that arrow on target. Where when I was aiming any micro difference created frustration and a miss.
Shooting a longbow out of brush blinds, blowdowns, and laying under fir boughs means that I shoot from all angles. Consistent form goes out the window for me other than getting that middle finger in the corner of my mouth. For myself, the main thing I try to do is concentrate on a spot. When I blow it, it is always when I don’t notice a branch, tunnel vision, or hold my draw letting my brain second- guess itself. Basically, It’s grip and rip for me. That and getting so close that I can’t miss. That’s the fun part.
Bill, I really don’t want to start second-guessing what Rick Welch actually is doing. I added the videos for people who never heard him before. He is one of the instinctive shooters who’s seeing the arrow but he is not adjusting his bow hand at full draw. The big THING about instinctive shooters who are Teaching is they have their own methods on getting accurate. At the end there is a reason there are very few Instinctive Coaches: they need to express in words things that can’t be expressed without sounding like describing an aiming method. Is “bore a hole” an aiming method or not? Now someone explain why you should do it. This is the Coach’s role : to give convincing answers to “stupid” questions. And they will fail most of the time answering this question and nobody likes to sound silly. Lets focus on information not on what he might do when he is not seen
When this comes up we hear from a bunch of yokels who cannot do it and think nobody else can either. Over the past 60,000 years most archers have used 'instinctive' aiming. No, it is not a real instinct, that is just the word we use nowadays. Intuitive or 'natural aiming' might be a better description but instinctive is the common word used. Surveys also show that in the US most general sport archers also still use the split finger hold.
Mountains of game have been taken and many championships have been won with it. (Instinctive at shorter ranges, aiming off the arrow at longer ones.) I have taught it to many; women and youths learn it easily. Some men you cannot tell anything.)
You do need reasonably good form and reasonably tuned tackle. I generally let newcomers use some of my training tackle if theirs is not appropriate for them. Some apt pupils shoot well enough to kill a deer after several sessions.
It is difficult to explain how to do it in writing, but fairly easy to teach at the range, more by feel than by words.
I wonder if some of you boys ever learned to hit anything with slingshot, or a snowball, or a rock. How did you aim it?
If any of you come by Sacramento, shoot me a PM. Maybe we could meet. - lbg
“Take the archer who says they never see the arrow and put them in a totally dark room with absolutely nothing visible except a tiny lighted spot on a target and shots will fly everywhere”.
Not true, just because you can’t shoot that way doesn’t mean others can’t do it consistently. I compare it to throwing a ball, you don’t think about it or go through an aiming process. You just do it.
I don’t see the arrow when it shoot. Total darkness where I was shooting from, only the target visible. Three arrows at 20 yards and two at 25 yards.
"Not true, just because you can't shoot that way doesn't mean others can't do it consistently."
Very well put. I agree with you 100%. I don't understand why anyone's mindset is that if they can't do it or they don't understand it then nobody can do it.
The analogy of throwing a ball is spot on. I also tell people It's like pointing your finger at an object in your far peripheral vision. When you do it, then turn your head and look, your finger is pointing directly at the object. Like many things it is a honed motor skill.
Nobody really shoots in totally dark.Hey the gentleman cant see his arrow.He just know it feels right from lots of shooting.
You dont look at a baseball when you throw it or a basketball when you shoot it.You use good technique and lots and lots of repititions to get good at it.Natural talent helps to be really good at it.Complete committment,belief and confidence is at play as well.
If you get good at its more of a subconscious reality and or unconscious act.Not an intellectual act or thought out plan.It just happens naturally without much thought.You gotta put your work in though to get to that point.
As far as the baseball/basketball anology and many other sports the same goes for Archers who dont use an aiming system like sights etc. bottom line.
Its really great for hunters,moving targets,very quick shots, Airials,flying birds.But gets less effective for long range shots in general.Many guys are not as interested in long range shooting for thier needs and applications.
Len Cardinale is an excellent instinctive coach as are the coaches that use his system.//USA and world archery recommend 3 under.Much better when you use the arrow point for aiming.Aside from being supernaturally talented,practice is essential and as Mr.Stout said a consistent form is an essential basis for "instinctive" or target or horse archery.
If your shooting 3-under and using the point of the arrow for aiming?...that;s not only "not instinctive" but it's also not "sight-less archery"...it's...
"Sighted Archery"
might as well serve a peep-sight in the string at that point.
When you throw a baseball, you see your arm at the last fraction of movement and at release - fact. This is a method of aiming and is not instinctive throwing. Might as well attach a peep sight to your arm at that point. ??
Some of you guys crack me up.Consistency and lots of practice is the best coach, sorta like George said. Who coached the coach?
I think archery has a few terms which are misnomers. Instinctive shooting being one of them.
Instinctive shooting is not instinctive in the sense that it happens immediately without any practice. It is not like ducklings following and imprinting the first living thing they see.
I was just reading the thread on endless bowstrings. Why are they endless? They have 2 ends They have a finite amount of string material.
Mr. Tsoukalas...I couldn't agree more on the miss use and misnomer thoughts surrounding the term "Instinctive" but as I sit here in deep thought attempting to find a single word that fully describes how archers shoot their bows using a more intuitive method of aiming and execution yet the repetition of practice can increase an archers spatial awareness to a near magical level of accuracy for those who subscribe to this notion and trust the shot and their abilities to execute it ro the point that conscious correction and/or direct aiming methods are no longer part of the equation but as far a "duckinlgs imprinting" goes?...a certain amount of that still exists in my shot as I can still hear the voices of my father and his bowhunting buds instructing me to...
"Just look at what you want to hit and with one fluid motion?..."
starting at age 7 in the backyard of our home in NJ.
“might as well serve a peep-sight in the string at that point.”
And actually, anyone’s struggling with accuracy ABSOLUTELY SHOULD. A peep sight is nothing but an anchor check. A clicker is just a draw check. The point of the arrow is an alignment check, same as a sight.
All of these things are just added (and generally superior) tools which accomplish the same ends as extremely good form.
And honestly, Bill.... what the hell is “wrong” with a peep sight or a kisser button? It’s ZERO different than anchoring so that you look “through” your string. But the Trad Nazis are convinced that they’re morally superior because they pretend to be NOT doing something that NO ONE can help but do, which is to SEE an arrow which is literally RIGHT UNDER THEIR NOSES.
It’s a total load o’ crap.
The more conscious attention you pay to your form and alignment, the better you will shoot. And the better/stronger/faster the Launch Control neuromotor circuit will become. You can build it slowly and sloppily or you can build it quickly and precisely; either way it becomes an anatomical feature of your body and mind and it is all that you have to work with.
Last night, 31 minutes after sunset under THICK cloud cover and literally one minute before the rain began; dark grey shaft over dark brown mud; could just make out the silhouette of the target against fallen/faded leaves in the background. From about 35 yards.
“Instinctive” shooting is the RESULT of solid, repeatable & precise form, NOT a substitute for it.
Nobody I know pays attention to thier arm at the last fraction of movement or pays attention to it when they throw a baseball.That should all be figured out from all the practice you have done to become proficient.You look at the target.I cant imagine trying to see my arm or pay attention to it when trying to throw someone out in a split second.The focus is on the small spot you want to throw to.
Never heard anyone say that ever.Your release point and where the ball comes out of the hand should be naturally done.No need to look at it or pay attention to it when you have thrown thousands of balls.It would take your focus away from hitting dead center.
Is a guy gonna try and see where his stride is or where his foot lands in the heat of the moment when thowing a baseball or hitting one.Those things are as important to the phsical act as where the arm or arms are.
If your throwing well or shooting well its gonna happen almost like an instinct without much thinking.You get to that point through skill practice,Appropriate repitition and smart training.Then it just happens when the game begins.
Kodiak - OK, fine. Let’s hear your scientifically sound explanation of how someone whose shooting has vastly improved through the conscious use of checks on his form and aiming can shoot well IN THE DARK at an UN-lit target at close to twice the 17.4 yard Leatherwall Approved maximum effective range.
Kodiak - OK, fine. Let’s hear your scientifically sound explanation of how someone whose shooting has vastly improved through the conscious use of checks on his form and aiming can shoot well IN THE DARK at an UN-lit target at close to twice the 17.4 yard Leatherwall Approved maximum effective range.
One thing I will freely confess that I DON’T have a clue about, though, is why the hell people who care as much about archery as the people here seem to do... are willing to SUCK at it...
I just use voodoo to get my arrows where I want them. It's "traditional" voodoo though, not any new fangled voodoo so I should be ok with the trad police right?
A very good instinctive shooter should hit the target he is seeing just using the eyes of his mind OCR. If we go “there” on the rim of aiming using the 5 senses and proprioception the instinctive good shooter should be capable to look at a target, switch off the light, shoot and hit the target.
Why don't we all just agree to stop using the term "instinctive" and just say "bare bow"? That way , we could all shoot our bows any way we'd like to and we wouldn't have to argue about it? You know why? Because 50 percent of all of These "debates" would cease, and that's just not good enough for a lot of you.
The worst thing about saying you are an instinctive shooter is there is absolutely no way you can prove it to anyone other than yourself.
I can shoot all day long, and claim to be shooting instinctive, but be gapping off the arrow on every shot, and there's no way anyone could prove what I was doing one way, or the other.
Point is - It don't matter, and I don't care. Shoot how you want. 8^)
OCR, that's BS with capital letters. If I go down the topic, the first so call "puffers" are the instinctive shooters questioning Rick Welch's right to shoot 3 under and declaring himself instinctive shooter or the ones declaring their supremacy saying that the aimers are the bad instinctive shooters. From this topic the message is: who doesn't shoot split fingers or is an aimer is a lesser person for some. Interesting evolution, when the topic was about Coach for instinctive and no "instinctive" shooter here said :I can coach you if you like.
Draven?...no one ever questioned anyones "right" to shoot 3-under...but I did challenge that I find it hard to believe Rick truly does have the ability to completely ignore an arrow that's anchored so close to his eye where the temptation of the very decreased gap serves as a distraction inviting conscious adjustment in a big way...and that's not instinctive...maybe he instinctively sets his gap?
I just got done spinning my nocking points upwards about 1/4" on my Blacktail so I could go back to 3-Under amd the only thing I do in an intuitive fashion is a final fine adjustment of the gap I set.
I don't want to ruffle any more feathers over a word that we can't even apply the definition of to archery.
"I'm getting I can teach you gapping in half the time George takes to teach you instictive. The only difference will be that you'll be a much better shot at distance and if you have to shoot instinctive you will be able to. Bowmania "
Why is gapping more consistent ? Here is my two cents , anytime you have a set aiming point , and a lack of consistency . It will always be narrowed down to a form problem if the set up is decent. Problems are always much easier to deal with the more it is narrowed down. In short ,if I want to be better with so called instinctive. You could strap on some sights and master it(form) , then pull them off. You will be a better shot regardless of your aiming style. Again , just my two cents
I do...when I'm shooting 3-under...but I don't gap at the target...I gap at the bow...or maybe a little bit of both!...as long as I'm using full length arrows! LOL!
It's nuts right?...folks who can't imagine trying to gap at 20-25yds and probably because they shoot split fingers off-the-shelf with arrows cut to end where shelf begins.
Bill, I can challenge your aiming based on same assumption: the arrow is in front of your eyes, how you don't see it? PS You listened his videos or you just make assumptions after assumptions to sustain your conclusion? It is a fair question.
Draven?...honest answer?...I tried to listen to Rick a number of times and thick southern accent aside?...his explanations make zero sense to me...in one breath he claims he prefers shooting instinctively cause it's so simplified and in the next 10 breaths he goes on to instruct everythinbg from stance to...how to aim?
And besides?...if it's truly instructions on how to shoot instinctively?....how the heck could anyone rail on about how to shoot instinctively for 20 freaking minutes?...yet it's simplified?
Now I didn't want toi go this deep but since you laid it out there?...here's another vid by Rick Wekch on Instinctive Shooting,,,,it's less than 3 1/2 minutes long and a lot easier to listen to where the topoic he opens up with and FOCUS'S ON (pun intended LOL!) is?...
"SIGHT PICTURE"
where Mr. Welch goes on to explain that the difference bewteen aiming and shooting instinctively is based on whether you focus on the arrow or on the target where my belief is any good archer does both and calls it "Split-Vison" aka "Gapstinctive"...here's the vid...
I do...when I'm shooting 3-under...but I don't gap at the target...I gap at the bow...or maybe a little bit of both!...as long as I'm using full length arrows! LOL! It's nuts right?...folks who can't imagine trying to gap at 20-25yds and probably because they shoot split fingers off- the-shelf with arrows cut to end where shelf begins.
Bill I did not specify split or 3 under due to those that gap generally shoot 3 under. But since you brought up gapping off of the riser , I do like it for bows with short site window , I will shoot split and gap off of the riser. I like it for shorter distances but not for 25 yrds or more. As for regular gapping , 20 to 25 yards it becomes instinctive for me once I get used to the bow.
motherlode...cool...for me to claim I apply any intuition into my shots?...it's all distances from point-on and closer and that's where I could best describe the wayI aim as?...
"I Instinctively Set My Gap"
IOW's?...I'm not trying to estimate yardage and correlate it with some pre-=determined amount of gap...I'm setting that gap on intuition based on the repetition of observig my arows trajectory path but beyond point-on distances?...like 900rds?...I'm more like "Pick-A-Point" or?...Gapping above my target (if some prefer) where at 60yds?...my arrows point is held at the top of the marker flag which is about 2' above the huge target...50yds?..top of the blue...40yds?...bottom of the gold.
Bill, how much instinctive you think you are after learning to gap? The knowledge is there now and the brain uses pieces of info when it needs to solve a problem. That’s how intuition works from what I know. We are wired to see patterns and through gap you learnt a pattern: arrow position in relation to the target. Can you convince somebody that instinctive shooting is not a learnt pattern based on target and arrow flight?
There is no formal definition of the instinctive shooting because each shooter has his own idea of what it is. If it is, tell me the “formal definition” please.
the best I ever shot a traditional bow was when I knew the least about shooting a traditional bow first off I was strong my 30s into my early 40s I had never herd of gap shooting the only real thing I knew was a good solid repeatable anchor was important.. the first instruction I had was watching a black widow video (Ken beck) around 2001 & then I read a g ashbel book & honestly the more I conchesly think about my shooting while I'm shooting the worst I shoot.
as I said I was strong I easily shot a 60" 62@26 original habu. I shot 2018 & 2020 depending on point weight & I can remember my favorite for target shooting was 27"2018s with 145 points & my favorite distance was 40 yards & even though I'd never even heard of gap shooting I can remember that even though I didn't conchesly even think about it at 40 I was point on. was I instinctive ? I just concentrated on my spot drew to anchor hesitated very briefly pulled a little more to release during that slight hesitation I'd make final adjustments for lack of a better word
“Does anyone that shoots gap actually gap at shorter distances ? talking 20 25 yards.”
Why do you think 3-Under works so well at shorter distances? Smaller gaps. So much so that most guys just settle on one and use it fit everything.... which they call “Instinctive”!
LOL
All there is to it is hand-eye coordination, which is a learned skill and can be refined with practice. There is no reason to settle for crappy accuracy just because you choose not to use sights. And there is no excuse for going hunting if you can’t shoot worth a damn.
The worst thing about the whole notion of “Instinctive” shooting, IMO, is that it has really lowered expectations for what kind of accuracy barebow shooters should be capable of..
I honestly wish I could go back to not knowing how to shoot a trad bow I shot much better back then. now I'm constantly evaluating every thing I'm doing & its counter productive I'm not saying I'm a horrible shot cause I'm not but I was better back then & at much longer distances as well
timex, I think a lot of archers have your problem. They have heard so much about other methods and so much nonsense about 'instinctive' that they have forgotten how natural, easy and effective it can be.
A good remedy is to take your most comfortable bow and some blunt or judo arrows out roving in forest and field. Shoot at stumps, weeds, dandelions, pine cones, whatever you see. Shoot by feel, and do not aim. Just yearn. Shoot like a child. Have fun. - lbg
Judo points and tennis balls at something close to your point-on distance. Go have fun. Go to a vertical style and use string blur or serve in a peep if you e done well with a peep on your compound.
Whatever you do, first thing to do is to throw out all the rules and figure out what works FOR YOU.
Biggest mistake IMO is that people treat barebow archery as if it’s totally different from Olympic style or Peep&Pin sight shooting. ‘Cuz it’s the same game: put an arrow where it belongs.
When you shoot “by feel” the intuitive aiming rides the senses. That’s why instinctive shooting works when it works - the archer intention, timing of his action and his senses are in sink. When an instinctive shooter learns an aiming method he needs to relearn how to make that aiming method to work with his way of shooting “by feel”. Since shooting “by feel” is never the same, the archer without repeatable form will never shoot decent enough to get advantage from that new aiming method. There is a reason all good instinctive shooters are preaching “repeatable shooting sequence”. Knowledge is not a bad thing, is what pushing us forward. But it is not necessary in some circumstances.
Back to Coaching.... I truly believe that an open minded archery student could learn from a good coach, no matter the style. I truly believe that the best of the best never stop learning and are always looking for a way to improve their game. :)
Good form is good form; the difference is that Viper will scrutinize every aspect of your form as a means of getting everything to line up automatically on the very spot that you want to hit , whereas Asell’s book preaches focusing only on the spot that you want to head and expects every other element of a form to spontaneously correct itself.
The difference is that Tony wrote a book and got it published because he is a top- flight Archery Coach; Asbell got his book published because he built good bows and wrote hunting stories for magazines.
Will either approach get you their “eventually“?
Well, probably… But given that the Asbel approach is contradictory to a whole lot of what has been learned about brain science and neuromotor skill development in the many years SINCE Asbel’s book was written, there is a case to be made that the earth is no longer believed to be flat, and maybe we should teach science accordingly…
One of the things that helped my shooting the most was attending a two day class with Rod Jenkins about a dozen years ago. Focus is strictly on fundamentals, form and building a shot sequence. Doesn’t matter what “style” you choose to shoot, you’ll be a better archer and it was well worth the money.
"I see so many coaches are moving to more three fingers under, gap, aiming, POA, etc... is there anyone still coaching for spilt finger and instinctive shooting. I understand the term instinctive causes panic attacks - just using it as most know what I am referring to. When I went to Rick Welch's school he was still teaching it (although he prefers a 3 finger under approach, , just curious of there are other coaches out there?"
As you can probably see by now...(after the submission of well over 100 responses)...there are not many name brand coaches out there that teach instinctive shooting and even less who do so shooting split-finger that gets diluted even further when you recognize that finding "The Right Coach For You" is probably the biggest hurdle of establishing a functional relationship with one as follows...
Just because a world class championship winning archer hit a peak in their shooting career and went on to obtain coaching certs doesn't mean the same techniques and methodologies that catapulted them to the top are going to work as well for you wether it be differences in physical stature or how the two different minds gather, process and physically execute information and the scientific term/test that can and does prove these differences absolutely exist at a cerebral level is know as?...
"Biofeedback"
(Def: a process whereby electronic monitoring of a normally automatic bodily function is used to train someone to acquire voluntary control of that function.)
So therein we have scientific proof that "Automatic Bodily Functions" very from person to person...archer to archer...proving that while some may have a grip on controlling certain automatic bodily functions?...others don't...and I'm betting this is why some can and others can't be it instinctive/snap or?...highly controlled sequential execution and if you have one of those trying to instruct the other?...(or even attempting to hold a civil conversation in a forum such as this? LOL!)...you have...
"A Highly Dysfunctional Relationship"
For me?...I now know that there is no one coach who's every instruction is going to bode well with me and mine and once we hit an impasse?...it's over...as I throw away the garbage and take away what works well for me based on personal application always remembering that as long as I keep and open mind?...the lessons will continue. ;)
Draven...as much as I like and admire Mr. Ploem's tutorials?...it's still a matter of bit-n-piece take-aways for me for example?...while his thoughts and explanations regarding the importance of aligning string blur with the arrow and not the bow are very well presented with a logical analogy using peep-sights as an example?...it doesn't work for me because if I'm shooting instinctively?...there ain't 1oz of focus being spent on where my string blur is and all I can tell you about it is it's someplace comfortably off to the right where application an results tell me I'm best off just concentrating on my mantra that an arrow drawn staright back is an arrow shot straight forward because results have proven to me that the arrow being aligned with my form and the intended spot is far more important than paying attention to what the bowstring is lined up with.
BTW....I also reconsidered my thoughts on Rick Welch's claim of Focus being what differentiates aimers from instinctive shooters because it's actuallyb true...when I'm gapping the arrow is in focus and when I'm shooting instinctive the arrows a blur and the targets in focus...so I digress and agree with him there.
Your comment is showing that you pick-point just what contradicts your beliefs. And I can agree with this attitude until a point. When I gap or I stringwalk, the point I want to hit is in my focus, the tip of the arrow is blurry. Even when I shoot pic-a-point that point is my focus, the arrow is blurry. It shows that the way you learnt to do things will dictate the way you will think about you are told after. The main difference between instinctive aiming and any other aiming method is that in the moment the bow hand reached the right elevation dictated by the brain the aiming process is finished. Rick Welch talks about this, John Shultz talks about this and even Jim Ploen talks about this when explains why the snap shooting works. You argue about 3under as the mark of the aimer. I've shot years split fingers using split- vision, I shoot my recurves 3 under now and my longbow split. And I aim while doing it even when I use the swing-draw.
That's the problem Bill with Instinctive Coaching. If you want to Coach it, you need to be ready to answer questions. All the instinctive Coaches will say : my way or high way. Do you think John Shultz had a saying when Howard Hill was forcing them to execute the shot while counting? Instinctive shooting is taught with a Strong Fist attitude, the velvet glove is shown just to outsiders.
No Draven...the problem with Instinctive coaching is there's very little a coach can do or say to "Actually Teach" someone how to shoot instintively because at the heart of it?...it's more an art form than it is a process making it a skill that can only be acquired through practice and repetition and not taught as though it were an extracurricular class in high school.
In traditional eastern archery who has no aiming step in the shot sequence, they will teach you just execution until you are able to group arrows at 28m into a 30cm circle. But execution is a "no-no" for any cool instinctive shooter.
Jinkster, Rick Welch was teaching hunters who were not satisfied with their instinctive shooting and they were happy to be better shooters after his course. And they repeat the same mantra "I don't know the distance, and I don't care" to rally think they changed their way of shooting. It is no art, it is discipline.
Draven...so the only distinction between instinctive archers and all other methods is instinctive archers focus on the target while everyone else focuses on the arrow?
Jinks, I said the instinctive archer is not checking if he is on the right path at full draw. He just knows. And if he is off, who cares? Stop thinking that all the aimers shoot like you: focusing on the arrow. Please. Thank you.
Funny you should say that... because it generally seems to be the guys who are more concerned with Style Points who can’t HIT squat and therefore never turn in a scorecard, or even keep one just for their own edification.
“it's more an art form than it is a process making it a skill that can only be acquired through practice and repetition and not taught as though it were an extracurricular class in high school.”
Disagree! That might’ve been thought to be the case 30 years ago, but since then, the advances in our understanding of how motor skills are acquired have tossed such thinking out the window. The world is NOT flat.
Any good Archery Coach can teach form; if your form is consistent, you will put your shots in the same place. If you miss your target, it’s because your sights aren’t aligned with the “barrel”.... but that’s easily fixed.
I said this before: the Old way of learning to shoot barebow is upside-down. If you want to learn quickly and well, the spot you’re trying to hit is literally the LAST thing you need to think about.
You think you learn how to “pick a spot” and “burn a hole” during a Blank Bale session??
Some of you fellows clutter up this site with too many posts and too long ones, Kindly put a cork in it now and then, Make your point and then button up for a while. - lbg
Just practice, practice, practice, and practice, with YOUR comfortable position for YOUR body.... you will be surprised at how good you become. Forget the rest.
It's really not complicated.As with a pitcher, he doesn't just walk out one day and start pitching fast curve balls. Good form is essential for any method but as with a pitcher, he looks where he wants the ball to go and throws it. BTW, you can shoot instinctive 3 under just as well as you can with split.
“BTW, you can shoot instinctive 3 under just as well as you can with split.”
Leaving “instinctive” aside for the moment, most people will learn better and faster shooting 3U. There’s a reason for that, but I won’t get into it....
“Instinctives don't blank bale.”
Yeah, neither do I, strictly speaking, but the best shots in the world generally do.
Which probably proves that there is a whole lot more to shooting with a high degree of accuracy than your aiming system, however simple (“burn a hole”) or complicated you choose to make it.
All sights really do is force you into repeatable form.
But if you settle on your target, close your eyes for a few seconds (the longer, the better, of course, but JMO NOT ‘til you start shaking!!!), and then complete the shot.... you’ll find out whether what FEELS right to you is holding you ON target or pulling you OFF.
And if you train yourself to put that eyes-closed “natural” point of aim where your eyeballs and your arrow are pointed....
Yes, and some major league pitchers have been submariners, side armers, 3/4, etc. They do not even all grip the same, some are knuckleballers which is a different yet again. They develope their own form, then practice and practice. Some wind up, others with men on base have a different pitchers stance. And, many wind up slightly different.
Do what is right for you and your hunting situation, forget the measured course shooters and internet experts who try and tell you your technique is wrong, or worse yet, does not exist. Use your hunting skills and get close. Do your own thing!!
Nobody ever said that hand-eye coordinated shooting doesn’t exist or doesn’t work.
The QUESTION is how we go about acquiring and improving the skill set.
The PROBLEM is that a bunch of Ornery Old Farts are convinced that anyone new coming into the sport should aspire to learning it via the slowest, least effective and most backward method possible. It’s Professor Harold Hill’s “Think Method” all over again....
JMO, just because I took some bad advice is no reason to pass it along to the next poor damn fool who asks.
I don’t know about you guys, but if I needed some kind of surgery, I would probably take a Doc who had been trained in the last 10 years over somebody whose training came straight out of the ‘30s....
"It's imteresting that form and technique is obsessed over in all sports and the thing that set the greats apart is what they do differently. Watch a Federer highlight reel and the comments are always filled with "you don't/can't practice that". Well you obviously can but you have to be deviating from what people say HAS to be done."
Very well said Elderly! :)
To me it seems that for many?...due to the lack of coaches/mentors who are truly knowledgable and have the ability to effectively convey the dosctrines and mechanics behind instinctive shooting...that many are led down the garden path by those who claim they do and as their flawed instructions lead to ongoing poor results?...they seek out other methods with clearer work instructions and once they get their first taste of progress?...instinctive shooting just became a fairy tale.
For instance?...how many coaches who attempt to instruct instinctive shooting go into topics like the progession of deep state thought becoming ingrained a lower level of consciousness until it becomes an instinctive act or how instinctive aiming walks hand in hand with snap shooting because of the differences between phasic and static muscle tension?...Jim Ploem does...but then?...Jim Ploen doesn't break down the focal differences between instinctive and direct aiming as well as Rick Welch does and so forth.
My advice to someone tryly seeking to learn instinctive?....
Be a spong and learn from as many as you can and take what works for you and toss what doesn't but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving Holiday. :)
The difference is, you have to learn to do it correctly in the first place. Nobody STARTS OUT playing tennis like Federer; not even Federer did.
Whenever you’re looking at an athlete who is doing things that “can’t be coached“ or “can’t be taught“, you’re looking at someone who has taken the basics and adapted them in order to achieve their own form. The director of my ski school used to tell me that there was no way in hell that anyone my size could ski on the skis that I was using, because they were built for someone who has top-notch skills andweighed about 50% more than I did. Other instructors, who were much more powerful skiers than the director was, would tell me that they just couldn’t figure out how I could do the things that I could do, because I appeared to be violating all kinds of laws of physics.
Point being… You can develop a personal style based on a combination of solid fundamentals and unique, individual strengths, but you can’t develop those individual strengths in a vacuum.
And most people who try end up with a bag full of bad habits and no particular skills that are of any value whatsoever…
So really, it’s not a matter of “deviating from what has to be done”, but layering those unique talents ONTO it...
"And, surgeons have varying techniques and opinions on reaching a good outcome. Trust me on that one!"
Amen!...and here's a prime example of that in te archery world...
While many coaches heavily emphasis the importance of holding solid at anchor?...others speak of how muscle tension disengages and the likelyhood of creeping increases if you do where I feel Jim Ploem explained the importance of not stopping because of the transition from phasic to static muscle tension which BTW?...is very much in keeping with Joel Turner's (Clickerman) prolific mantra of...
"Keep Pulling, Keep Pulling, Keep Pulling...."
and when the ideologies of coaches are in conflict?...that leaves us in the same unless we just go ahead and work out what works best for us as individual archers. ;)
And just last week, somebody won the big lottery....
Doesn't make it a good retirement strategy.
It all keeps coming back to whether you want to learn quickly and efficiently while using all that your natural abilities have to contribute, or if you would rather make it unnecessarily difficult.
One question OCR if I may: a future bow hunter who knows he will hunt from the stand like his father is starting to learn shooting the bow from a stand? Is his first arrow shot from a standing elevated position at an animal? If not, your reasoning is flawed. The kid on the bike will need to perform to not fall, he is not biking first on a fixed bike to understand how he needs to move his feet. The shot sequence or form or execution is just a learning tool to acquire a specific skill without being under pressure "to perform". I really don't care how many steps the execution has, can have just 3 or 12, if it is good for what you are doing, Congrats! If is not, but you are doing nothing about this, it's on you not others. It is fine with me too. At the end this Instinctive vs Aimers is not even a debate of aiming methods, it is a debate between self-taught vs coached archers.
Is it Tom Clumm, Rick Welch, Howard Hill, Fred Bear....who? WHo decides what correctly is? And why is iconsidered correct? Correct for who? Easier for who?
Jinx mentioned Jim Poen (my absolute favorite archer and teacher bar none by the way) and his shooting. Well....all the talk about spine, the importance of spine, the perfect arrow rest, and so on, Jim would plotely laugh you out of the room. He can. and will outshoot virtually anybody here with mismatched arrows, and a oiece of wood glued on the bow as a rest.
The arrow "bending around the riser". That's another detail he would just grin and go an about. That's a fallacy as well.
How does Ploen think that EVERY new archer should learn to shoot? Instinctively. You can read his definition of instinctive shooting (slimmed won) in a post I made a few days ago.
All the hubbub about tiller...same thing.
So WHO decides what's correct, and who is it correct for?
Why is there so little time spent worrying about the objective of the shot, and so much time worrying about the process? The process is SIMPLE. Absolutely SIMPLE. But it gets made incredibly complicated and difficult.
Bowmania has posted on more than one occassion about an archer that he shot against in a state champoinship. Todd stated the guy had the worst form he ever saw. But in spite of that he beat EVERYBODY THERE. So how was his form so bad? He's shooting against people who I"m sure had text book form and he beat them ALL.
How did he aim? I have no clue but I'm willingly to bet it was closer to "instinctive" than to any gap system talked about here.
Personally I've read the theories on the shooting sequence/shot process from virtually every new teacher that has come along for years as well as the older ones. The ONLY people who in my opinion have made a significant contribution to the subject are Horace Ford, Howard Hill/John Schulz, and Jim Ploen. Everybody else has just been parroting what these guys were saying years and years ago. From how to address the target to how to aim.
So pick the system that works for you. Learn it, practice it, and perfect it and pay absolutely no attention to what anybody else has to say about it.
"So pick the system that works for you. Learn it, practice it, and perfect it and pay absolutely no attention to what anybody else has to say about it."
The essence of this topic is exactly this: where to learn a system I want when I have no coaches to explain it to me? The answer until now is: Go out and find by yourself, there are no Coaches for what you want.
I get ti Draven, but the system is essentially simple as I said before. You hold the bow, you draw the arrow, you point it at the target, and you let it go. That's the basis of the system. My dad (who was a pretty dang fair shot) took me out in the backyard when I was about 4, handed me a bow and a handfuls of arrows and instructed me to align the arrow with the target, draw the string to the corner of my mouth, look down the arrow at the target (your body will naturally adjust to have the arrow and target in line if neccessary) and shoot. He added a few details after that, but esentially that was it.
Any thing much beyond that is just adding details that to some people, and in many cases are overkill.
Worrying intently about the proper grip on the string, the proper palcement of the hand on the grip of the bow, expanding through the shot, moving the draw side elbow in a "J" at release, secondary anchor, is the spine of my arrow correct, is my rest right, is my string material the right material and on and on completely minimizes what a person is trying to do when they shoot an arrow.
Archers these days spend far too much time trying to emulate somebody ele.
"So pick the system that works for you. Learn it, practice it, and perfect it and pay absolutely no attention to what anybody else has to say about it." The essence of this topic is exactly this: where to learn a system I want when I have no coaches to explain it to me? The answer until now is: Go out and find by yourself, there are no Coaches for what you want. And if there are some, they want to teach you a shot sequence! Brrrr
"My dad (who was a pretty dang fair shot) took me out in the backyard when I was about 4, handed me a bow and a handfuls of arrows and instructed me to align the arrow with the target, draw the string to the corner of my mouth, look down the arrow at the target (your body will naturally adjust to have the arrow and target in line if neccessary) and shoot"
This is the core point of debate today. There are some who think that without instructions like this you can get it, and there are many others who think that without this instruction you will never get it. The "monkey see, monkey do" learning you talk above is result of this lack of initial information that a 4 year old will receive.
“You hold the bow exactly the same way every time, you draw the arrow exactly the same way every time, you point it at the target exactly the same way every time,, and you let it go exactly the same way every time. That's the basis of the system.”
You just left out the consistency requirement. That guy with the ugly-as-sin form may not have been textbook, but whatever he was doing... Right or Wrong he somehow managed to do it all exactly the same way every time....
So the question about what is “correct” form.... the stuff that makes it into a textbook is generally the stuff that makes it as easy as possible for the largest number of people to succeed reasonably quickly. Not the “only” way for anyone or everyone to succeed, but if you want to be paid for your time AND RESULTS, the money is on established techniques.
And speaking of “technique”...
“My dad instructed me to align the arrow with the target, draw the string to the corner of my mouth, look down the arrow at the target... and shoot. He added a few details after that, but esentially that was it.”
OK - let’s begin by recognizing that that is NOT what the Instinctive Proclaimers will insist on as “Instinctive”. You were [gasps of horror] AIMING (and may God have mercy on your soul, apparently!!).
So the difference between “aiming” and “Instinctive”, is NOT what you DO, and not even whether you do it or not, but simply whether you are MINDFUL of the fact that you’re doing it.
And as your dad knew, being mindful of it works better. Of course, the old-timers of his generation just called it paying attention to what you’re doing....
GF...there's no gasps of horror and I can assure you that no ones soul is at stake here and I don't care who's reading this thread because fippant one liners and strong opinions on a personal level aside?...there's been a wealth of great info shared in this thread for anyone with an open mind and/or a desure to attempt to gain an understanding of what instinctive shooting is all about and you yourself nailed the largest reason why we see so few coachs who teach instinctive these days with?...
"...the stuff that makes it into a textbook is generally the stuff that makes it as easy as possible for the largest number of people to succeed reasonably quickly. Not the “only” way for anyone or everyone to succeed, but if you want to be paid for your time..."
Which catapulted what is a slightly modified version of basic Olympic fundamentals with some aiming tweaks to the forefront of what used to be the #1 method taught to archers shooting sight-free traditionally styled hunting bows and better yet?...it could easily be published, recorded and sold as those who profit from such cheer on the death of the Purists cause every soul that's lost?...is one they gain via cronyism so if your looking for horror?...all it takes is a view from a different perspective.
It is my belief and experience that no one masters instinctive shooting and to try is a fools errand because the archer needs to stay out of their head by immersing themselves in the shot...surrendering themselves to the shot...with every fiber of their body and zero conscious interjection...so that the immense power of the multi-tasking subconscious can exercise it's might...and then the magic happens...it's not something you have to work for...it's something you have to step back and allow to happen and outside of a working knowledge of the rudimentary basics?...all that's required of the archer is a smooth controlled draw and absolute trust in the shot....question anything?...and you just missed.
174 posts on this thread and 182 on the 2019 Harvest thread. You guys need to quit debating this no-win topic and get out and arrow some critters......
Every one of you are wrong. The whole archery community misuses the word instinctive, including the big name coaches. It doesn't matter how some one explains it. Look up the word instinct-instinctive. It is for want of a better word. I get you don't see the arrow,you don't judge yardage,you burn a hole in the target. That is just not the definition of instinctive. !!!! LOOK THE WORD UP!!!! The whole argument is the misuse of the word to describe a learned/practiced action. I can shoot that way too and misuse the word because I don't know what else to call it. It is fun though. A few of us type these posts instinctively. we don't look at the keyboard. Funny how long it took to learn it though and it would be tough without the little index marks on the F & J keys to get your index fingers in the right spot. >>>>-----> Ken
NOUN - The definition of instinct is something you just know or sense. ... An inherited tendency of an organism to behave in a certain way, usually in reaction to its environment and for the purpose of fulfilling a specific need. The development and performance of instinctive behavior does not depend upon the specific details of an individual's learning experiences.
ADJECTIVE - instinctive describes something you do without thinking about it. If you have an instinctive desire to help animals, you might automatically stop your car to pick up every stray dog you see. Something that is instinctive occurs naturally, the way babies know how to cry and suck as soon as they're born
Not so. I believe you added the desire to help animals. At least my dictionary doesn't say that. "Babies crying and sucking" yes. It is in the book. How many of them shoot bows with out any learning? "Does not depend on a learned experience is correct" and also in my dictionary. That is the root of the problem making words say what you want instead of what they are. I don't care how anyone shoots but after so many posts just thought I would inject a little vocabulary instruction. Its all good just keep the arrows flying. Aim them any way you wish. Call something by the wrong word often enough and it will be adopted and added to the dictionary.Patience my friends. Instinctive shooting will be right one of these days. Then we will have to invent a new word for what babies do instinctively. >>>>------> ken
I agree whole heartedly with 2 bears. Babies sucking and crying are primative reflex responses the same as the gagging reflex, the assymetric tonic neck reflex and the righting reflex. The neurological mechanisms for these activities are very well researched and understood. Describing any part of the execution of an archery shot as instinctive is completely erroneous.
A genuine question for all you instinctive coaches....
If we can shoot an arrow without thought purpose or reference .. what is the purpose of the Medial Lemniscus?
Bill I don't wish to be disrespectful to anyone or their opinions, but just because archers believe conscious cognition isn't happening doesn't make it true. Aii the academic studies investigating neural activity during the shot sequence show the highly connscious cognitive areas of the brain lit up like a christmas tree.
I didn't add anyting. I cut and pasted it directly out of a disctionary.
I chose an example that represented the word used as a noun as well as an adjective.
So what.....now there is going to be a debate related to the definition of "instinct"/"instinctivve"?
This is completely stupid.
An instinct is something that you are born with just as described. Nobody on this sight or anywhere else was ever born with the "instinct" to shoot a bow. And to suggect otherwise is just DUMB.
The best definition of instinctive is still Jim Ploen's in my opinion and that is that "instinctive" archery means you aren't using an accessory sight. Whatever aiming method you use beyond that makes no difference.
No but we are born with hand-to-eye coordination and depth perception - and that is the instinctive part. i don't think a child has to be taught to pint his finger at something he wants. You believe it is all about learning to aim and that is where I disagree - to me practice just refines the hand-to-eye coordination we are BORN with.
We are born with an instinct to eat but we get better at it the more we do it. Every watch a tiny tot try to hit his mouth with a handful of food? At first they are messy as crap and most winds up everywhere except in their mouth. But somewhere they learn to hit the old pie hole every time, even when they complicate the process and start using a fork. Does that mean that eating is now not instinctive because they learned to be better at something and used a tool? Does the fact the fork may appear in their peripheral now mean that eating is somehow not instinctive?
Not everyone needs or wants to aim a bow - I do not see why that is so hard to accept?
Every body aims. I don't see why that is so hard to accept.
Nobody that ever shot "instinctively" and was ever any good at it ever denied that. Bear, Hill, Schulz, Asbell, Ferguson, Palmer, Welch, nobody. All of them talk of seeing the arrow in their vision in one way or the other. Whether the primary vision is on the target, or rhe primary vision is on the arrow. It doesn't matter. If you can see the target you are aiming at it whether that is directly, or indirectly as when Aspirinbuster shoots from behind his back.
Only on these types of sites does it EVER become a topic of converstaion of whether or not an archer aims a bow.
I've hung around many archers some of which are know an as the "icons" of archery. They would never have a converstaion related to shooting a bow that was this ascinine. And they sure wouldn't debate it over and over.
Not angry & shoot both ways. Why are you "instinctive" shooters so defensive? You are grasping at straws. It is a common misuse of the word that has been accepted.Just because Jimmer calls something instinctive doesn't make it right. I believe the word "like" instinctive was left out. So if you practice something enough it becomes instinctive? Ridiculous. Maybe "like instinctive" Now I can call target shooting with my scope sighted rifle instinctive.Driving, pole vaulting, or anything else. There is a difference in learned and instinctive no matter how long you deny it. Eat with a fork!!!! no the word was "suck" not eat. Keep adding words it don't change the root meaning. The word was adopted to archery for want of a better one. Maybe your dictionary is more modern. I told you if you wait long enough you will be right. Gee this is fun & will set a new record for posts. Who knew an archery site would become an English class and to think I hated English in school. Carry on but take time out to shoot a few. >>>>------> Ken
Elderly - perhaps they cannot instinctively help themselves???? Or wait, perhaps their long history of doing so has made it a learned habit. Either way it is pretty annoying.
Anyway, I think I got my answer to my original post
Odd I don't see the anger,only the thin skinned defense. I read every post. Typical defense when left with no leg to stand on,change the subject,add new words. Well here I am setting "scathing examples" in " Full fury" at "asinine conversations" In between conversations I am flinging bamboo arrows with my Osage self bow sans any kind of add on's & shooting my tricked out Olympic Hoyt re curve with all the bells and whistles. I call it archery and it sure is fun. Who knew English could be so much fun too? Love you guys but go shoot some arrows. I don't care how you aim. Aim " To point a weapon or direct a blow so as to hit --the direction of a missile--sighting as in pointing a weapon. Man all this time I have been sighting/aiming my self bow with bamboo arrows and didn't know it. I love learning stuff. That does explain some of the self imposed 17.3 yardage & the random holes in all the targets. Fellows you have to aim/point your weapon in the direction of the target. I am just getting started. Thanks for the raging,scathing,entertainment. >>>>-----> Ken
"not angry and shoot both ways" How can you shoot both ways if there is no such thing as instinctive shooting? What I see a lot of when I read these posts is the aimers saying such things as "not using a specific aiming method is fine if you don't ever shoot past 17.3 yards" "If you don't aim you're not a serious archer/hunter" "You shouldn't hunt if you don't aim" etc. etc. etc. From the "non aimers" I hear things like "this is how I shoot and it works for me, what ever work for you is fine by me". I personally don't enjoy using specific aiming methods or tools and I'm in this strictly for my own enjoyment. One more thing - how many primitive people throughout history who used archery to feed and defend themselves have used specific aiming methods or devices?
“Also the older a Dictionary is, the more in error the definitions often become.”
That’s the dumbfunniest thing I’ve heard in a looooong time! What the newer Dictionary will tell you is the extent to which sloppy usage has changed the original meaning.
You guys wanna know the real difference between “Instinctive” and barebow aiming? The Aimers believe that anyone and everyone can improve substantially and become consistently accurate at ranges out to 60-80 yards; Instinctive True Believers will tell you it’s all Magic and if you’re not very good, well, tough cookies, Kid.
In a thread about “Coaches”, I guess I know which type I’d be willing to pay for his time.
Jess I believe from the post you know What Was meant. Just in case--- I shoot an Osage self bow and use nothing but a tab. I don't gap or judge yardage but it took years of practice to do it. It certainly wasn't instinctive. I shoot the fully tricked out bow at known yardages and move the sight for each yardage.There is no way the former can be as accurate at 70 meters,for most mere mortals. Thus the 17.3 yardage and the well used up targets. O.K. Don't aim,just point the bow at the target you hope to hit. If you read the definition of aim you will understand that statement. I hunt one way because it is quieter, simple, and a heck of a lot faster. The farthest I have killed a deer is 25 yards. I may fling some arrows at a target 70 meters away,with self bows, for fun, but serious practice is at 20 and closer. With the Hoyt slow and precise is the order of the day. I shoot a .22 and a .300 mag.at different targets & ranges too. Imagine that. It is all a blast. >>>>-----> ken
Often wondered why they called the early Bare Bow division the Instinctive Division for field archery. The name Freestyle division where you could use a sight made more sense. Bet they never thought it would be a debated among a huge number of folks on a computer.
Remember the first thing we did when we bought those target bows, if we didn't use a sight, was to figure out those gaps on long walk up targets, the spots on the ground for the shorter ones, and how to switch to three under for the real short 15 yd and birdshot walk up targets. Were some good hunters then who gapped on the range but could hit a swamp rabbit when he lit out of his hideout. Seems like a lot of those instinctive division shooters I first shot with have passed on, so its good we can debate what they never would have.
“ I mean Ptomaine poisoning is in old Mwedical books as is Malaria.”
I’m not entirely sure what that sentence means, but it IS curious that you should bring up a medical example, given your evident disdain toward an explanation of the acquisition of a hand-eye coordinated archery skillset which is based on current medical science and your steadfast attachment to a “pure, natural ability/just go do it” approach....
"Bill I don't wish to be disrespectful to anyone or their opinions, but just because archers believe conscious cognition isn't happening doesn't make it true. Aii the academic studies investigating neural activity during the shot sequence show the highly connscious cognitive areas of the brain lit up like a christmas tree."
Well Phil?....it seems there's plenty of disrespect being exhibited here from all sides but you sir are not a participant and it's always a pleasure engaging you on an intellectual levelas follows...
It doesn't surprise me that any archers cerebral cortex would light up like a Chistmas tree no matter how their minds process a shot sequence be it sequentially or cumulatively because either way?...the archers mind is processing that data while engaging in the execution of a number of simultaneous acts and immersing themselves into a state of physical stress.
I myself have been "On-The-Fence" (so to speak) regarding and often questioning my own beliefs concerning this topic as strong arguements are often made such as Jim Ploen's point regarding the differences between Phasic and Static muscle tension and how a truly "Surprise Release" dosen't happen for me unless my muscle tension is in fact phasic where static tension seems to mandate a very conscious loosing of the string. (for me anyways)
The part that adds muck and meir to the mess for me is those moments in archery where I'm working real hard to execute in a very formal and organized fashion only to spray a shotgun pattern of arrows and then say screw it all and damn the torpedo's and just cut loose shooting mindlessly and marvel at the nock shattering, feather wrecking groups that often come of such...seemingly free of charge...but I confess I can't count on such all the time every time and those moments of extreme success are typically short lived and while I know back tension plays a significant role in the execution mechanics?...I'm still waiting to hear from the first archer who claims they can....
"Flex Their Rhomboids" LOL!
Other than that?....I think much of these discussions surrounding instinctive shooting involve a bit of cognitive dissonance. ;)
Hey Matt is your comprehension bad or is it mine? Not sure who the gentleman is referring to. It sure is easy to tell the folks that show up at a shoot out with no ammunition isn't it. It has really been a fun day. >>>>-----> Ken
I don’t know, either Ken. Hard to follow someone who says old dictionaries have inaccurate definitions of words and then shifts over to poisonings and tropical diseases as if words develop looser and looser definitions via a process akin to medical research rather than through misunderstandings and sloppiness.
The simple fact that something is known to exist is hardly the same as its being fully understood.
It’s been a long while since I last took a standardized reading comprehension test, but I haven’t lost too many brain cells to recall that I did pretty OK on the last four...
How many post do we need for a record? The reply's are getting shorter and less interesting. I don't know if it will hold my interest much longer. Lets AIM / instinct for a record but come on guys try harder. O.K.? Have a good one. >>>>------> Ken
Suckling in a baby isn't instinctive in any biological sense. Suckling is a primitive reflex response. The excitation of the suckling reflex starts in the white anterior horn cells of the spine and has no direct connection to or with the central nervous sysyem.
I know, it's frustrating when knowledge gets in the way of ignorance
Yes, a post with something to learn instead of drivel with no connection to the subject. A day with nothing learned is a day wasted. You can get in trouble for teasing gators but like this thread it is loads of fun. Have a good day every one. >>>>-----> Ken
Again ... with all due respect, we (those of us that have worked in Neurosciences) know exactly how we aim, either thrown objects or objects shot from a secondry apparatus. Aiming is the summation of the position of an object within 3D space. In archery it's the comming together of motor state space (exterio and proprioception) and sensory state space excitation ( Sensory excitation from external sources). Spatial summation occurs when more than one action potentials AP1,AP2 and AP3 arrive simultaneously at different synapses on the same post synaptic membrane. In other words ...aiming (I use that as my signature on another site)
So we do know exactly how humans aim ... at least some of us do
“It is real archery, and if a fellow can go out and hit rabbits, stumps or any other mark at from thirty to fifty yards and do it regularly, then he is an archer of the true breed.”
Now THAT’S funny, right there, considering that almost NONE of today’s “Instinctive” shooters ever shoot past 20 yards.... and that so many seem to think that aspiring to competence at 30 is somehow contrary to the spirit of the whole endeavor....
Great now you guys are trying. The fact that you can do all of that the first time out with no learning,no teaching,& no practice Wow!!! Now I believe. Oh wait it took years and some instruction to learn & you are still limited to 17.3 yards. learn - aim - instinct - words have meaning. I concede though, Elderly OCR got it right. "The use of the word in archery"(for want of a better one) Is absolutely right. As great as archery is & the great coaches using the word wrong just doesn't make it right. It is O.K. I am sure I use it from time to time when talking to folks that expect it. I don't jump in these threads early. When the instincters start complaining about us aimers jumping on them. WELLLLL Using words like scathing,fury, mad, anger, I take it to heart and have fun trying to set the record straight & boost the post count. It is all good. >>>>-----> Ken
That is a good article and nothing new. May I point out a couple of things other than it is a mis use of the word as I have been pointing out. Forming the little circle with your hands--I am sure you are aware of the many bow sights just like that. Pointing your finger- your bow doesn't have a point. Well your arrow is right there but remember you don't see it??? Believe it or not you are subconsciously guiding your hands with your eyes. Don't believe it? Close your eyes, bring your hands up to the object then open them. You won't be near as accurate at centering the door knob. make the target smaller and farther away & you will have to practice to do it. As he said that is hand to eye coordination. "point at them with out CONSCIOUS thought" Amen. "Point your finger at the bulls-eye" Now if that isn't the cheapest sight. "Practice until you don't need it". Practice--darn that word keeps popping up." Memorize the sight pictures" no comment. Now for the biggie "At normal hunting ranges" We all know what that means. 17.3 yards right? "Aim doesn't exist" Definition, Aim---to point a weapon. Shall I go on? It really is too easy. Again I don't care how any one shoots. I do shoot a tricked out Olympic style Hoyt with all the bells and whistles. I also shoot a self bow with bamboo arrows using hand to eye coordination,sans sights and without consciously looking at the arrow. I also use a crawl, at times and use the point of the arrow to AIM. I DO READ I WISH EVERYONE DID >>>>-----> Ken
Thanks Draven, that passage has about the best explanation I have seen.
I find that most apt pupils learn it easily at 10 to 15 yards. Then closer and then walk back as described. I teach that way and use it for much of my own practice.
We do not need a new word to replace 'instinctive'. Most people except a few knotheads know that it is not meant literally but metaphorically. You could substitute 'intuitive' if you feel the need to, or 'natural'. But most bright people have been content with the word we have got for the past couple of centuries.
Another point: 'snap shooting.' Back before fibreglas lamination most bows were 'self' bows, made from unlaminated wood. Such bows lose power if held at anchor, so most good archers drew and shot quickly, snappily, though with control. We do not need to do that with modern bows but it a useful skill to practice for movers and flyers.
Finally, the claim that it only works to 20 yards is bull-oney. It takes more practice to get good past about 25 yards, but a great many archers have done it over the centuries. - lbg
Welcome Longbowguy. I remember I read somewhere the “instinctive archery” was “created” by a journalist when he wrote a hunting story of a well-known archer. The story was in these terms, more or less: “He saw the deer coming and his bow was laying next to him. Instinctively he took the bow, draw the arrow and shot the deer”. That’s how “instinctive shooting” was born. Maybe the archer was an aimer but Who cares?
There were some archers who thought about this and called it “shooting the bow with the body and mind”. They knew there are two components who must work together to get the good result. Something was lost since now most new instinctive shooters expect their mind to do all the work. Good luck with that.
PS Imagine if the hunter was never got by surprise by the deer, “instinctive shooting” was unknown as expression. Now, if someone wants to find a replacement and be proud about it, it can be called “reactive shooting”. But if someone wants to put a bad spin to it, he can call it “taken by surprise shooting”.
My mind remembers what looks correct for the distance I am shooting. I point my bow at what I want to shoot, draw and release when I hit my anchor. As long as I hit my form the arrow flys true.
I apologize for even starting this thread. I wasn't looking for a debate, i was just curious why I never see any coaches that embrace the instinctive shooting style (except Rick Welch - I took his course some years ago). It used to be a commonly taught method. I suppose it has now moved to the dark side :)
“My mind remembers what looks correct for the distance I am shooting. I point my bow at what I want to shoot, draw and release when I hit my anchor. As long as I hit my form the arrow flys true.”
That’s all anybody ever said was happening. But apparently some people have their worldview threatened if you suggest that there is a scientifically explainable (and documented) process by which you learned to do that.... Or that there is a better way to learn to do it than the method by which they themselves learned.
Honestly, it really reminds me of all the angry old men of 30 years ago who were pissed off by the fact that younger guys were learning to catch trout with a flyrod in a single season, rather than struggling with it for many years… They'd see somebody like my brother learning faster than they did and ending up better at it and it was more than they could take....
