Sights are more effective and less complicated.

String walking is a relatively modern invention to make bows more accurate while not using sights. Primarily created as a work around for the competition rules of traditional and barebow archery.

Now people should do whatever makes them happy of course. But the case for string walking that its more accurate - and accurracy is what really matters - doesnt hold up when you step back and think about using a sight. You are sacrificing mechanical function to gain an aiming system that could be accomplished by simply adding a sight.

Why not just use a sight - they work great.

Sights aren't a work-around, that's why.

What do you consider relatively modern?

"Why not just use a sight - they work great" because they don't want to. Plain and simple. Using an accessory sight requires a shooter to compete in a class they may want to. It also requires the addition of something to the bow someone may not want to add.

The same question could be asked of why not just use carbon arrows, why not just use an elevated rest, why not just shoot strictly ILF style bows, and on and on.

Every modern innovation in archery is a "work around" for something. From screw in points, to man made arrow materials, to bows cut past center to fiberglass, to replaceable blade broadheads, to.......

Stringwalking and setting up a bow for stringwalking isn't complicated or difficult to set up, that's a fallacy.

I can build an all natural materials bow (you can do the same thing with a glass laminated bow or have a REALLY good bowyer you are working with) and dynamically tiller it in such a way that I can get perfect limb timing with a set crawl on the string if I want to. And I'm not putting a sight on an all natural materials bow.

Using the adverb "relatively" gives you lots of freedom for application of an adjective such as modern. It can mean pretty much anything. :)

Agree with Dartwick wholeheartedly on this!

I thought that way. Watching the arrow go with string walking is a treat Don't knock it until you give it a good try. Rooty

Darwick:

You obviously have an opinion. You know what they say about them, "everybody has one" And I get the feeling your just trying to stir the pot!!!

Bob

Pretty sure that originally, and way back in the day, guitar players just kind of strummed away on their 6 strings without much variety. Eventually, they realized that if they used string walking, they could play a lot more songs and it just worked out better. Seems to apply here with the single stick and string archery guys stuff but hopefully George will correct or add to this if needed.

It's all about learning to use the tool in hand "without" adding anything to it.

Some have the discipline & skill to do it. Some don't.

Example: Most folks can pull a nail with a hammer, but many of those who can, can't drive a nail worth a hoot. :-) :-P

Rick

Most people don't like to drill holes in their bows for sights and sights are not that easy to set up and tune. I shot using the string walking technique starting in 1967. Is that relatively modern?

Here we go again. Make some popcorn and sit back. LOL

Well, it still just doesn't look right!!!

I find stringwalking better because the relation between you, arrow and target is stronger. Nothing is more rewarding than putting the tip of the arrow "there" and hitting "there". A sight for me is breaking this liaison. But if you are someone who "doesn't see the arrow" by default you can't understand. Popcorn for all in 2 hours.

Back in the day when they shot bare bow, and sights were prohibited guys shot the string walking system, and it was legit. Scores jumped, and eventually string walking was prohibited in bare bow events. A percentage of hunters back in the day did use sights,and that is part of the reason why we patch holes on vintage bows, and could string walk if they chose to for hunting. Some will tell you that sights are not more effective, and string walking is no more complicated than sights once you get the initial set up correct. Jim Blackmon ,and others still use the system today. Deadly in the right archers hands.

"Clearly two very separate things!! Duh"

Clearly you don't get it.

90% of the fish are caught by 10% of the fishermen. Dartwick is part of that 10% club.

"I must apologize, but I do not. Is there a secret decoder ring or handshake or something??"

No, you just need to read above.

Dartwick is beginning to have as much success as babysaph when it comes to getting a controversy going. :)

Yeah but, when the fish cast back is when it get real interesting.

I love it. :-)

Rick

If I want a sight, I will shoot a crossbow. Now this is a controversy.

A sight won’t work if you have a high anchor and shoot 3 under. You’ll never get the sight low enough and if you do your arrow will hit it.

Try string walking on a crossbow. Then tell me it is the same as a sight. >>>---> Ken

@ sticking hunter

Theres no particular reason to shoot 3-under or with a high anchor if you use a sight.

3-under and high anchors are basically compromises with more ideal mechanical form to improve accuracy.

And just to be clear Im not saying that barebow is silly. Im just saying that maintaining barebow form is an odd reason to be against sights.

"And just to be clear Im not saying that barebow is silly. Im just saying that maintaining barebow form is an odd reason to be against sights."

An "odd reason" is for people who never shot and understood. The barebow and stringwalking go hand in hand with the definition: Olympic Archery rig without stabs, clicker and SIGHT. Stringwalking is an aiming method who's bringing the archer to a level of accuracy better than other known aiming methods. Is this method necessary for a 14 yards shooter? NO!

Silly bearbow. Rooty

I've got Bow and Arrow mag back to 68 or 69. In fall of 69 there was an article called " String walking? Cheating?". So its not too new. And it was not allowed unless the club had a class for it. It may not look the same as sights but the effect is the same. The disadvantage I see over sights is its a little slower for most guys and some larger broadheads ain't gonna fly at all distances. The biggest advantage is you're not gonna bump or drop your bow n throw your sights off. It's a great way to avoid competing with sight shooters, but have sights.

Oh, and fixed craw I never saw in the old days till europians started doing it.

Using silly in the thread title is bait

"Too much mind!" ;-)

I do believe there were another people doing it along time before we came along here!So it’s a pretty ancient way of aiming/sighting a stick bow and arrow…..lol……2bears…good1! That Full Moon is in full swing I’ve seen the last few days……..some say it doesn’t affect people I think otherwise……:)

“ Is this method necessary for a 14 yards shooter? ”

I don’t think there is ANY “method“ which is strictly necessary for a 14 yard shooter. The question is, why the hell would anyone be willing to settle for being just a 14 yard shooter???

Rooty that one dot might be suffering. Maybe a test before ur allowed to shoot dots? Just sayin.

I know in 67 Frank Gandy used it to win the nfaa nationals. He shot the first 560 clean animal round that year. It was probably used before that but hardly in ancient times since snap on nocks didn't exist. Try string walking with loose nocks or nock that have nothing to hold them on.

stickhunter said: "A sight won’t work if you have a high anchor and shoot 3 under. You’ll never get the sight low enough and if you do your arrow will hit it."

That would be true if attempting to use a modern sight mainly designed for a wheel bow, or the riser is too short. Even with a short riser, using the correct sight-type the pin housing can still be raised and allow a 20-30 yard pin set. Been there, done that.

The sight on my "Jensen", using 3 under, easily adjusted to a 30+ setting, and using a COC broadhead I had ample arrow/broadhead clearance of the sight.

Stickbow sights

I have used the right sights on recurves and I have been successfully using 3-under for longer than I can recall

"The original post basically says, he prefers sights to string walking when rules don't apply. He feels its more accurate...

everyone jumps down his throat ???"

Huh?

With titles like "String Walking Cheaters" and "Why String Walking is Silly Overall" and you wonder why people get cranked up?

String walking probably does seem pretty silly--- if you're not smart enough to learn the mechanics of it including the tuning nuances. Sounds like somebody got their butt handed to him by a stringwalker and now its " pretty silly". Personally i don't stringwalk, but i'll take nothing away from the guys that put in the time and do it well.

Trad Archery 101 on different drawing types and anchor points. A very informative video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APOthB6I3Jc

“Theres no particular reason to shoot 3-under or with a high anchor if you use a sight. 3-under and high anchors are basically compromises with more ideal mechanical form to improve accuracy.”

If you have never sufficiently walked the walk, don’t talk the talk.

I started using 3-under years ago, but my primary purpose was not for getting the arrow closer to my eye. It was an unplanned benefit.

My primary reason for going 3-under was for comfort, quicker access to my draw position on the string, and minimal to zero finger pressure on the arrow nock when using best shooting form is not in the card. I also use 2 string nocks to eliminate or reduce finger pressure on the arrow nock.

I'm always amazed at how people who don't know what they don't know, post things they don't know, trying to convince folks they know something they don't.

Now I want to try string walking and fixed crawl. I never thought much about it until watching the Push. Makes a lot of sense even if it looks funny when you are doing it.

On the other hand it’s still “trad” if your using a recurve or longbow?

"Sights are more effective and less complicated."

Not true. You generally need an entirely different bow. Back in the 70s when I got into adult archery, I had bought a 52 inch Browning recurve, and the local pro shop outfitted me with a launcher rest and a cobra sight. Not good. To really make sights work you need a gigantic window. These days it will probably be an ILF bow, as there are not so many all wood bows for target, as there used to be. You can just tape a pin to your riser, but that is not going to be more effective and probably will be more complicated if you go through the never ending upgrades.

I don't know if sights are more accurate. You can look at accuracy a lot of different ways:

1) If you want to toss a shot into the goodies from 15 yards, there isn't a huge advantage to nailing it better than good enough, and you can certainly do that with any of the various methods that combine a ton of new options, whether gap, tuning for point on, string walking, or combinations of the above.

2) String walking has the advantage of, within the tunability of the system, having infinite sight positions, on the fly, most sight systems do not do that.

The thing about real traditional is that while it is more challenging, and less reliant on gadgets, it is technologically massively superior, if you can make it work. Every bit of gear Howard Hill had (and what people who follow that path use today), is basically better than the most technological crap out there, IF you can make it work.

Release aids are hugely effective, but if you don't miss your shot, then why would you make life more complicated and inefficient by using one. Same question if you are considering any of the technology. In target you can always make the shot more difficult, and so there is no conceptual reason to limit the gear. But that is not the hunting environment. And in practical terms it isn't the target environment, the only real limit there is the size of the field whatever gear you choose can attract to competitions. Everything else is pretty much irrelevant if you are a competitor.

"Now people should do whatever makes them happy of course. But the case for string walking that its more accurate - and accurracy is what really matters - doesnt hold up when you step back and think about using a sight. You are sacrificing mechanical function to gain an aiming system that could be accomplished by simply adding a sight."

Of course it is impossible to add a beneficial sight to many trad bows, so you can start from scratch, and when you talk about "giving up mechanical advantage" how soon till you are in the field with a compound system (nothing wrong with that, but it isn't what people on this site are into, relative to this site).

"Why not just use a sight - they work great."

Well it wouldn't be because they never thought about it, or haven't tried it, but thanks for being redundant. These aren't new questions.

Look at many older bows from the sixties and seventies, lots of sight holes, best I remember a lot of people used them quite well back then . You do need to be pretty good at distance estimation and learn how to gap between pins for the in between distances . Some people even used a single pin and held over or under a bit as needed. Seems like a fixed crawl would work much the same, perhaps a little louder on the shot but never having used a fixed crawl I cant state that as a fact but when I shot barebow for field the bow did not seem as quite .Barebow (string walking ) is just another way and form of archery and no more silly than any other method .

I have 62 inch Samick Sage that sports a set of Hoyt sights. I have a 70 Pro Medalist that I string walk with. I have a 66 inch ILF that I use with a fixed crawl, and a 62 inch Golden Sovereign BP that I gap shoot with, and self bows I shoot instinct with. Try them all, and give them a chance, and then you will know what suits you best. Non of them are silly. Just different methods.

Use what ever you want be it sights, string walking, 3 under, split, gap and there maybe more. It still comes down to the shooter no matter what method is used.

You do your homework you'll reap the benefits only if your worthy.

Spot on Darwick.

GLF…..ever hear of the “Long Sassanid”…..string walking with self nocks…pretty ancient draw and aiming technic.

He couldn’t hold a candle to me. Lol. But he is getting better and is getting a lot of posts.

No, never have Smokey. Ya got me there.

x2 The Whittler,,I think Howard would say, Who cares, bring it on, let the best shot win.

Agree with Darwick

I don't use either sights or string walking but I will say that string walking would conceivably ruin a selfbow's tiller because f addd pressure on the lower limb. Jawge

Split bows are going here for the summer. Rooty

Oops. let me try.that again.

"I don't use either sights or string walking but I will say that string walking would conceivably ruin a selfbow's tiller because of added pressure on the lower limb."

Cameron, I could provide a home where those bows would feel the inclusive environment I have built for bows of all types and designs.

Thanks maybe. I am down to under 20, oh my nose just grew. Surely under 30. Putting a few first shot bows out here says travel time. Rooty

Who cares? If it works for you.. gap, split vision, string walking, sights.

X2 Westrayer

No buddy cares how others shoot their bows, it is simply ones opinion about the subject.

I use one of my long recurves when shooting it 3D Barebow rather than Trad. Improved string walking might make me more competitive Vs the few wheelies who shoot Barebow.

It seems to me if you shoot any method other than split finger, I mean drawing with your fingers below the nocking point, you are not getting an even pull against both limbs. For those who do that, do you find dynamic spine differences? And do you use those methods when hunting? Do you see velocity differences? I would think the perfection you seek is useless when hunting. But then I relate all shooting to hunting. I mean to ask if string walking is a benefit at unknown distances in the woods? Do you believe that method is as ancient as archery, or even as old as using a sight? Some hunting shots must be taken without time to decide where your fingers should be. I ask because I actually do not understand why a hunter would use any method other than instinctive. Does a string walker think in terms of yardage? Such questions are not meant to offend or degrade your method. If any method would allow me to shoot accurately in the woods beyond 50ft., I'm all for it.

Any method of shooting anything requires range estimation. That estimation can be in exact yards, or in close, not so close, far, and too far.

The main difference being whether a person does or does not choose to acknowledge they are estimating yardage.

;->

;->

"It seems to me if you shoot any method other than split finger, I mean drawing with your fingers below the nocking point, you are not getting an even pull against both limbs. For those who do that, do you find dynamic spine differences?"

While stringwalking you tune for one distance - usually around the middle of the range - and the up and down you will shoot a more or less detuned arrow.

"And do you use those methods when hunting? "

Stringwalking is not for hunting, but fixed crawl is. You can go down the string to have a short point on distance you hunt and tune an arrow for it. You add a nocking point (the 3rd) on the string as "marker" and you can shoot it easy even in low light.

"Do you see velocity differences?"

It is a difference of couple of fps from lets say 5m crawl and 50m crawl, but is unperceived without a chrono.

"I would think the perfection you seek is useless when hunting. But then I relate all shooting to hunting. I mean to ask if string walking is a benefit at unknown distances in the woods?"

Stringwalking per se is not beneficial without a light arrow. Since the aiming method is very accurate when you know the distance to the yard, you need to be perfect at knowing the distance to get the full advantage form the aiming system. You missed by 2 yards, you don't get an X but a 10. A 10 is easy for a good gaper. On unknown 3D course with unknown distances and with ups and downs, a gapper will hold his own against a stringwalker. Check the World Archery 3D competitions and you will see how stringwalkers are not nailing the X each time they shoot.

"Do you believe that method is as ancient as archery, or even as old as using a sight?"

It was invented in 60's. It is not as old as the sight.

"Some hunting shots must be taken without time to decide where your fingers should be. I ask because I actually do not understand why a hunter would use any method other than instinctive. Does a string walker think in terms of yardage?"

Your fingers are on the string way before the animal comes in the shooting range. If you need to put them on the string quick, the animal got you by surprise and your shot most likely will have 50-50 chances to be a good shot, depending on how strong mentally you are. There are a lot of fix-crawl shooters who don't have this problem - I mentioned the 3rd nock on the string.

"Such questions are not meant to offend or degrade your method. If any method would allow me to shoot accurately in the woods beyond 50ft., I'm all for it."

Beyond 50 yards, your accuracy is result of your execution - you are close to your point on most of the time.

PS Stringwalking is a specialized type of archery. Specialized is not "silly" unless you disregard specialized activities in general.

You may get answers from Rick Barbee. I am not sure if there are still you tube videos. Over the years I ve seen him do a number of things your asking. He shoots over 60# with heavy arrows over 200 fps. I am about a week in on this system and it's like a Neil Diamond song that keeps me wanting more. Compound shooters deal with a lot of the same problems and they manage to get the job done. Any type of aiming takes longer to get the shot off. No harm in knowing both or all. Rooty

Jawge, It's a good thing you corrected what you said, you could have started a war....Ha!Ha!

On my fixed blinds/stands, I use a range finder, and mark distances to land marks (trees, bushes, etc), then never have to use it again. When an animal comes within range, I know the distance immediately.

When hunting moving around with the ghillie suit, I do the same thing. As soon as I get set in a spot I use the range finder once, then put it back in the pack. Again, I know the distance for the shot as soon as the animal comes within range.

The only time I use the range finder multiple times on a hunt is when I am doing spot & stalk, and only then "if" I think I have the time to do it (which I usually do).

Also when hunting, I do not use a multiple string walk positions on the string. I use a 20 yard fixed crawl marker, that I can find with a feel, and get to very quickly without having to look, then I gap (if needed) off that.

As far as sound is concerned: There's very little difference in sound, and none at my 20 yard crawl. Never enough to make even the slightest bit of difference even when I go as far down as a 10 yard crawl.

As far as performance is concerned: Yes, there is some loss, but it isn't enough to worry about.

The last pig I killed (with the bow) was a 200+ pounder at 6 yards quartering to me. The arrow went through (blew up) the onside shoulder, came out through the offside ribs, and shield, stuck in a tree about another 6 yards out, broke off in the tree, and the back half of the shaft went another 20 or so yards.

That was with 64#, and a 630gr / 14% foc arrow.

Rick

Anyway, silly, or not, it is very effective "IF" you know what you're doing, including how to tune, and shoot. :-)

Rick

I will see where this fixed crawl reference ends up. 3 under point on is 47 yards. Test and tune tomorrow. Rooty

String walking is silly.

Use a sight for accuracy.

You want potentially the most accurate set-up? One that requires less skill than “Traditional Archery” equipment?

Leave longbows and recurves behind and get a bow with training wheels, that is, use a compound bow with all of its gadgets and gizmos. EOD.

I have $2700 in one that sits in the case not into it. Rooty

[[[ "String walking is silly.

Use a sight for accuracy.

You want potentially the most accurate set-up? One that requires less skill than “Traditional Archery” equipment?

Leave longbows and recurves behind and get a bow with training wheels, that is, use a compound bow with all of its gadgets and gizmos. EOD." ]]]

LOL. Given the context of "this discussion", that is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read on here.

Rick

It's always been intriguing to me to see how accurately a longbow or recurve can be shot regardless of how you aim it.

I do not know all the technical things of archery but I really enjoy 3under and string walking. It's enjoyable and works for me. More fun than when I shot competition with compound.. hinge release ... scope... and 3 ft stabelizer.

Rick x2

Not sure why all the fuss over stringwalking at 3D. At hunting distance 3D its proven not to be an advantage by years of scores you can look at at IBO past events. Sure sometimes a few shooters will have a bit higher scores in the stringwalking classes but they are also allowed equipment advantages of mechanical clickers that are a huge advantage.

I also have seen loss performance string walking and noticed an increase in feedback and some noise additional noise from the bow especially where dropping the fingers more than an inch below the knocking point at about 15 yards. But that is one case for one archer with a 40 years spot on.

With three under and string walking there are many tricks a shooter can use to compensate and tune a bow down quiet. Like arrow length, nock height, anchor height, rest height probably a bunch more.

Well folks, I hurt OldBeginner55's feelings, and got a PM from him calling me a meanie, and saying he won't be back to this forum.

Tip for the day (and always): Don't make condescending, and snide remarks, and you won't get called on them. Yes OldBeginner55, your comment was condescending, side, AND dumb.

Bye. :-)

Rick

I prefer shoot split finger corner of mouth anchor, but I've tried 3-under, string walking, face walking and sight pins. Nothing wrong with any of those other methods. They put the point of your arrow (or the pin) right on the target, provided you know the distance to the target. To me, estimating the sight gap is simpler than estimating the yardage, then picking the correct string position, anchor point or sight pin.

I don't understand all the controversy. Who cares how you shoot. Just because its not my way doesn't mean anything.

I agree with the who cares comments. "You" shoot the way "you" want to shoot to make "you" happy.

BUT, when someone starts throwing the "might as well use a compound with sights" comment out there when someone is talking about striving for better accuracy with their stickbow, well it peeves me (to say the least).

I'm not an A-Hole, but I can be when it is warranted. It was warranted.

Rick

I hear you Rick. No problem on my end.

It would help some new guys if they'd just remember the only equipment that's trad or not are bows with or without wheels/cams. Man we messed up on using that word back in the 80s.

Yeah Gary, that was a bad call for a name for what we do.

It would also help, that when folks come on a "stickbow" site, and talk about wanting to increase their accuracy, if folks automatically knew they are talking about "stickbow" accuracy, and nothing else.

Rick

For those who deride the OP for thinking it silly, look at all the responses. He thinks SW-ing is silly. He believes it is. Others agree. Me, I think it's silly because I can't even comprehend the method, I can't recognize it as a viable traditional thing. At the same time, I got no problem with how anyone chucks his arrows.

So you believe something it is silly because you don’t understand it. Priceless. Silly, but priceless.

These threads always seem to be 50% "whatever makes you happy". By all means, "follow you bliss".

"It would also help, that when folks come on a "stickbow" site, and talk about wanting to increase their accuracy, if folks automatically knew they are talking about "stickbow" accuracy, and nothing else."

I am sure there are a million opinions, but I thought "stickbow" rules out sights? Doubtless just me, but when a guy says, "hey Brunno, fetch that stick", I don't expect Bruno to come back with with a stick that has a riser, carbon limbs, a carbon stabilizer, 3D printed grip, a sight,clicker, and a guy shooting a Stan release. I'm just old fashioned that way.

By the way, Just ordered 30 yards of carbon cloth, got nothing against the stuff and now that we can use it in skin canoe class, I figure why not.

There are many ways to shoot a bow. I estimate distance, then either look at the spot I want to hit if target/animal is about 20 yards or a spot slightly low if closer. All the way out to 70 plus yards I know the trajectory of my arrow and point higher. At 30 yards I have grouped very tightly, at 70 yards I consider 20" for six arrows acceptable. For hunting, I find this system fast and accurate, I have killed deer from eight yards to 30 yards with it.

[[[ "I thought "stickbow" rules out sights?" ]]]

No. It does not.

"Stickbow" means a one string bow, with zero mechanical advantage of drawing the bow other than the bending of the limbs by drawing the string.

Archers, and bow hunters have been using different forms of sighting methods (including things attached to the bow as a sight reference) for a lot longer than many realize. It goes back as far as even into a time when all equipment by "today's" definitions would be considered "primitive".

Rick

String walking is anything but silly. It's accurate! Archers that use this method do so for that reason. So, the thread title was not the best choice of words? Probably. Is it a work around of rules? Who knows and who really cares. I ain't going to lose any sleep over it. To me it's just a different method as is gap and instinctive etc. Either way an archer has to put in the time and effort to make it work as we all do,whichever method we use. If the archer next me whips my arse using that method,good on him.

Who cares? The guys that don't cheat, that's who ;^)

Who cares? The guys that don't cheat, that's who ;^)

Huh? From what I know, nobody used stringwalking in a sanctioned competition against a gapper or instinctive shooter. In this case you blow a horn just to hear the sound of your breath Jeff.

I welcome all types of shooters to compete with me. May the best arrow win, and may the day be filled with fun. Simple

Don’t see a post by oldbegginer55

The world is not ending if you don't JR

His post is still there JR.

"No. It does not.

"Stickbow" means a one string bow, with zero mechanical advantage of drawing the bow other than the bending of the limbs by drawing the string."

With huge respect, Rick, who says that is the definition? And why is the definition always something stupid. Longbows it turns out are actually short, and stickbows are actually defined by the string. Seriously? Who makes this nonsense up.

That definition applies to normal crossbows, by the way. And it would apply to Genesis as they have one string and no eccentric, cam, or let-off. It could apply to Dynabow, I think it has one sting it does have a cam. But the way the perverse definitions in archery work, someone will probably point out that since most modern "stickbows" do not actually have a linear force/draw curve, and do have let-off what is the difference? Where do you draw the line. If it isn't linear, there is a cam. Didn't that guy with the wiggly bows actually brand them as cam limbs?

On the other hand, if "Stickbow" refered to how some bows are like sticks, then it would make sense. Selfbows, Hill bows, one piece recurves, things that are actually like primitive bows. It is still a mater of degree, but it makes sense.

I also notice a complete lack of people who shoot, say FITA gear, conducting their activities under the stickbow banner.

But I am here to be schooled, 300/98 pounds, wow.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Archers, and bow hunters have been using different forms of sighting methods (including things attached to the bow as a sight reference) for a lot longer than many realize. It goes back as far as even into a time when all equipment by "today's" definitions would be considered "primitive".

Rick

Agree with that!

Barebow now that's a stick bow. After all it's bare. Rooty

Interesting Leatherwall = Stickbow.com = Folks talk about ILF bows.

Well Bowlim, I was around when it wasn't called Traditional, and remember very well when folks started calling it that.

Maybe it has a different meaning in different places, but in this neck of the woods it was the term used for anyone who was shooting recurves, longbows, and selfbows (period).

Guess what - It was the compound folk who coined the phrase, and it was to describe exactly as I laid it out for you above.

I won't argue the point, and you'll never change my mind about it.

```````````````

Grizzly, ILF is just an attachment system.

The ability to adjust tiller & draw weight on take down bows has been around a long LONG time. Much longer than even the oldest of us here have been on this earth.

I've been adjusting tiller on bows (even all wood one piece bows) to suit me for as long as I can remember. All ILF has done for me is save me the time, and elbow grease of using rasps, files, and sandpaper.

To call them anything other than just a recurve is asinine, and recurves (of any configuration) fit very well into the originally intended definition of Traditional.

Rick

"Maybe it has a different meaning in different places, but in this neck of the woods it was the term used for anyone who was shooting recurves, longbows, and selfbows (period)."

Can't argue with that, but at best it is only a local definition. It may have applied in other localities also. And I am not interested in what compound bow shooters call us.

I am resigned to the fact that this stuff is now nearly 40 years in the rear view mirror, and there the origin is probably lost.

"Maybe it has a different meaning in different places, but in this neck of the woods it was the term used for anyone who was shooting recurves, longbows, and selfbows (period)."

Can't argue with that, but at best it is only a local definition. It may have applied in other localities also. And I am not interested in what compound bow shooters call us.

I am resigned to the fact that this stuff is now nearly 40 years in the rear view mirror, and there the origin is probably lost.

But I still hold that is a poor definition if it applies to crossbows, for one.

Please forgive me in advance, but for what it is worth, here is my take. Use whatever you like. But please don't call a method silly. I cannot shoot 3 under, and have it do what I want. I have found, through trial and error, the method that best gets me to hit the spot which I intend. I use split finger, with my index on the lower orbital bone directly under my pupil. I use a static release since, when I tried a dynamic release, it made me prone to plucking. So, what works for me may seem silly to you. But, the deer will be just as dead. Yesterday, I intended to hit a quarter sized spot at 20 yards. It was FUN because I watched the nock arrive right where I wanted. I left compounds behind as they were "too mechanical" to depend upon in a situation where products might not be available(look where we are today). I chose traditional for its simplicity. But, if sights get you your gold or your squirrel, I will NEVER call it silly or make fun of you. More than that, if your situation is a physical challenge that leaves you shooting compound, neither will I be the one that mocks that method. I am just glad there is another archer in the woods with me. Have a good season, y'all.

"Sights are more effective and less complicated. String walking is a relatively modern invention to make bows more accurate while not using sights. Primarily created as a work around for the competition rules of traditional and barebow archery. Now people should do whatever makes them happy of course. But the case for string walking that its more accurate - and accurracy is what really matters - doesnt hold up when you step back and think about using a sight. You are sacrificing mechanical function to gain an aiming system that could be accomplished by simply adding a sight. Why not just use a sight - they work great." DARTWICK

Above is just a reminder of what Dartwick actually said, a good idea since quite a few either didn't read it, don't understand it, misrepresented it or simply forgot it. Not unusual since despite this site's good intent the reading comprehension and constructive debate end has never been a good attribute, or even 'an' attribute. Not that it matters, we're all used to fighting for opinion space in the never-ending chat sight wars against facts, logic and 'tradition' (that last term being especially pot-stirring). 'SILLY ARCHERY ARGUEMENTS AND BASELESS OPINIONS for $500', Alex. And so it goes.

But I digress. Returning to original mindless arguing, in the overall I agree with Dartwick on his point that stringwalking makes no sense relative to the advantages of using a real sight. Except that you can pretend you aren't using a sight (Hmmm...very clever). I also think ten rings in 3D competitions should be clearly marked so you can actually see what your supposed to hit and get enough points to prove you can, well, hit what you're supposed to see...wait, what?. And while we're clearing the air, the Leatherwall should split into two sites, 'Hunting Leatherwall' and 'Target Leatherwall' (ok not Target Leatherwall, that's redundant. Maybe 'Mechanical Olympic Methodology Leatherwall'...perfect).

That's my take. I feel much better now.

"Silly" in a thread title. Kudos, dartwick! Excellent LW troll bait, triggering nibbles, bites and strikes guaranteeing a full stringer of subjective responses. Well done! ;)

Ob-la-di, ob-la-da Life goes on, bra La, la, how the life goes on.

No stickbow or "trad" rules out nothing but wheels and cams. Hell ole Fred Bear used sights in the 1930's, WITH NO SIGHT WINDOW. He wouldn't have stopped if not for a bad case of tp.

Well yea people do what they want but just talking the science of it for accuracy I say they both work. I do what I want. The deer hate my instinctive shooting

yup... SW'ing is for people that cling to aiming.

Aiming is a good thing, for those who think otherwise...we all aim or we won't hit. You can convince yourself otherwise however.

Sorry, didn't notice this was an old thread

Draven yes someone did use stringwalking in a sanctioned event to win over the top barebow shooters in the country. Frank Gandy used string walking to win the nfaa national championship in 1967. He shot the first perfect animal round in doing so. That whd the string walking controversy started.

That sanctioned competition was not banning stringwalking, so the controversy was created by the people who lost. It is always this way, not the other way around aka: the loser's aiming method is becoming a controversy

Seems like it would be fun to fool with but having that nock up there on it's own and not having control of it gives me the willies....

I do aim. Not going to lie. Just don’t do it like a lot of others

“ Any type of aiming takes longer to get the shot off. No harm in knowing both or all.”

I will agree with the latter but not the former. JMO, the better you get with any one method just improves your effectiveness with all the others.

That said…. Any type of conscious adjustment for range is likely to slow you down because we can only think just so fast; but you can easily “sight” down your arrow on the draw and cut loose as you pull through your anchor just as the tip of your arrow floats to the correct hold below your target.

That’s a simplified description of a rather complex sequence of events which - like playing an interesting guitar riff - can take a fair chunk of time to get down pat. But once it’s ingrained, it happens so quickly that you can only screw it up by thinking about it. It’s so fast that it’s virtually “instinctive”. It just works better.

And FWIW, I tend to agree with the OP; stringwalking does seem to be a rather contrived solution to a problem created by a somewhat arbitrary rule which says - in essence - “Thou Shalt Not Useth Thine Sight Pins…. But feeleth thou Free to use whateverthehell workarounds you can come up with.”

Now….. (speaking just for myself!) I do a great number of VERY silly things for any number of reasons on a really quite regular basis, and I enjoy all of them… Or else I wouldn’t bother to do it. Some people ask “why the hell would you ever buy a manual transmission?”, and I am more inclined to ask “how could you ever force yourself to forego shifting your own damn gears? Don’t you even want to DRIVE???”

But most people actually don’t, which is why manual transmissions are becoming about as popular (relative to automatics) has Stickbows are, compared to compounds. Most people seem to just want to get from a to B, and they don’t really care one way or the other how much expertise is required to do that. So they take the path of least resistance… Because that’s the path of least resistance!

You get right down to it and stringwalking is really just an alternate means of shooting multiple sight pins while complying with a rule that says those aren’t allowed. And it does carry a bit of a cost which is probably not worth it for hunting but it is an OK trade-off for target work. Makes me wonder what would happen if the target competitions required broadheads…..

??

The more responses I read here, the sillier I think string walking is. Most accuracy enhancing methods are silly to me, with a sight being the least silly. A sight makes the most sense because it is a straight forward method that is not pretentious. 3 under and point on, whatever that means, are silly. I don't think in terms of rules or complications. I have no idea how many yards it is to my target. I just shoot. Surely there are those among us who simply use split fingers and do not consciously see the arrow or its point. Traditional is more than equipment. It is at its heart purely instinctive shooting. Silly is as sill does.

Talking about something you never did is as stupid as it gets.

geezer. Right on.

>The more responses I read here, the sillier I think string walking is. Most accuracy enhancing methods are silly to me, with a sight being the least silly. A sight makes the most sense because it is a straight forward method that is not pretentious.

Pretentious?

>3 under and point on, whatever that means, are silly.

3 under is just a way of holding the string Young shot 3 under from a low anchor.

Pretty much any time you shoot a bow it has a point on yardage.

>I don't think in terms of rules or complications. I have no idea how many yards it is to my target. I just shoot.

Ignorance is bliss, unfortunately, over time, shooting sports degenerate into known yardage. I was so disappointed when it happened to golf, it was so much fun just winging it. But at some point yardage can become conscious, then what do you do? So it is a fair perception that you prefer to shoot without yardage, but what do you do when you know yardage? Either you are at a range with marked targets, or you walked it, or you have a laser (unpretentious option), or you are shooting multiple arrows, or you shot 3D and now you can't look at a target without a number popping up, or you survey for a living...

>Surely there are those among us who simply use split fingers and do not consciously see the arrow or its point.

Unconscious of arrow does not mean you aren't gaping. In sight shooting, instinctive, gap, or walking, you have versions where the focal point is the target, and versions where the focal point is the sight. Doesn't mater whether you are shooting with a scoped compound; FITA; or Hill style, top shooters do not see the sight, and then some do. In the year I did my biggest study session it was interesting because video was sparse back then and all three top shooters I had video for did not see the arrow or pin in primary vision. They were Randy Ulmer; Jay Barrs; Howard Hill. And all the secondaries I studied looked at the pin they were top FITA, and IBO shooters, but not the top ones on video. Most trad was instinctive in the 90s.

And here is something to blow your mind, artillery, shooting lobs at formations of soldiers, largely means you are way past point on, and you have the arrow in front of your face like a telephone pole.

>Traditional is more than equipment. It is at its heart purely instinctive shooting. Silly is as sill does.

I can agree with that because trad once had a definition it no longer has, depends a lot, but people were target shooting back in ancient England, and they expected you to hit what you were shooting at on targets or clout, so I have to think with large groups all shooting similar challenges, as was the law, there was at least some reference shooting. You were under command, and they didn't want any excuses.

>And FWIW, I tend to agree with the OP; stringwalking does seem to be a rather contrived solution to a problem created by a somewhat arbitrary rule which says - in essence - “Thou Shalt Not Useth Thine Sight Pins…. But feeleth thou Free to use whateverthehell workarounds you can come up with.”

The rule evolves from an interesting test, and that test is "lets see who shoots the best scores without a sight or marked reference on their bow". String walking is the kludge that wins at times.

I think the practicality comes from evolving concepts on certainty. Back in the day people would let loose at 100 yards, if you read Hill or Pope and Young. Today, archery needs to be a 100% sport. I think that is ideal in any situation, and kinda mandatory when you go to places in Europe and Africa where you pay to wound, and in many cases, you don't get invited back. How would you shoot if you would loose your hunting privileges with one shot. That was the rule on one Scottish concession I heard about.

And in a lot of places you need short recoveries because you are hunting on small lots. So again perfect shots.

Now you look at shoots like IBO, or the Lancaster Barebow, and you see lots of missed vitals from 20 yards in the pro barebow classes and mostly nobody shoot without a reference.

So people can talk about how great they are, but if you put a real world performance requirement on them, they can fall short. Even the best shooters, and the best techniques. And, really is it the string walking that is making them miss from 20 yards, it is basically shooting with a pin.

And then you have to deal with average shooters...

My opinion only, and I don't care how people shoot, but honestly I cannot even watch a video when they are string walking. Nothing about it looks right. Again, just my thought.

Saying something is silly because something else is more effective.... is silly.

The trad police strikes again.

Fear of the unknown.

:D

Rick

Some peeps need to get a life and mind their own business ... it's been a long while since I've read such 'back & forth' rubbish ...

Folks should do what they want to do to get the accuracy they want and all others should not worry about it. Condolences to all those who got caught up in this thread.

"Folks should do what they want to do to get the accuracy they want and all others should not worry about it. Condolences to all those who got caught up in this thread." I agree, a discussion with multiple people will go many different directions as they always have, its the nature of the beast and humans will disagree and agree.

I got called stupid and ignorant. Stupid and ignorant. The worst I said was silly. Is this what we've come to? Whoever uses the meanest or most hurtful name wins?

I'm not going to say it silly, but I sure used to get tired of waiting on old Clyde to get a shot off at the 3D shoots. I really did get sick of watching him play with his string.

Run what you bring how you want to run it. It doesn't matter to me how you like to shoot. Just have a good time with your fellow archer's. Some say it isn't traditional unless it's a selfbow taken from a tree on the south slope of the mountain of the blue moon. If you're like me you don't know where that is. So I give up guess I will just have fun.

Interesting read. I've been absent for a few years. Some ignorance in the posts - don't take offense - ignorance is not the same as stupid ;-)

Stringwalking allows you to use the tip of the arrow as a sight. I won the IBO Worlds and 2 x IFAA Worlds using that system. Today I don't have time to shoot like I did then but I still love to shoot. I just use electrical tape to tape a toothpick to my riser. I use it as a sight with THREE UNDER AND A HIGH ANCHOR. LOL LOL silly guy.

Here are pics of the last shot last season and the first show this season using the toothpick. Oh and my father taught me the toothpick. He used it in 1958. It seemed to be in back then, when men grew scrotums and did not aim.

“ Oh and my father taught me the toothpick. He used it in 1958. It seemed to be in back then, when men grew scrotums and did not aim.”

So you’re saying that using a toothpick for a sight is “not aim[ing]”….???

Whoooooo-eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! This is gonna get entertaining!!!!

FWIW - I agree that Ignorance is value-neutral. I don’t know how to adjust the carburetor on my outboard; I am Ignorant, but not unwilling to learn, not incapable of doing so, and do not count myself better than any man who knows more about a given topic than I do. Ignorance is only damnable when it is embraced as some kind of Virtue.

I shamelessly use my entire arrow as a visual cue to enhance my accuracy, but don’t string-walk. Is that OK??

When I don’t have time, I grip it and rip it…. and tennis-balls beware!!

It was one of those pins with a bead on it when I started shooting. The local range would rent you a bow, and you would hold it up to your face, then he could tape on the pin, and next stop, the Olympics.

That said After having seen some Jimmy videos, I do wonder why he needs a pin, but if it brings back memories, all the better.

Corax_latrans - read my post again. "I use it as a sight with THREE UNDER AND A HIGH ANCHOR."

Doesn't it negatively effect the tiller?

Nice to see you back, Jimmy :)

I did understand you to say that you are shooting with a sight. Where you confused me was the bit about “Real Men” not Aiming but your dad using a sight… Pretty sure he rated as a Real Man and raised at least one other.

In the words of the legendary golf instructor Butch Harmon: "If you aim at nothing, you'll hit it every time."

True in golf, true in archery...and shotgunning...and handguns...and rifles...and.......

At least ONE thing never seems to change. My way is right, your way is wrong. Or....maybe even silly.

Sheesh.......

Corax_latrans - my attempt at being sarcastic. Internet failure. I meant that Dad used a sight back when "all archers were real men and certainly didn't aim."

I always laugh at the guys who romanticize the past into something it wasn't. Many seem to think that back in the day, everyone shot a certain primitive way. Reality is that they were all trying to get an advantage any way they could. For field archery they'd use tennis balls to aim at. That's covered the gap. Oldest trick in the book - move your competitor's ball when he isn't looking. They used sight pins, match sticks, and toothpicks.

Romanticizing the past history of an activity into something it's not is a product of not knowing the history of the activity.

As Draven has shown in the excerpt he posted, point of aim or gap shooting was a known and practiced method long before any of the so called "forefathers" of today's "trafitional" archery were around.

Most of the guys on here never shot field archery in the 60s. They were either too young, not born yet, or not interested. But it was the only game in town then and we all shot it. I string walked with a Bear Tamerlane and for marked distances, it was a deadly method of shooting targets. I guarantee, it was not silly at all back then and if you didn't do it you probably were getting your butt handed to you on the course. We shot it in a NFAA class called "Barebow" meaning no sights but everything else was OK. I gap now for 3-D and hunting which I feel is a much better system on unmarked distances, similar to a fixed crawl system.

No worries, RangerB -

Figured it was something along those lines; there are definitely times when my sense of humor is completely AWOL….. But on a site where a thread about whether Olympic Archers are really any good or if it’s all just the equipment can run for a couple hundred posts, you never know how quickly an off-hand remark can blow up.

Honestly. I think a lot of guys profess a distaste for hard aiming systems simply because those expose the flaws in your form very quickly, and it takes just about that long for them to figure out that they can’t actually shoot worth a damn.

So rather than acknowledging that the hard-aimers are better shots and have adopted a style which allows them to prove it…..

Like I said - I will never give anyone a hard time for being good at/better than I am at anything that I have not learned to do, unless it’s something dishonorable in the first place. And there’s nothing dishonorable about being as competitive as possible within the rules, even if it turns out that rules need to be walked back a bit from time to time.

So who wins the best string walker or the best sight shooter?

I'd rather walk my dog

3arrows it depends on the day.

“ So who wins the best string walker or the best sight shooter?”

What Frank said. The one with the best form and best focus.

I say the sight shooter ON A MARKED COURSE. Unmarked it is a toss up as to who can judge distance better. Also, you must shoot longer distances than these 15-25 yard chip shots.

I tried sights. Putting yardage into numbers take 1 summer of every weekend 3d shoots and most will be able to judge within 2 yards out to 40. Sights have no disadvantage but 1, they can get bent.

Well, that right there is the reason that I don’t use a hard gapping system… I am just NOT skilled at judging distance in the way that you need to be in order to make the best use of a sight/hard gap.

And I’m not thinking to become an “accomplished” target shooter - not in the sense of getting out there and competing, anyway. Maybe those aspirations will change a few years out, but for now, I am thinking in terms of being able to step into the woods and (within reason) take such shots on game as come my way.

Just in case I manage to get out in the first place. ;)

Of course, for a lot of “Trad” shooters, anything beyond 15 yards is hardly a chip- shot. You know, just upholding the fine Tradition of being minimally competent. ;)

30 years ago, I got one of my best friends into archery. He went “modern” with a wood-risered Browning compound - 50% let-off, sights and a tab. When we went stumping, my first shots were generally pretty near spot-on; close enough for deer hunting, anyway. His were always down the middle, but usually high or low. His second shot was always dead nuts - just so long as he could see where the first one had hit. Easy adjustment.

For a while, I was toying with the idea of toggling between split and 3U - Jimmy’s Gap Compromise video concept, basically, but with two range windows for shorter and longer. But the benefits there for me seem to be more about closer shots (since I normally shoot split) and I’m pretty comfortable shooting split at those ranges already, so long as I remember to practice them. Besides - you do that and you’re in the same boat I was in when I made a temporary foray into the Dark Side: if you have sight pins to choose from, you have to choose One.

And I’m terrible at that.

String walking is the silliest! Puts a smile on my face every time.

“ So who wins the best string walker or the best sight shooter?”

If the sight shooter has a peep, he wins it. You are talking Best archer, right? So the form is not an issue.

"I always laugh at the guys who romanticize the past into something it wasn't."

Me too. Like romanticizing/contorting it into simple field archery, or even the past hundred or two hundred years of war and sustenance. 'The past' of archery goes back tens of thousands of years PAST field archery, which was a renaissance, romanticism in itself, up to and including the very first bow made. Often those who preach 'our history' and degrade and deride others in the process are too often ignorant, intolerant of, or don't find it fits their narrative for themselves. Look beyond them, far beyond.

If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here