Hypothetical at the Peg. "What style"

[Chase N. Nocks]

Your standing at the peg with a group of archers. Your own style is "choke" Instinctive.

Each archer wants to score, each archer wants to compete for the prize of meeting Chase N. Nocks.



Now each archer shoots a different style. And you get to choose but have to have a reason for vetoing a style from the comp.

a) Each archer is shooting barebow unsighted with no range finding impliments or markings on the bows.
b) There is a set time at the peg to take the shot. 20 sec maybe? 30 seconds tops for benefit of the doubt.
c) Rotation of shooters at each peg.....first shall be last etc etc

Archer 2 Shoots GAP method. Can he compete? If not, WHY not?

Archer 3 Shoots Split Vision method. Can he compete? If not, WHY not?

Archer 4 Shoots String Walking method. Can he compete? If not, WHY not?

Archer 5 Shoots Face Walking method. Can he compete? If not, WHY not?


Come on, This will be fun!

And I didn't even mention thumb rings, 3 fingers under, High anchor point, two finger release, or same POA but different length arrows.

[GrahameA]

Morning All

Your standing at the peg with a group of archers. Your own style is "choke" Instinctive.

Each archer wants to score, each archer wants to compete for the prize of meeting Chase N. Nocks.

Now each archer shoots a different style. And you get to choose but have to have a reason for vetoing a style from the comp.

a) Each archer is shooting barebow unsighted with no range finding impliments or markings on the bows.
b) There is a set time at the peg to take the shot. 20 sec maybe? 30 seconds tops for benefit of the doubt.
c) Rotation of shooters at each peg.....first shall be last etc etc

Archer 2 Shoots GAP method. Can he compete? If not, WHY not?
Archer 3 Shoots Split Vision method. Can he compete? If not, WHY not?
Archer 4 Shoots String Walking method. Can he compete? If not, WHY not?
Archer 5 Shoots Face Walking method. Can he compete? If not, WHY not?

Come on, This will be fun!

And I didn't even mention thumb rings, 3 fingers under, High anchor point, two finger release, or same POA but different length arrows.

From my viewpoint I really don't care how people shoot as long as the rules that apply to them also apply to me. e.g. If they are allowed to stringwalk then I am allowed to stringwalk. I will choose the method that in my opinion will give me the outcome I want.

The bigger question of what is appropriate stye is highly dependant on what you are trying simulate:

* If you are simulating "hunting" - then it would a be a time limited shot from within a box, unknown distance, sort your own way past the obstacles, start with bow down and the clock would start running from when you first see the target and the time would be short.

* If it was pure target archery then you would know the distance, time would be long - stringwalking takes time to set up - marked tabs could be used (or perhaps bowmarks or ground markers).

[Chase N. Nocks]

G'day Grahame, thanks for the reply.

Probably the biggest point I am trying to make is the inherited predjudice against other barebow styles and wanting other archers to question why certain styles aren't/shouldn't be allowed in any of the rounds..of course Gap and Split Vision are sequencially (IMO) the parents of what becomes "instinctive". ie that instinctive is born from either of these two styles and these styles provide to points of reference, literally, that allows instinctive to work.

Over the years though I have heard the comment that String and Face Walking are unfair or somehow provide an advantage on the field course...I am saying this is an arbitrary judgement and more than anything actually discounts the efforts, equipment and technical knowledge that shooters of these other styles aquire. I seems to me to be an all too easy dismissal.

In a nutshell I am saying that ALL BAREBOW styles are based on memory, the different styles make use of what is remembered differently. The String/Face Walker makes a conscience decision to guess the distance, so does the Gap shooter. The instinctive archer relies on accessing the unconscience memory. In explaining this to my wife today I tried to give an example of the distance to an object, for the life of me I had no bloody idea whatsoever..none. If forced I would have said 10-15 metres, then split the difference to 12.5m. But without thinking I could put an arrow 9/10 times straight into it. I felt that, confidently.

Morning All

From my viewpoint I really don't care how people shoot as long as the rules that apply to them also apply to me. e.g. If they are allowed to stringwalk then I am allowed to stringwalk. I will choose the method that in my opinion will give me the outcome I want.

Exactly!!!!!. There some archers that would be better archers by not trying and bashing their heads against the "instinctive" shooter's wall. But there is a pressure especially amonst the Trad set that instinctive is not only best but that the other styles are sly or grubby. I'm trying change that mindset, or at the very least bring it into question. Neitzche said philosophise with a hammer...put your own beliefs to the same scrutiny as the beliefs you oppose.

The bigger question of what is appropriate stye is highly dependant on what you are trying simulate:

* If you are simulating "hunting" - then it would a be a time limited shot from within a box, unknown distance, sort your own way past the obstacles, start with bow down and the clock would start running from when you first see the target and the time would be short.

By simulating hunting are you speaking of Field archery (ABA and 3DAAA) as you mention Target Archery next? If so, none of these other styles are precluded from hunting, they just add different variables to hunting and hunting practice...String/Face walking may not lend itself well to the unexpected out of the blue running shot that happens while hunting, fine don't take that sort of shot..learn to stalk better. That scenario shoulf have the focus on the ethics of the shot not the technique. But then you mention time as part of the parcel of practice and this type of practice would be unworkable on a heavily populated field round because when you see the target may not be the safest place/time to shoot. Maybe stump shooting with some friends. Beside quickest and longest is not always the best course for the ethical bowhunter, in fact they are only possible good options as a last chance survival situation.

* If it was pure target archery then you would know the distance, time would be long - stringwalking takes time to set up - marked tabs could be used (or perhaps bowmarks or ground markers).

Well this is where String/Face Walking and Gap come into their own. But I should have made clear at the start that I was talking about a field archery (ABA or 3DAAA) round.



If a vote was taken at the last big Trad gathering asking if Stringwalkers, Facewalkers etc would be allowed to compete equally in any division based on the criteria that is presented in the hypothetical how do you think it would have turned out?

Has my hypothetical offered any cause to pause an automatic hand showing at the next big Trad gathering?

[Brumbies Country]

That's good stuff Troy

I'm familiiar with the rules for Archery Australia , FITA, Australia, ABAand IFAA and some knowledge of 3DAAA, so perhaps I'd initially think in terms of what I might do in each discipline.
"Instinctive" could shoot LB and barebow recurve under all these rules but would suffer more as the distances got longer eg 80 yards IFAA and 60m Archery Australia target LB or 70m (open men's recurve barebow). Gap can shoot the lot. Split vision can shoot the lot. String walking can be used barebow recurve AA, FITA, IFAA and 3DAAA barebow recurve (RU, I think). If I was shooting bare bow recurve under those rules I'd go with stringwalking, which in essence done by somebody who is good at it, a very accurate method.. Face walking is allowed for BB recurve in the same disciplines as stringwalking and is OK for longbow under IFAA rules. With longer shots with a LB, where it's allowed it offers a good alternative.

What would I go with longbow? Up until Christmas, and for too long before that I was walking up using a loose "instinctive" method, not coming to full draw, woeful! . Around Christmas I started a program to cure TP. Taken till now but back to using a full draw concious gap technique, which I'd now use for all shoots under any of the above rules. Under IFAA I might facewalk for the really long shots, but otherwise gap for everything.

Simon

[GrahameA]

Hi Troy and Simon

To get the most out of stringwalking - you need to know the distance or be able to estimate it very well, know where you need to grab the string for that distance, have some method of accurately placing the fingers, have a consistent draw and have good "form" - plus do the appropriate pracxtice/training regime. I fail in most of those criteria which is why I am hopless with it.

However, I very impressed what stringwalkers can do - if they just were not so slow.

For those who have not seen it. This is Eleonora Strobbe in a shootoff at the recent Nimes indoor - barebow vs recurve and the barebow archer wins the shootoff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAbvhm0p ... re=related

[Brumbies Country]

Good Point Grahame

The disciplines I mentioned re stringwalking are all marked distances except FITA field unmarked, which regretably occurs once in a blue moon in OZ and 3DAAA . Where distance not known, then yes, stringwalking would depend on accurate assessment of distance.

Simon

[Chase N. Nocks]

Hi Graeme and Simon,

Yes exactly, known distances provide the greatest benefit. But that IS a crucial part of my point to the irrationality of excluding these barebow styles. Without known distances the style relies on the use of experience, memory, and practice to make BEST guesses at distance. The addition of marked tabs in no way aids in the guessing of the distance merely aids in the speed of implimenting the distance choice made. Therefore a String/Face walker can take quite quick shots at the target.

In fact the active practice of guessing/judging distances to make these styles work...including Gap shooting..is I think bloody hard work. Hence my example of me explaining to my wife the difficulties of judging distance.

Graeme mentioned what works best, I agree. I just don't think that these styles should be relegated to unlimited/unrestrictive divisions. The time taken for a String walker to find his/her spot on the string is no different from the top instinctive shooters "drilling a hole" visually as they are preparing for their shot.

A habit that I have lost over the years from infrequent archery, that was a constant as a young bloke was the habit of visually drilling arrows into EVERYTHING during my waking day, all the time. This is what the good shots are doing..OR judging and then confirming the distance.

[Chase N. Nocks]

I'm curious at the lack of response to the opening scenario. But I am happy to have two archers experienced across disciplines taking the time to pursue this topic.

Is it that no actual good reasons exist to exclude these styles and that shooting rules for ABA and 3DAAA are now out of step? Certainly out of step with some disciplines of the sport.

[Brumbies Country]

Have to say that I thought that this would be an interesting thread, so I'm not sure why the lack of response.
I guess the lack of comment might be that most members of the forum are happy with how they shoot, see no need to change anything. Can't argue with that.

Simon

[longbow steve]

Hi Troy, I initially didn't understand what you were asking in your first thread. I personally dont care what style people care to shoot provided the playing field is level if one is asked to compete against the other ie similar equipment, timber arrows etc.
I dont feel one shooting method mentioned is easier than the other as they all rely on consistency and form.
I shoot gap and point of aim. Steve

[Chase N. Nocks]

Thanks guys. I am not really attacking anyones style and agree that you should shoot what you are most comfortable with. As Simon said previously in the other topic, the good archers can alternate between styles but he was specifically talking about Gap and Split Vision. But I would like to bring the various styles into question, especially with the range of quality DVD's showing and explaining the different styles.

I also have to say that I shoot instinctive out to a certain distance, say 40m, and then try to Gap badly with lack of practice added to the fact that I have not been paying attention to my arrow point for the 0-40m distances.

I am certainly having a go at the rules of shooting in ABA and 3DAAA for styles it precludes for no real valid reason.

And I have certainly made it clear that the use of the word "Instinctive" I think is confusing for new and old archers alike as well as being a completely inaccurate term, It is the opposite of instinctive..it is memory. That's why I suggested a term like "Fluid Motion" which to me conjured images of body/brain working together in sync.

[Chase N. Nocks]

I also conceed that String walking lends itself to very accurate groups etc but I think that the style has it's own set of problems that require good efforts on the archer to overcome. Such as the quality of release and sometimes unusual (and according to even the best shots, unexplainable) arrow flight.

[Brumbies Country]

Absolutely! Stringwalking is very technically complex. Just one single thing:Changing nocking points on the string gives changing draw lengths which in turn effects arrow spine which requires either constant plunger adjustment or change in string alignment. Alot of things over and above that to remember. I played with it to the extent of being only useful but could see with a lot of dedication some archers could achieve great accuracy.

But yes, gap, point of aim, split vision, you'd have to say are considerably less complex.

[John Valery]

And I have certainly made it clear that the use of the word "Instinctive" I think is confusing for new and old archers alike as well as being a completely inaccurate term, It is the opposite of instinctive..it is memory. That's why I suggested a term like "Fluid Motion" which to me conjured images of body/brain working together in sync.

I’ll play the devil’s advocate for you. I am a purely instinctive shooter. I use absolutely no aiming method, nor do I see the arrow during the drawing of the bow. I look at nothing but the spot I would like to hit, no matter what the distance. I practise form at home only, never accuracy. I believe most people are more instinctive than you may think. I do a fair bit of coaching at the local club on the weekends and spend most of that time trying to get their form fairly well set. Naturally, we try to teach people instinctive shooting because that’s how we shoot. By the end of the morning, most adults will be putting in around say a 2-3ft group at our 15m practice butt. Most people can’t get past trying to “aim” the arrow. Now take that same adult. Put some flu flu arrows in their hands, and bring on the bow birds. At a guess, I’d say around half of them would hit at least 1 or 2 (though I’ve seen some real scary good first attempts) and in 3 x 6 arrow rounds, and nearly all of their groups will be down to a 1.5 ft group...... We do this to show people that instinctive can be achieved fairly easily. Granted, accuracy on static targets dose come down to very good form, and if I don’t shoot for a couple of weeks, or I pick up a different bow, I defiantly do notice the difference. I do shoot ABA style ranges, out to 48m, not IFAA out to 80 yards, and yes, my margin of error will increase with distance, but I’ve been lucky enough to grade masters longbow for a while now, so I do manage to hit a few. Back to the original point of your thread, it worries me not at all what shooting style anyone else uses. If people can pick distances well (I certainly cannot), gapping is defiantly the go. I’ve even given a few members a couple of good DVD’s that explain it better than I would be able to. Point of interest, a few members from our club (all instinctive) attended the Norfolk Island Shoot last year, and met some great people that shot gap and other aiming methods. Our club members managed, 1st in men’s longbow, 1st and 2nd in men’s recurve, and 1st and 2nd in ladies recurve. We won every division we contested. Again, it was a 3D shoot with all the targets under 45m and I’m sure that the guys that shot IFAA out to 80yards would have handed me my backside on a platter at that distance. So again, I’m not worried what aiming style people use, but I will argue that some of us still do shoot “True Instinctive” .
That’s my 2 bobs worth anyway..........

[Chase N. Nocks]

Excellent John, thanks for joining the discussion. This reply could be in a couple of parts..

So far between 5 (?) contributors to the discussion NONE have an objection to the other styles shooting as equals. That's the way I'm reading it so far. This was the primary purpose for starting the new topic away from the "instinctive shooting topic" with the secondary reason to bring the various styles into discussion as well.

I am not disputing the accuracy or versatility of instinctive shooting. It has basically been the method I have used for most of 30 years. Even when taking long breaks from archery, upon my return I find there has been little lost in terms pointing and shooting and the real limiting factor has been in form or lack thereof. Your comments about form and how you practice form are in my opinion truisms that most of the exceptional archers employ..the beauty of such practice as well is that you can do it in a 2m X 3m space and recieve ALL the benefits except the ones related to distance judgement..

Distance judgement, now that is the part that comes from shooting various distances. It is learned not instinctive. There are very few things that humans do that are instinctive, or at least generally agreed to be instinctive amongst academics and scientists. Two that spring to mind are touching something to a baby's lips and their impulse to suck, and putting something in a baby's palm and their impulse to grip. There is one I would add as well and that is an instinct to learn. That I think is the only part of instinctive shooting that is instinctive IHMO. But it's part of a collective process that has happened over time and involves experiences. Experiences being learning events.

Now I also trust that you are as good a shot as you say you are. And being in the masters class I know that I would have to be shooting at my best to give you a fright. As you may have previously read in this topic I am an instinctive shooter as well at least out to about 40 metres, and then I Gap with an accuracy that reflects the lack of practice at the longer distances. I found it interesting that you say you do not Gap ever. It's like forcing the issue of your chosen style, and I don't mean that in a negative way. But your own inconsistancy at those greater distances reflects more the unfamiliarity of regular shooting at those distances does it not. And greater familiarity would lead to greater consistancy via way of learning, and implimented through memory. I can also see with persistance, no reason the instinctive archer cannot achieve great accuracy at these longer distances..afterall the Gap shooter will most likely have his/her point blocking much, if not all, of the target.

To be honest I think all these styles or a mixture of the styles can work equally well, or poorly. I do know a lot of people shoot instinctive and shoot it well. I also know when I started archery that was it. It wasn't the in thing, it was the only thing. One person at the club shot 3 fingers under. Gaping wouldn't be admitted to. Spilt Vision would have probably gotten a shrug of the shoulders from most. Never saw a String/Face walker ever.

Shooting a bow instinctively IS like throwing a ball. So my 21 month old son wanting to play throw and catch, for all the beautiful enjoyment and endeavour on his face, is at the moment quite bad. But he is a little better than yesterday and hopefully not as good as tomorrow. His "pure instinct" finishes with the fact that he enjoys it and wants to pursue it.

To be continued....slightly (when I'm at home and the little blokes asleep )

[Brumbies Country]

Very few people make Masters with a longbow so it's a really good testament that instinctive works well for you John. Fair enough. I made a comment on the other thread that when I tried to go truly instinctive, my brain got in the way. Sometimes it'd be useful to put it into neutral .

[Chase N. Nocks]

.......continued. And this is not all aimed specifically at you John and I am not trying to talk down to anyone. That would be the best way for the topic to die. And I think there is plenty more to be said by everyone.

Yes I have challanged the term "Instinctive" which I do think has become a bit of a sacred cow. Is there any world benefitting, life altering reason for this? No, that would hardly be the case, it's not a Crusade. It also doesn't mean the issue has to be dropped at the first negative response to the challenge. But it would be nice for clarity. This is the importance of definitions. That's the way I am, I'm not just an archer, I'm a reader. I like to understand things. I like things I'm interested in or investigating to be described properly.

All of the other styles provide fairly obvious links between what they are called and what they are. Gap, Split Vision, String Walking, Face Walking. Not having a definition surely doesn't stop us from using the style we have adopted. Changing the label "Instinctive" does not make it any the less amazing style than it is.


I have offered up a alternative term (Fluid Memory) but even it falls short and actually falls a little but not as far into the hole of ambiguity or mystery as does the term Instinctive. Now I presume that part of the reasoning for the term lies in the actual complexity to the way the brain works as both a driver and a recorder of the body's activities. So over many thousands of shots a series of images are collected by the memory, images that can probably be only crudely accessed deliberately but when you are standing at the peg, following the same activity and in the same mindset something subconscious happens. The more shots you shoot on more varied terrain or circumstances (like raining) the more images the brain has access to. As you prepare for the shot, the brain is going to access a category of images.

For instance, you are NOT standing at the peg behind a screen, which then moves to the side giving you your first glimpse at the target (Instinctive would be the hands down winner here especially if you only have 10 seconds before the screen moves back)....Anyway you're walking around the course, relaxed, chatting. The terrain of the course will sometimes give you hints at what to expect, sometimes there are surprises but by and large there are reasoned guesses that can be made. Even if you are not playing that game, you still have in most circumstances a fairly relaxed amount of time to take in the target, distance, terrain features (gully), sunny, no wind...etc,

Here's what you see. Goat target@20 metres, no wind, sunny. Level terrain with no shadows. Perfect shot? Maybe...if it falls within a well used set of images. But the point about categories is that your brain at the speed of light has decided that to access the rabbit targets@5 metres, the Buffalo target@48 metres, the in the rain downhill deer target@32 metres is a waste of time. It's done this without your permission, or with at best, your vicarious permission. In a blur it has eliminated what you don't need simplifying your "choice".

Facinatingly, this tidying up is done mostly while you sleep, where contrary to previous thinking, there is an explosion of mental activity and may be more important for the function of sleep than resting simply resting the body. This was on Radio National/ABC Radio 3-4 weekends ago.

So for WANT of a better word we chose Instinctive. Also the imagery of this word associated with the simple but efficient noble savage did not hurt archer's incentive to adopt the word and run with it either. Many of the field archers I knew from my early days were well familair with Ishi, Pope and Young. I have tried to find some early early references to the term Instinctive as it applies to archery with so far no real success. I was hoping Grahame with his usual obscure helpings would have succeeded where I failed. I will continue. On thinking about this lately I wondered if Ishi himself may have implied it. I can imagine that when being asked how he aimed, that language limitations of both parties, met with a response of limited explaination such as "I just do it; it just comes naturally; without thinking; Instinctively". That of course is just conjecture on my part and someone who knows the actual story might turn that on it's ear.

It may be Subconsious but it is not Instinctive so why cling to it.

Cheers

[greybeard]

Troy,

Is your Hypothetical at the Peg an attempt to gain support and put pressure on ABA and 3DAAA to change their rules?

Daryl.

[GrahameA]

Evening Troy

I was hoping Grahame with his usual obscure helpings would have succeeded where I failed.

I am a lover of Baseball and Softball. In both games the pitcher has the ball and pitches it towards the batter - in one case it is an overarm/sidearm throw and in the other it is an underarm throw. In both cases all you have to aim is a target - the Catcher's glove.

Now many people say that throwing a ball instinctive - I say it is not. I have spent many, many hours teaching people how to pitch balls so they land in the glove, It is a learned skill. Then upon that basic skill we build a suite of other skills to make the ball dive, swerve and curve in flight. Every skill takes many, many hours to master. Most people would be surprised how many hours go into it, years of practice, and a lot of it in less than ideal conditions - hot humid summer nights, cold winter nights, wet nights, foggy nights and night full of insects. And you get to play during that strange thing called day.

It is the same for the fielders, many hours are spent learning the techniques and skills of catching the ball and then throwing it to the target. The Cricket fans should note that the Australian Cricket Fielding Coach was one of the best Baseball coaches this country has had. Every practice session starts off with practice of throwing and catching the ball and every game warm-up starts off with throwing and catching the ball. There is nothing instinctive about the throw and catch it is a learned skill. Once again many hours of practice go into learning the skill and the skill is constantly refreshed so it does not drop off.

It is the same for archery - what is called instinctive is a learned skill and that skill has its techniques that enable it to be the best we can make it.

Why is it called instinctive - probably because many people think it is. Should it be called something else - I don't know and does it really matter. Calling it instinctive does have one benefit - it makes some people believe that good Archers are just natural at it and that the good archers are either using "better" equipment or have some secret that they will not share. In reality good archers put in long hours of training to become good at it, understand why things happen and are able to recognise things when they are not right and either know how to fix them or where to get help to fix it. Great Archers do all the preceding, put even more of practice in, more hours understanding what is happening and, probably, have some natural talent for it.

However, the essence of all this is that skill and techniques are learnt - they are not "instinctive". The one thing that we do have is a very powerful computer (brain) which can remember things and do multiple operations concurrently.

[Chase N. Nocks]

It is the same for archery - what is called instinctive is a learned skill and that skill has its techniques that enable it to be the best we can make it.

Why is it called instinctive - probably because many people think it is. Should it be called something else - I don't know and does it really matter. Calling it instinctive does have one benefit - it makes some people believe that good Archers are just natural at it and that the good archers are either using "better" equipment or have some secret that they will not share. In reality good archers put in long hours of training to become good at it, understand why things happen and are able to recognise things when they are not right and either know how to fix them or where to get help to fix it. Great Archers do all the preceding, put even more of practice in, more hours understanding what is happening and, probably, have some natural talent for it.

However, the essence of all this is that skill and techniques are learnt - they are not "instinctive". The one thing that we do have is a very powerful computer (brain) which can remember things and do multiple operations concurrently.

Exactly Grahame, what I have been saying! Practice and form matter more than the choice of aiming method I agree 100%! Throwing a ball and shooting a bow are high level physical activities and not possibly instinctive. I you want to see instinctive watch a newly hatched Praying Mantis. Hunts straight out of the box ready and able to go...that's what is called Hard Wired!!

Should it be called something else? No it doesn't really matter, I know what it is. But I usually call dogs dogs and cats cats. I like clarity. And I think sacred cows make the best burgers. I like to question beliefs, especially the ones taken for granted. And calling a style of archery Instinctive rings like an empty platitude to my ear or it's just lazy. Your a reader, and an analytical one at that I suspect so I know that you can at least see the basis of what I am saying. Like I said though, "not life changing or world altering, not a crusade". It's easier to put on slippers than carpet the whole world.

[Chase N. Nocks]

Troy,

Is your Hypothetical at the Peg an attempt to gain support and put pressure on ABA and 3DAAA to change their rules?

Daryl.

Hi Daryl, are you mad? Just kidding mate. I have enough walls to beat my brains against. BUT let me say that if there was a concerted effort or pole or vote that would allow these other styles to compete side by side then I for one would vote in favour of it. This is besides all equipment issues..that is another topic. All barebow styles being equal that use no sighting aids.

[greybeard]

I'm curious at the lack of response to the opening scenario. But I am happy to have two archers experienced across disciplines taking the time to pursue this topic.

Is it that no actual good reasons exist to exclude these styles and that shooting rules for ABA and 3DAAA are now out of step? Certainly out of step with some disciplines of the sport.

Your last sentence was confusing

Who is out of step with who?

There are other organizations out there to cater for those who do not agree with ABA or 3DAAA rules.

I believe it is called freedom of choice.

Your post is probably more suited to Shooting the Breeze rather than Mastering the Traditional Bow.

Daryl.

[Chase N. Nocks]

Daryl you are probably right as to the choice of category for this topic to be in, and if one of the moderators knows how to shift it I'd be happy for that to happen. I tried to pick the best spot and only really settled on this one because some of the discussion seemed like it would overlap with the "Instinctive Style" topic.

Certainly there are other choices of archery disciplines for the Archers who use the String/Face walking techniques. But the hypothetical was really trying to establish that all these barebow styles have a place at the same peg at the same competition. ABA and 3DAAA to me are part of the discipline of Field Archery. Firstly I am at a loss as to understand why these other styles were separated or excluded in the first place..maybe ignorance as to how they actually work, I don't rightly know. Secondly, since I believe there is no good reason for the separation/exclusion that they should be permitted to compete against EACH OTHER. I think this would be good for the sport overall. Certainly making it more interesting as well.

While separation or exclusion works within a certain discipline based on false premises than there isn't really freedom of choice. When the distances are unknown, I don't believe there is a measurable advantage from one style to the next. Without contrary information I would guess that it was simply an ignorant arbitrary decision that has actually helped establish a linear predjudice amongst many (not all) field archers. I'm surprised they didn't ban left hand shooters as well...maybe I could have brought Fred Bear into the discussion if that had been the case.

[GrahameA]

Morning Troy

But I usually call dogs dogs and cats cats.

However, we have called Koalas "Koala Bears" (or QANTAS Bears in the case of some Americans) and it still has not turned them into Bears, similarly we call Bamboo timber when it is a grass and Victorian Ash an Ash when it is a Eucalypt. It is for those reasons that technical people use nomenclature systems so there is no confusion (or at least little). However, changing the world can be a challenge.

People will continue to talk about "Instinctive Archery" for a long time even if we were to start calling it something else today. The body of literature which uses the term "Instinctive" is large and not all of the audience reads this forum. However, I would suggest that those who think about such things will have already started putting the clues together.

... Firstly I am at a loss as to understand why these other styles were separated or excluded in the first place..maybe ignorance as to how they actually work, I don't rightly know.

In my opinion it is a result of when the rules were made those making the rules decided they were diffferent. I tend to belong the school of thought that says, "Don't tear down fences until you know why they were put up" and "The Law of Unintended Consequences is always present". As a result I am happy to live with the rules as they are, they don't cause me any issues and I just adapt to them.

It is a bit like the recent acceptance by some of using Carbon and Alloy arrows in what was an exclusively wood arrow division. What has it truly gained? More importantly who bears the responsibilty for the change from an arrow that did degrade in a realtively short time to smething that will take many years? The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again.

Some thoughts:

"It's a funny thing, the more I practice the luckier I get."
Arnold Palmer

"One day of practice is like one day of clean living. It doesn't do you any good."
Abe Lemmons

It's easier to put on slippers than carpet the whole world.

I thought it was sandals rather than covering the world with leather.

[Chase N. Nocks]

Yes I agree there are plenty of terms incorrectly used. I bet you don't call them Koala Bears though and neither do I. While I would not refer to Bamboo as timber, I would/have refer to it informally as wood. I do not know if technically there is a distinction between timber and wood. However if I was an enthusiest, amatuer or professional discussing something (animals, plants, sport) with others of my kind I would expect correct terminology to be used. As you have discussed with the Baseball experience. I assume that you generally correct people that use the term instinctive to describe, what we both agree is a learned skillset.

Yes "Instinctive" is so ingrained in archery now that I can't see it changing in a hurry or even at all. Maybe someday it will be just a quaint ironic term, or accepted by the Oxford dictionary as an exception to it's normal meaning within the tradition of archery.

[Chase N. Nocks]

BTW I do like the two quotes you gave, especially the Arnold Palmer one.

[Chase N. Nocks]

I'm curious at the lack of response to the opening scenario. But I am happy to have two archers experienced across disciplines taking the time to pursue this topic.

Is it that no actual good reasons exist to exclude these styles and that shooting rules for ABA and 3DAAA are now out of step? Certainly out of step with some disciplines of the sport.

Your last sentence was confusing

Who is out of step with who?

There are other organizations out there to cater for those who do not agree with ABA or 3DAAA rules.

I believe it is called freedom of choice.

Your post is probably more suited to Shooting the Breeze rather than Mastering the Traditional Bow.

Daryl.

Daryl

I also forgot to ask in my previous reply if you are comfortable or have an objection to such a rule change.

[longbow steve]

Hi Troy, Do people want to string walk with longbows and timber recurves? I think there is a definate advantage in the modern adjustable bows used over the above so I dont believe they should be competing off the same peg if thats what your saying?
Steve

[Chase N. Nocks]

... Firstly I am at a loss as to understand why these other styles were separated or excluded in the first place..maybe ignorance as to how they actually work, I don't rightly know.

In my opinion it is a result of when the rules were made those making the rules decided they were diffferent. I tend to belong the school of thought that says, "Don't tear down fences until you know why they were put up" and "The Law of Unintended Consequences is always present". As a result I am happy to live with the rules as they are, they don't cause me any issues and I just adapt to them.

Looking at the rules I have no doubt that they decided that these styles were different. The fact that they did does not explain the "Why". I have not just questioned the ruling but have provided reasoned justification for questioning. So it is not a fickle arbitrary tearing down of the status quo.

Part of the challange of the hypothetical is; if you have an objection to one of these barebow styles, say so AND explain why . If I have failed to say clearly why I think they are of an equal footing let me know and I will try to explain further. I won't continue to labour my point about the "Instinctive" terminology because I'm pretty sure I have expressed ad nauseum for many already why the term is inaccurate and quite useless in any explaination to a beginner what the style is that is represented by that term... afterall a FULL explaination of the Instinctive style could be made to the beginner without ever having to use the word instinctive.

I have actually had to tear down a fence. No one was there to justify their mistake either but the fact is it was on our land...so gone.

[Chase N. Nocks]

Hi Troy, Do people want to string walk with longbows and timber recurves? I think there is a definate advantage in the modern adjustable bows used over the above so I dont believe they should be competing off the same peg if thats what your saying?
Steve

Hi Steve. I don't know but looking at the US experience I imagine that they probably do and probably would if the opportunity was more readily available...that is for people that want to COMPETE of course. There is nothing stopping someone from using these styles around the field courses or official shoots as long as it is declared that they disqualifying themselves from the standard barebow comp.


I would be interested what specific adavntages you are refering to. Because even though equipment was not part of the initial hypothetical I am happy to treat it as an extension to the topic and part of the discussion. Within the hypothetical though let's for simplicity sake stay with standard shooting off the shelf bows.

Just to make a general case, (the variables can be qualified later) I think equipment plays less of a role than good form and quality practice. The highest scores I have ever shot with a bow was with a Damon Howatt Hunter shooting of the shelf with wood arrows, followed by a Bear LTD with a crap worn rubber rest....simply because for 5-6 years I never shot any other bows and shot 10's of thousands of arrows out of them. And I was snap shooting with the Hunter with a draw length that varied between about 21 inches and 28 inches depending on the distance to the target..372 on a ABA course but my average was 330-350 (then I listened to someone ). Now trying to get back to those days back but it's bloody hard work. Those scores are probably not such a big deal now but 20 years ago they were considered quite good. Perry and I always seemed to be neck in neck without actually caring much.