Instinctive shooting - an instinctive shooter's perspective

[Dennis La Varenne]

To all,

I mooted elsewhere about starting this thread with the intention of getting the instinctive shooters on Ozbow to put into words as best they can how they shoot.

Whenever this topic arises, it often turns into a debate between yea-sayer’s and naysayers - the one side saying that it doesn't exist and trying to rationalise it into some kind of gap shooting and the other side asserting that it does happen. Unfortunately, the latter group, the yea-sayers are generally not very good at explaining how they do it successfully, and often, very successfully indeed, not only in the hunting field but also on the target range as well.

My object in starting this thread, is to ask as many of those who shoot instinctively, to try to describe just what it is that happens when they draw and shoot - the whole sequence from nocking the arrow until its loose.

I would like to keep this thread as one for the instinctive shooters as much as possible to let them have their say in their own words and try to see if there is a pattern of technique which can be drawn from any discussion which can explain to non-instinctive shooters what happens in the minds of an instinctive shooter during the shooting sequence.

Many instinctive shooters genuinely have no idea of what their shooting sequence is and find it very difficult to explain what actually happens. This will require some of you to have a good think about what you do whereas you usually don't really give it any thought because you don't often have to.

The downside is, as I well know, that because of this lack of self awareness, it is often very difficult for us instinctive shooters to fix a shooting problem because we just don't know what it is we are doing wrong - without an onlooker. I have found it very difficult to fix my own shooting problems alone because of this.

Many good instinctive shooters often do not have a classically good shooting form, relying on an often uncanny ingrained ability for exact repetition of whatever form they have. Their draw may be short, or their anchor a bit erratic or barely at all. Their sequence may be very fast, but whatever their form, it seems to me to be based on an ingrained consistency of whatever form they have developed.

That seems to me to be the one consistent aspect of instinctive shooting success which is not really any different to archers who shoot with a more classical form.

I am fortunate myself, because I can switch to a gap or point of arrow method when I want to do some ballistics work in finding out the point on distance of my bows, but I find that when I face a target, live or inanimate, I revert back to my old instinctive style.

My earliest shooting began with a gap method so I wouldn't put an arrow though one of the windows of my house. I put the arrow well down and lifted it gradually until the gap was correct for the distance. Later, I stuck a dressmaker’s pin into the lams of my bow on an angle which coincided with my natural cant. That sharpened things up in the accuracy department.

Interestingly, as time went on over a few weeks, I began to realise that I wasn't looking at the pin at all. It had disappeared. It was still there, but I no longer saw it. My brain had worked out a relationship between the tip of the arrow and the strike point.

That, of course is gap shooting of a more subtle aspect. Hesitatingly at first, I simply removed the pin altogether and found I didn't need it at all to get good consistent hits. But what really had changed was that whereas I had been standing in the one spot for my erstwhile practice, I could now move around my yard, both closer and further and from side to side, and without looking at an arrow at all, draw from my old Howard Hill style quiver, nock the arrow correctly, draw and shoot all completely by feel without ever taking my eyes of the 'spot'.

Something had happened, and it has continued since. Whatever I had developed in my brain has allowed me to shoot at all kinds of reasonable distances (and some flukes) with reasonable success.

I regard my own ability as average. Like everything else in life, we humans have an innate ability called proprioception - that is, to know without looking or checking, where every other part of our body is in relation to any other part. I am convinced that this innate ability has a very large part to play in the astonishing consistency of style of some instinctive shooters which is responsible for their talent.

The other part of my early rigorous training which sharpened my skills up quite a lot was a lot of practice at my old club's FITA grid where the club practice butts stood. I stood at the 50m mark and shot at an orange golfball which I had attached to a string and dangled in front of the butts.

My technique was to simply concentrate on the orange dot and shoot. I was pretty bad at first, but I gradually came to realise that my arrows started to get very close and later to start chipping the golfball with surprising consistency.

If I tried to deliberately align the tip of my arrow with the dot, I couldn’t get within a bull’s roar of the blessed thing, but when I relaxed into my instinctive style, the accuracy resumed.

In those days, I used to shoot at A-grade level and anything from 1000 to 1150 with my longbow and wood arrows, averaging in the low 300s on the 3-arrow and high 200s in the single arrow.

My interpretation of what I had done was to imprint the trajectory of my arrow over that range onto my brain and that imprint allowed my brain without conscious thought on the matter to make allowance for any shorter range. My bow arm just seemed to place itself where it was supposed to for the shot at hand.

This is my story of how I became an instinctive shooter. I would like to hear from any others how you got to shoot likewise.

[bigbob]

The following relates primarily to compound shooting as that is what i have used the most over the last 30 years, but i endorse all that you have said. The point of the arrow is on my peripheral vision and is used only to allow my 'minds eye' to compute the arrow's trajectory to the target. This happens without any conscious effort and I dont really have to know the distance to the target. When i am having a good day i can be very accurate, but as i battle with a sleep disorder , consequently going around a course in a semi somnambulistic state I have found my ability to replicate good form at all times to be somewhat wanting of late. In an effort to be more predictable i have resorted to trying the 'gap' style, and after one round the early indications are that it will do just that. I addressed the target as i always would do only this time noting where the point was in relation to the target. I found that on all targets out to 45metres my point of aim was under the 'spot' by varying degrees. At 45 m it was 2 arrow diameters below the spot and down to 15m where it was about 15'' under. I shoot split fingers and anchor middle finger at the corner of the mouth. Being the pedant that I am i still feel that gap shooting is some how cheating on my ideal of instinctive , but hopefully the results might make up for that.With the trad gear I shoot entirely instinctive and seem to enjoy a deal of success at moving targets where it is just draw and shoot without any conscious effort.

[dmm]

I thought I was using the instinctive method for aiming. Everything else in my shot was pretty classic, open stance, straight bow, draw to anchor, hold aim, release.

I now think I was using a crude gap aiming method, but rather than using the point of the arrow, most likely I was looking at diameters of the arrow under the target in the sight picture.

Accurate enough on the 18m indoor range, but not so good with a bigger variety of distances.
I'm now trying to learn the gap shooting method. Point on at approx 45m.

[Dennis La Varenne]

Before I started this thread, I hadn't realised that Stephen Georgiou has started a similar thread earlier on. One of the posts by Grahame Amy is the following from a Wiki site and talks about instinctive shooting with firearms. Here is the thread again - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_shooting

When reading the various explanations of the methods used therein, I am of the opinion that they are exactly the same as we use in trad archery. I still consider that the principal physiological involvement is our innate proprioceptive ability added to which is the muscle memory concept, meaning that proprioception allows us to place our body parts in specific positions in relation to each other and under specific muscle loads which our brains remember. That is what, I believe, allows us to repeat the same sequence with remarkable accuracy which, in turn, produces the consistency needed for accurate shooting.

The downside to instinctive shooting is that if a bad shot is taken, you must NOT correct it by attempting to shoot left or right, up or down according to the miss. You MUST shoot the same shot exactly the same as the previous shot WITHOUT ANY CORRECTION. An instinctive shooter has to trust his 'instinctive' brain to have made the necessary correction based on the preceding shot so that proprioception will automatically place the bow arm where it needs to be in order to correct the shot.

My own experience is that one of the worst things an instinctive shooter can do is consciously correct a bad shot. That may sound counter-intuitive, but a conscious correction seems to have an additive effect to what our brains have unconsciously done already. The end result is that when we consciously correct, the shot is very often twice as bad in the other direction.

[Chase N. Nocks]

Chase N. Nocks said in Instinctive Shooting Method - Your way of taking the shot

As long as no "instrumental" method of determining distance is used ie rangefinder, binoculars, sextant, extra-long-telescoping-car-ariel, than ultimately any unaided shooting method is "instinctive". But not what we recognise as Instinctive Style..

I use the term loosely because even though I use a form of it myself it is difficult to qualify it with other archers as we all have personal perspectives and language skills/uses. We generally decide on a set of shared experiences with the method, an overlap of ideas that somehow gets the lable of "instinctive technique".

I'll also be honest and say that I think that the Instinctive method is a bit of a sacred cow particularly amongst trad shooters, and holds some mythical place as the style of supreme integrity and skill. It's the style of the Noble Savage which is how many of us like to see ourselves.

Critically I think the two key issues I associate with Instinctive style is

a non-deliberate judgement of distance before, during and even after the shot. Yes, after the shot .I say after the shot because sometimes my brain is absolutely convinced that the body did something wrong with the shot or some anomeli acted upon the arrow because rather than adjust the 2nd or 3rd shot it puts those next two staight in the same place.......wait for it, UNLESS I GAP . Next time around the range, the adjustment has been made... usually. GAPING is also difficult in this situation because I wasn't paying attention to the arrow tip anyway..my arrow is not invisible as some claim merely not taken into account deliberately.

and Fluid motion. This can be a variety of styles from blink of an eye snap shooting to deliverate anchor and hold, bow pointed down push/pull or bow up and locked and a steady drawback. This fluid is aided by a lack of deliberate aiming.

In blue is what I am saying very similarly to Dennis.

There may be other variables involved in the miss as well so based on the subconscious prerecorded snapshot of every arrow you have loosed you may have just hit on a unique never previously encountered situation...eg uphill over a hidden gully with speckled light between you and the target that added 5m to the shot. But your misses taught you something.

[bigbob]

One could add to the aforementioned comments about preconception and ingraining bad habits. My own pet behavioural vice is 'second guessing' my initial 'take' on where the shot should be directed. Even though it all happens almost in a blur when I do miss badly it is nearly always when my conscious has overridden my sub conscious and altered the shot just before release. One usually knows this practically before the arrow has left the riser, yet perversely 'we' still progress the shot. If we were predictable we would be boring wouldnt we?

[GrahameA]

Hi Dennis

I would like to hear from any others how you got to shoot likewise.

My view. I do not believe in instinctive shooting. For it is like throwing a ball or rock, casting a fishing lure or using a Sling. It is a learnt action - it may look instinctive but that is only because the observer is not aware of the hours of practice that went in to learning how to do it.

To become good with those things you need to put in a large amount of practice until the brain and the muscles work in harmony such you "Know" how hard to throw and when to release it. It is like pitching Baseballs for kids to hit - you become very good at making the throw into the strike zone when you are pitching several hundred every week year after year. The form may not be that good but it is consistent.

[Nephew]

So, that's how you get blokes who have technically crap form, but still seem to be able to split cotton thread with arrows, over and over again? That explains a lot.

[bigbob]

Grahame if that was as you say, how do you account for the shot at moving targets where often there may not be time to come to full anchor or draw yet hit the target consistantly. One cannot practice the unpredictable. form goes out the window yet in the main the objective is achieved? My thoughts only and not to promote any form of argument.Cheers

[GrahameA]

Afternoon All

Grahame if that was as you say, how do you account for the shot at moving targets where often there may not be time to come to full anchor or draw yet hit the target consistantly.

Practice and a learnt correlation between draw and trajectory.

One cannot practice the unpredictable.

You can and we do. Simple example - field hit ground balls. The unexpected element is the ground surface which randomly influences the path the ball takes. If you do enough practice the percentage of unexperienced events is very small.

Hi Craig - what is correct form? There will be many opinions on that. However, as you once demonstrated to me you could nail a specific target at a set distance consistently time after time - the rest of the targets were safe. Why, and as you said, you practised that particular target setup more than anything else. The result was you had learnt how to do it and when you made the shot it was fast, clean and appeared to involve no aiming. It was "instinctive", yet in reality it was a learnt action.

[bigbob]

I actually accept most of your premise, but will use one example that seems to suggest otherwise. I borrowed a mates recurve. Never used it before and indeed shot very little with a recurve in my life and then 25 years ago. Hit 5 out of 6 discs rolled acrosss the ground dead centre. I had no time to gain any learned response, and had never shot at similar rolling discs in my life. The only moderating influence would be that I once shot trap with shot guns so was aware of leading a moving target.It would be taking liberties to make a comparison between both types of weapon given the vastly different velocities and application dont you think?

[Chase N. Nocks]

I actually accept most of your premise, but will use one example that seems to suggest otherwise. I borrowed a mates recurve. Never used it before and indeed shot very little with a recurve in my life and then 25 years ago. Hit 5 out of 6 discs rolled acrosss the ground dead centre. I had no time to gain any learned response, and had never shot at similar rolling discs in my life. The only moderating influence would be that I once shot trap with shot guns so was aware of leading a moving target.It would be taking liberties to make a comparison between both types of weapon given the vastly different velocities and application dont you think?

http://www.ozbow.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.p ... 7&start=90

Bob, I think the comparison is ok. I think mentally the application and principle is very much the same. There is also the attitude. You say you had not shot much recurve but what had you been shooting? Was it a longbow or a compound? If longbow I think the transition would have been pretty straight forward. But the transition would not have been eliminated going from compound to recurve.

We have all done similar things. I pulled off a 70m centre A zone shot with a mates recurve that was 15lb's heavier draw than my own and with his 30.5inch arrow...mine being 28.5inch. There was a small element of good fortune but it was backed up by my having shot maybe 50000 arrows before that shot was taken on a variety of bows etc etc etc. He let me keep the arrow with pretended sourness. I should mention that I have nearly always had a back quiver with 20 odd arrows in with never more than 3 the same. So while I think I did myself a disservice in some ways somewhere my brain compensates or suffers less surprise at strange or mismatched equipment. I'm very lazy.

Perry and I have also found that the week following a day busting clays we seem to shoot better even at still targets and I think this is a combination of eye-hand coordination and attitude again. I didn't pick up on it until he mentioned it. I'm usually day dreaming, or telling myself to pay attention at the next shot which almost never happens.

Also, are you a hunter? I think hunters also swap over to such a game more readily than someone who is not. Not a skill thing but again an attitude thing. I believe every shot we take is rather an educated guess. For some it is an automatic fluid process and for others it is a deliberate conscious effort. The more shots we take the more educated the guess.

[GrahameA]

Evening All.

... but will use one example that seems to suggest otherwise. I borrowed a mates recurve. Never used it before and indeed shot very little with a recurve in my life and then 25 years ago. Hit 5 out of 6 discs rolled acrosss the ground dead centre. I had no time to gain any learned response ...

I would strong;ly suggest that at the ranges we are talking about the time of flight from a longbow or recurve are so close that it makes no practical difference to the probability of a hit. So you did not need to learn to shoot the bow that knowledge was already present.

...had never shot at similar rolling discs in my life.

But you had shot at moving targets and thus were aware of the common practices used.

The only moderating influence would be that I once shot trap with shot guns so was aware of leading a moving target.It would be taking liberties to make a comparison between both types of weapon given the vastly different velocities and application dont you think?

I will argue the case that gives you a big headstart. (I am an ex-Trapshooter.) Depending on your style you either a person who aims in front of the target - which is not recommended in general - or you swing through the target. I would suggest that even though we are talking about different velocities and distances the time of flight will not be that different and neither will be the distance moved by the target compared to the projectile velocity. Purely for interests sake Howard Hill shot Skeet with bow and did remarkbly well. It is probably easier to shoot Rolling discs than Clays as the discs are more predictable in their path compared to the clays which are coming off an oscillating trap.

Troy

Learn is the operative word

Yes, yes and yes again.

[Stickbow Hunter]

I still think that ‘Instinctive’ is the correct word for how some of us shoot or at least it is the best description there is. I say this because like many things we do without thinking (instinctively), Instinctive shooting is only possible because of some inbuilt natural ability. It is simply an extension of our hand eye coordination which is controlled by our brain. I will add that like most things some are more gifted in this area than others.

When shooting a bow and arrow instinctively the brain can simply calculate the distance to the target, the position of the bow hand and how much to draw the bow etc without any real conscious effort on our part other than looking at the target, pointing the bow at it and deciding to draw the bow back. There is no having to consciously judge the distance, use something (arrow point etc) as a reference point to get the gap between it and the target just right; there is simply none of that, at least there isn’t with me.

A moving target is a good example to use; if I am shooting at a disc thrown into the air I don’t even need to have my bow pointed skyward, I simply look and when I see the disc moving I swing up and let loose while the disc is on the move. There is no time for any form of conscious aiming the brain does it all – I am not saying I will hit the disc of course. The same applies with a moving target on the ground.

Now I know the Nay Sayers say this can only happen through repetitive learning of such shooting and I agree that with a lot of practice you can become good at this type of shooting but even without practice it is surprising some of the shots we manage to pull off. IMO this can happen because of an inbuilt natural ability that we don’t consciously control; an instinct.

When I started shooting a bow and arrow I never ever used any form of sighting as such. I have always shot with both eyes open and have never used the tip of my arrow as a sight pin. The best I can explain it is I shot by feel and I guess that comes from the brain computing all the information and involved my hand eye coordination.

I think a few of the following most definitely use the same inbuilt ability as that of Instinctive Shooting.

Someone throws a ball at us, we see it coming and duck, jump or bend our bodies so it misses us. We don’t have to consciously work out the speed of the ball or what reaction is best.

If we want to catch the ball we just stick our hand out to the place our brain directs it to via use of hand eye coordination.

If we were throwing the ball we don’t have to consciously work out the distance to the other person or what speed to throw at etc as our brain once again does all the calculating for us.

Kicking a ball to another person involves the same inbuilt natural abilities.

Shooting clay targets also.

Playing cricket as well and the list can go on and on.

Bigbob raised an interesting point above when he mentioned hitting rolling discs when he had never done it before. He had done clay target shooting with a shot gun but that is rather different to shooting rolling discs with a bow and arrow so how did he do it; well IMO by instinct using his inbuilt natural ability.

Some years ago now my son started shooting clay targets. He had never shot it before yet in a matter of three months he was shooting the highest grade, AA I think it is. Sure he practiced but he was immediately good at it so there had to be some inbuilt natural ability IMO.

While on this subject, he wanted me to have a go one day and I had never shot a clay target in my life. I was using a gun that had an adjustable stock set up for a right hand shooter and I shoot left handed so it was a bit awkward. Added to this the clays could go high, low, left or right at random and yet I hit the first five or six targets on the hop. It certainly wasn’t something I had learned as I had never shot it before. I believe it was my inbuilt natural ability – my Instinctive Shooting ability. My brain did its work using hand eye coordination and placed the gun in the position it needed to be in when the trigger was pulled.

So I will continue to say that I am an Instinctive shooter because there is no doubt in my mind that when I shoot I use an inbuilt natural ability and no conscience aiming system. My brain does all the calculating for me by way of hand eye coordination.

Jeff

[Nephew]

To explore from another perspective-I wonder why the "haymaker" punch, thrown spontaneously, without prep, certainly without thought will almost always connect better, and do more damage, than the planned, disciplined, practised punch? Could this be why blokes are killed in pub fights more often than ring fights?
Some of you blokes will know what I mean. If you try to box in a pub fight with timing and discipline, you'll get done like a dinner... but if you go wild and crazy, plan nothing, just throw the switch to "berserk"and fight like a mad dog in fear of losing it's life, 9 out of 10 times you'll walk away (relatively) intact!

(Disclaimer- I am not a fighting aficionado, nor do I claim status as a pub brawler. However, in my youth I did witness many dish-ups at the Chardons Cnr and Annerley Junction Hotels, sometimes the Red Brick, the Wooloongabba, Normanby 5 ways, Broadway, or Balmoral pubs too, and saw quite a few examples of what I have described here... Ahhh...those were the days...Pubs as Pubs should be...No "Metrosexuals" or "Snags" to annoy a man trying to enjoy a beer back then, no chrome and glass or "baristas" either! Plenty of WW2 vets, though. As a young man, I enjoyed nothing so much as spending a Friday evening chatting to those blokes about a previous, better Australia.)

[GrahameA]

Hi Craig.

To explore from another perspective-I wonder why the "haymaker" punch, thrown spontaneously, without prep, certainly without thought will almost always connect better, and do more damage, than the planned, disciplined, practised punch? Could this be why blokes are killed in pub fights more often than ring fights?

You will most probably find that it is more related to the "Fight or Flight" reaction and that is innate / purely instinctive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response

but if you go wild and crazy, plan nothing, just throw the switch to "berserk"and fight like a mad dog in fear of losing it's life, ...

It literally is the response when your life is threatened.

[bigbob]

Jeff you have expressed it just right. All of what you say is the manner by which I also have always delivered an arrow. Then very recently, as I have had a few personal issues which were affecting my ability, I actually took notice of where the point was in relation to the target. This after 30 years of archery. It was not just those discs as I seem to have not much trouble hitting most moving targets. As you say just look at the target, draw and loose. For the record I havent used a long bow for 25 years until now and even back then it was very briefly, so i went from compound to recurve that weekend.I can definitely understand the argument about learned responses , but many times we do a shot that isnt in the memory banks and I firmly believe it is some inate thing that we possess. Hand to eye co-ordination, I'm not bad at darts, quoits, etc and as you say Jeff it is simply looking at what you want to hit and going for it regardless of distance estimation. When i shoot ABA courses with compound, othere are saying 'what distance is that target?' , and you reply ' dont need to think about that' , and some look at you a bit strangely.How does one touch the end of one's nose in the dark? All the top sighted pros will tell you not to look at the pin on the target as the brain has its own centring capability, and it will guide your hand to the shot automatically. In the end I guess it comes down to what one choses to believe, as as far as i am aware there has been no definitive case study done to absolutely condone nor condemn either view point.

[GrahameA]

Hi Jeff. et al.

Humans are a highly evolved animal with a big brain and a lot of processing power. We have stereoscopic vision which is ideal for judging distance and that in combination with the brain enables us to compute the position of object in space and their paths in space. Hand-eye co-ordination is one of the factors that makes humans successful hunters.

Around a 25% to 30% of our brain is devoted to sight although some people claim it is more, "More than 50 percent of the human brain is dedicated to vision, that gives a pretty clear indication of its complexity," http://www.ostina.org/content/blogcategory/203/686/

So whilst we have the tools to do the job, good vision and big brain, we still have to learn how to use them.

It is a bit like the "nature vs. nurture" argument and I lean to towards the nurture side. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

[Stickbow Hunter]

Humans are a highly evolved animal with a big brain and a lot of processing power.

That is the one thing I very much disagree with you about. We are created human beings, not an animal at all. I'm not into that whole evolution theory stuff.

So whilst we have the tools to do the job, good vision and big brain, we still have to learn how to use them.

Yes I understand what you and others are saying about being learned skills but I have seen too many shots taken with a bow and arrow that were so much out of the ordinary to say that they were learned shots; they were more insticntive shots to me. Many other feats that people do in sports and everyday life can, I think, be said to be some sort of instinctive reaction rather than a purely learned skill.

As you say the whole brain, vision, coordination thing is very complex and there are no clear lines drawn in the sand as it were so I still say there is more then learned skills to 'Instinctive Shooting' and shall continue to call it such.

Jeff

[Nephew]

I suppose you could say...anyone can learn to play guitar, but it's only instinct that will give you Eric Clapton or Jeff Beck?
Many young men learn to box, but it was instinct that gave Muhammad Ali (Cassius Clay) his uncanny abilities? So, almost anyone can learn to shoot a bow, but it takes a certain instinct that gives the exceptional archer the gift for amazing shots, yeah?

[bigbob]

Moreton I hope no one thinks I was promoting myself as an exceptional archer. My reference to some shots i have made was only to illustrate that one doesnt need any preconception nor learned response,to achieve some shots when one is a natural instinctive archer. In terms of ability I am a handy shot only, with a compound and just getting into trad stuff, but the examples I quoted, to me at least demonstrate that one can have an inate, untrained natural co relation between the eye and the brain that doesnt require repetition to 'engrain ' the shooting sequence upon ones sub conscious.As Jeff said too many shots happen that cannot be merely a reflex from previous memory mode,given that 'the shot' has had no previous parallel. Jeff, have to disagree with you on the evolution side of things. Too much evidence on the side of darwin for me, but I respect anybody's right to have differing views, same as with the current debate.Cheers to all and lets not get our knickers in a knot over a philosophic debate

[Chase N. Nocks]

There is no instinctive ability for hand/eye co-ordination. It exists, and in most humans it usually improves. You have an instinct to touch and to want to grasp. Every unsuccessful lunge by a baby teaches them something. Those shots rolled across the ground you have been preparing for your whole life. With every motor function, every subconscious analysis of movement every tossed ball, dart, pebble and arrow. A practical, a posteriori knowledge dependent on experience or empirical evidence, The feed back from the real world.

Higher order activities are not instinctive. We have biological predispositions that suit the using of tools and ability to learn and because of learning......PREDICT. Even on the fly.

Eskimo women were very reluctant to participate in birthing in modern hospital. They largely accepted as a group because of a strict agreement that the baby once born MUST NOT be placed on the breast. It is to be placed lower on the belly and must find it's own way there. That is instinctive drive.

[Nephew]

Moreton I hope no one thinks I was promoting myself as an exceptional archer. My reference to some shots i have made was only to illustrate that one doesnt need any preconception nor learned response,to achieve some shots when one is a natural instinctive archer. In terms of ability I am a handy shot only, with a compound and just getting into trad stuff, but the examples I quoted, to me at least demonstrate that one can have an inate, untrained natural co relation between the eye and the brain that doesnt require repetition to 'engrain ' the shooting sequence upon ones sub conscious.As Jeff said too many shots happen that cannot be merely a reflex from previous memory mode,given that 'the shot' has had no previous parallel. Jeff, have to disagree with you on the evolution side of things. Too much evidence on the side of darwin for me, but I respect anybody's right to have differing views, same as with the current debate.Cheers to all and lets not get our knickers in a knot over a philosophic debate

Nah, Bob, I wasn't making any reference to you at all matey, just trying to make sure I properly understood what Jeff was saying. No worries.

[Dennis La Varenne]

Unhappily, this thread has turned into what I was hoping it wouldn't - one side accusing those who shoot instinctively that it doesn't exist and the instinctive shooters being made to justify their shooting method.

I was hoping for a thread where instinctive shooters themselves tried to explain just what it was that they do and how they did it so far as possible. I am not interested in whether disbelievers shoot their bows a different way. We all know that many people do, and we are not interested in converting or arguing them into our style of shooting.

I have real difficulty in understanding why it is that non-instinctive shooters have so much trouble accepting those of us who understand what we do, how we do it and choose to call it instinctive shooting.

So what if there is some degree of learned response in the instinctive method of shooting. That is what allows us to use our instinctive abilities to shoot well without any conscious thought being given to the shot. Everybody has this innate ability, some are much better at it than others, and others are hopeless and MUST use some kind of sighting aid.

Those of us less apt can improve out shooting by practicing shooting without thought until we start hitting the mark regularly. It is no different to gap shooters or sight shooters. Some take to it very easily, others need to practise more. The difference is that sight/gap shooters do so much more deliberately throughout the shooting sequence. Instinctive shooters allow their unconscious brain to do the work for them and there is no deliberation about the shot and, remarkably so often, allows an instinctive shooter to take a shot successfully in a situation and under conditions never encountered before where sight/gap shooters are so often flabbergasted especially in uneven terrain.

Instinctive shooting is nothing less than shooting without any conscious thought being given to the shot - that is all. There is nothing mysterious about it.

I cannot understand why that is so difficult to grasp. If one's unconscious brain is doing all the work of target aquisition enabling one to hit the mark, then that is instinctive. It is as basic as that. We are all born with certain instinctive abilities, one of which is could be called 'target aquisition' for want of a better term - the ability to perceive an object and know how far away it is and how quickly it is moving. Practice refines that instinctive ability, but it is still inherently instinctive. We train our bodies to react more in tune with what our brains have already figured out, not the other way around.

[GrahameA]

Hi Dennis

I cannot understand why that is so difficult to grasp. If one's unconscious brain is doing all the work of target aquisition enabling one to hit the mark, then that is instinctive.

For me - I hold a view that whilst we have the capability to do all the processing, etc., to acquire the target, range it and predict it path/location. Turning all that into an action whereby we hit it be it with a thrown stone or an arrow is learnt "action". People can and do move between aimed shots (using some method) and other shots where they allow the hand/eye/brain to take over. My view is that end result of of large amounts of practice results in what was at one stage a very deliberate conscious action to move from there to being a sub-conscious action. "The more you practice the luckier you get."

[bigbob]

Dennis, my opinion now is that it seems that it is incumbent upon people to catergorise everybody within 'scientific boundary lines'. that is we all must all obey or fit behavioural constraints dictated to us by our own physiology. Hence all later derived actions are pre ordained by earlier experiences. This may be convenient but as you and I know, does nothing to provide us with any plausible explanation of how we enact a shot sequence. I know what i feel with the shot as you undoubtedly do yourself. I do under stand implicitly what is being said about learned responses and can have sympathy with the view , but will never accept that is the way in which I deliver a shot.

[longbowinfected]

There are two problems here.
Instinctive is the wrong term.
Not many of us are bio mechanists.
I would have thought that if true "instinctive" shooting is a reality that instinctive shooters could shoot any target static or stationary with any bow at any distance the first day they picked up a bow out of the bag without any coach or adviser telling them anything and without any training.....doesn't happen.

Same skills etc required to drive a car.
From lots of experiences including huge variables our learning transfers from unmastered highly conscious to unconscious highly skilled. In order to maintain the unconscious skill level and mastery you need to keep driving. Somecannotdrive manuals but weare all capable if we practice. If we can drive one type of car wecan drive any car even if it is not set up for us. If we stop regularly driving and reinforcing the learning andleave it for many years with a small amount of time we can reacquire the skills mastery level.

Your learning and skills acquisition is all about repetition, variation and adaption.
You may not beaware of your non conscious skills mastery. It is all incremental.
The unconscious brain calculation function and skills to shoot are not instinctual.....do not try to tell me that you mastered the bow or a car without training, coaching and practice. Talk to any teacher, trainer or coach and try to run that one by them.

The brain uses reference points and makes calculations and controls your body some have had more practice, others have more ability and inherent body sense.

From my experience not too many archers succeed shooting a large number of arrows at longer distances by instinctive means. From 30/40 metres in and gaps are very difficult. At this point the body sense and "instinctive" shooting comes into its own IF there has been a lot of practice over a long time.

Kev

[bigbob]

Kev, Do agree with most of what you say, but still find it does not answer my own personal queries about shot delivery. Regarding the point that one should be able to pick up any bow and immediately be successful with it , leaves aside the necessary point that one would need to be aware of that particular bow's ability and cast before one would be able to ' instinctively' forcast the flight of the arrow to the required 'spot' I dont think any of us have mentioned any thing about 'mastering' any particular bow, but rather the ability to make some rather different shots to the 'norm' without any apparent recourse to a learned or practised memory imprint.. I respect your learned opinion and agree with most of it but am unable to simply accept that such shots are the result of repetition or memory grabs. I am loathe to forward the following as I am sure that it will be mis interpreted and read as simple egotism, but I can assure you that is not the case. It is only to try and illustrate my take on things. As an individual i do have very developed ' hand to eye' spatial skills. As afore mentioned, most games requiring same , such as darts, quoits, etc., I am an artist [not that kind!] and when I was working, could look at an object and give a very accurate indication of its dimensions, could look at form work and say that it was out of square and find a 10mm difference in its dimensions. I can agree that all of this was the result of years of exposure to measurements, judgement and estimations, but what is it that gives one a head start on others who may have had identical exposure but not the same outcome? Surely this enhanced ability compared to another with equal exposure to the same parameters gives some the ability to make 'instinctive' or otherwise uninformed calculations that allow this disputed 'shot' to occur?

[GrahameA]

Hi Kev.

I would have thought that if true "instinctive" shooting is a reality that instinctive shooters could shoot any target static or stationary with any bow at any distance the first day they picked up a bow out of the bag without any coach or adviser telling them anything and without any training.....

Correct. If it was instinctive you would "know" how to do it. If however, you get better by repeating you are learning and thus it is not instinctive.

[Gringa Bows]

i just sat here and read this thread all the way through ,now i know why i jump them usually,it all goes over my head...........