Pretty much what Dana said. In regards to alignment, you want all joints to be as linear as possible. The more angles between bones the more muscle strength is required, and the less efficient the shot. IOWs, you get more tired, faster.
One way to help explain show this is I use a tree. Imagine your hand at shoulder level is on it supporting your weight. Your shoulder ball is in socket and it’s effortless. Now try to push tree with your shoulder. Bet your shoulder muscle gets involved, your ball lifts from socket and you’ll get tired. Clay Hayes has a pretty good demonstration with tongue depressors showing bone on bone
. A sound and efficient measure of joint congruence: Michele Conconi et al
In the medical world, the term "congruence" is used to describe by visual inspection how the articular surfaces mate each other, evaluating the joint capability to distribute an applied load from a purely geometrical perspective. Congruence is commonly employed for assessing articular physiology and for the comparison between normal and pathological states.
According to USA Archery, Archery Australia, Kisik Lee, and many other instructors; an archery form that utilizes bone on bone alignment minimizes muscle use to reduce fatigue and promote consistency.
So, you pronate your bow arm elbow and let the bow push on bones from your bow hand to your shoulders on the compression side. Use a mirror to see if you are aligning your string arm with the arrow on the tension side to tighten up the windage spread of your arrows. Excellent photo above.
Here, 'pronate' means to turn your bow arm elbow so the inside of the joint faces horizontally, not upward. It gets the meat out of the way.
Shade mt it’s hard to tell you intent but regarding the Internet thing. It’s partially if not primarily about the fact you’ve never had coaches around you. If you noticed the coaches are all stating the same thing.
I had never heard that terminology used in archery but then I haven't ever been around any serious coaches. I've heard the term alignment used a lot and other descriptors of proper stance and position.
I heard the term bone on bone a lot with three and four position rifle shooting but I don't see any correlation to archery.
I guess I am missing your point. I believed I was aware of what I said. I was just pointing out where I became familiar with the terminology. I don't see how the nature of its use in rifle shooting applies in any way to archery. But then apparently a number of prominent archery coaches use the term these days in teaching form. I just personally hadn't heard the term used before.
Kodiak, I'm not sure why "bone on bone" implies to you some sort of contradiction with the idea that our bones provide support to our body, because it doesn't at all.
"Bone on bone" is pretty accurate with respect to the front shoulder. If your shoulder is low the ball on the end of the upper arm bone sits really nicely in the socket in the scapula, and the force of the bow transmitted through the bones of your arm has that firm support of the ball in the socket (bone on bone, obviously with some cartilage in between if we want to get real technical), whereas if your bow shoulder is high instead of the ball being squarely in the socket it ends up being out of position so there's more muscle and soft tissue involved that is not nearly as capable of withstanding that force without damage.
"I have never heard of it in reference to archery"
Kinda why I asked the question in a way.I have heard it mentioned a few times.But never heard anyone explain it when they mentioned it.
Ben good explanation of the ball and socket above.I think thats informative and makes sense to have those 2 parts of the anatomy mated up in a good position thats promotes a stable joint that translates into a stable bowarm and less stress.
I too first heard the term in my four position smallbore days back in the seventies. Never heard it in relation to archery until maybe ten years ago - and it made instant sense. Maybe not the best use of words, but the concept applies to many things.
I started using the rotational draw, as taught by Arnie Moe and Kisik Lee, about 4 years ago. I got the draw part down OK but it took 2 years to figure out what they meant by bone on bone. Seemed odd to me and wasn't well explained, IMO.
Then I decided to figure it out for myself. It was a revelation. When at full draw, if I let the ball of the humerus of the draw arm settle in to the socket of the shoulder joint, that's bone on bone. Most of us, or at least I didn't, do that. My arm and shoulder muscles were holding the bow arm in place, using muscles more than they needed to be used. Once I let the left humerus settle into the shoulder joint (which, btw, takes a conscious act of relaxing the arm/shoulder) it was so much easier to hold the bow at full draw for the few seconds... or longer, in some cases... that I use to make final adjustments to the shot. My shooting improved and I was able to shoot heavier bows than before, and shoot them the same way I shot lighter bows.
The same principle applies to the draw arm but it's a little harder to feel the bone on bone connection there, IME.
I've come to think of bone on bone as like putting a heavy weight on a hanger and letting the hanger hold the weight up, instead of my muscles holding it up. The skeleton is the hanger. I still have to put the weight on the hanger, but once it's there it takes much less muscular effort to keep it there. This works, of course, because of the opposing force of the draw arm and bow arm. The more aligned the shoulders and arms are, the better it works.
One of the aspects of the "bone on bone" description that is rarely EVER discussed (but shandor did bring it up in his second post) is that it applies to the string side the same as it does the bow hand side. Effectively the 2 shoulders are pushing against each other.
The bow side from the pressure of the bow being drawn against your arm, and the string side due to the position of the string side arm while drawing the bow.
And truth is that due to the anchor/aiming reference that most folks choose to utilize they never really get to that position.
You guys who say "bone on bone" is the same as good alignment must have never tried shooting bone on bone. They are not the same thing. You can shoot with good alignment and not be bone on bone... you can shoot with bone on bone and still not have good alignment. The OP asked what is bone on bone. Not what is good alignment.
Without bone on bone, the muscles of the shoulder girdle and arm of the bow arm do most of the work of holding the bow at full draw. With bone on bone, those same muscles do less of the work because the bones are fully "seated" into their joint and the skeleton takes on more of the work of holding the bow at full draw.
Watch Brady Ellison shooting. He (and most Olympic shooters) holds the bow at full draw for almost the full 20 seconds allowed. With no perceptible movement of the bow or bow arm. With a bow around 50#s, maybe more at his draw length. He may only shoot 3 arrows at a time in a competition, but in practice he may shoot 150-300 shots in a day. Yeah, he's a big strong guy but I'd like to see anyone do that without using bone on bone technique.
I'm not a big strong guy. I'm 68 years old and I have 2 fractured vertebra in my back. Using bone on bone, I can shoot a 50-55# bow 80 or more times within a couple of hours. And I have no pain when I'm done. I can only do that when using bone on bone technique.
Hey if it were truely bone on bone ya wouldn't be shooting a bow.You have a cartilage type lining on your joints.When it wears out your are in massive pain.Using bone on bone descriptions for your body alignment sounds incorrect to me.It obviously is important but has nothing to do with bone on bone.Surgery joint replacement is in order for real bone on bone problems .Happy shooting folks Osr
Osr144... "bone on bone" is merely the term used for this way of shooting. As you and others have pointed out, it is not a great term b/c people point out that there is cartilage in between the bones, and true bone on bone would be very painful. OK, fine. But it's still the term used to describe a way of shooting. Instinctive is a term used to describe a way of shooting also, but it is not a good term either b/c shooting that way is not an instinct. It's the result of a lot of practice!
Anyway, the OP asked what the term refers to and now he should have a good idea.
I whole heartedly agree especially instinctive shooting as it's a Learned skill no instinct.I am only whining as I currently have bone on bone surgery to be done.I did see one easy tip that helps some folk shoot better though.Its as simple as telling some one to stand more upright .One guy was slumping and when he stood more upright his consistancy improved no end.He shoots a bit better than me now.Dam??? Cheers Osr
It is a useful image, but it is machine thinking. My favourite example are golf teachers who teach that during the backswing, you are loading up a spring, and the more you twist up, the better speed you will develop because you stored that energy in the spring (like a bow). Nonsense. We use chemical energy, and "can spring into action" only in analogy.
I think in position rifle shooting the analogy is more apt. You can develop positions where the weak arm rest somewhat directly, on your hip, or knee, and there is support on down through the bones. But without muscle, and a lot of other stuff, it all collapses.
Obviously the left picture in Viper's post looks more efficient. The problem is where is the bone on bone. The load path through the left side of the body may be as good as it gets, but it is far from linear. If it was so wonderful we would not hear constant exhortations for back tension. Archery not only uses a lot of muscle, but it uses it mostly on one side of the load path. Very unbalanced.
If you look at the angle on the shoulder, it is less than 90 degrees, it doesn't get much worse than that, if what you are looking for is in-line support. Even the bow arm is well offset from the main load which is basically in line with the arrow.
Of course the arm bone is connected to the soulder bone, etc... as the song says, but literally not bone on bone, and could hardly be less linear.
The key to coaching is to invent suggestive descriptions for things that the coach can later unpack.
" The key to coaching is to invent suggestive descriptions for things that the coach can later unpack. "
A teacher I know told me that sometimes she has to explain a thing three different ways before a particular student 'gets it'. And maybe the most 'accurate' explanation isn't the one that flips the switch.
Good point, DanaC. So we need a better term and perhaps a few terms for "bone on bone". Perhaps "bone seated in joint".
Paul... LOL! Yeah I guess I know a little. 4500 hours in medical school and you do learn something about anatomy and physiology. 30 years in practice helps also. But I'm a relative novice compared to many here when it comes to archery.
I think the problem is even simpler. In any (specific) activity, terms are used which may or may not have the standard dictionary definition. We tend to use use "bone support" as a result of efficient alignment, but if some one likes bone on bone better, that's fine, we do know what he's talking about. Otherwise, it's just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Well maybe I did hear bone on bone, but it wasn't in an archery context.
I think sometimes we tend to think too much, and as Viper alluded to, "In any (specific) activity, terms are used which may or may not have the standard dictionary definition.". I think sometimes we tend to stew over the most meaningless things, time better spent just shooting arrows and having fun.