Why Does It Matter?

[Desert Archer]

Here's a philosophical question for you all to ponder, prompted by PB's poll question about aiming techniques.

Why does it matter what aiming system, method or style someone uses? If they don't have sights or sighting marks on the bow's riser what bloody difference does it make how they direct the arrow to the intended target?

I've heard the argument that string walking (and by association face walking) is cheating, but cheating who? The only thing keeping anyone from moving their fingers down the string, or using a higher anchor, on close shots is some arbitrary rule made up by the "it's cheating" crowd.

It gets even sillier when it comes to the difference between "instinctive" and "gap" shooters. The only way to know is to look inside someone's mind and record their thought process. Explain how to do that...and why the hell you would want to?

In answer to the title question, I don't think it does matter nor should it matter. FITA has the right idea. There's Recurve class (Olympic recurves with sights, stabilizers & clickers) and there's Barebow class (without that stuff). They even got it right when they went to their new Longbow class for field, unlike IFAA who nit-picks longbow designs to death in some mis-begotten attempt to make it "fair".

If you don't have sights or sight marks on the riser, why can't it be just "barebow" and leave it at that?

Dave

[Dsturgisjr]

Dave, I agree with you 100%

[Diamond Paul]

I totally agree. The problem arises from competition. Most people want to win when they go to a shoot; notice I didn't say that they want to do the work required to win. People generally want an excuse for missing, and if they did all the work required to be a good shooter, including developing an aiming system, and still could not win, then they would not be able to offer an excuse. I've always felt that was the reason so many compound archers would not step up to the open class. When a person shoots instinctive off the shelf, there is always the opportunity for an excuse. I, myself, shoot this way, but I no longer care about trying to "beat" anyone; I just compete with my own standard, trying to raise that standard the best I can. If a guy with a rest and plunger who string walks wants to shoot with me at a tournament, I'm all for it. I personally don't want to put in the time and effort to develop such a system. I don't think it's necessary for what I want to do, which is primarily hunting. But, I never have understood why people feel that someone who does care to develop such a system is cheating. I would assume it is because they know they can't beat someone like this, so they put in rules to eliminate the competition. Like I said, it's all about wanting to win.

[Papabull]

It shouldn't matter. Not logically. Not rationally. Not practically. If you look at the markers on the lane instead of the pins when you bowl, it's not cheating. If you look at the ball instead of the flag when you take a golf swing, it's not cheating. In pool, no one gives a damn whether you "see the stick" when you shoot or not. And if you really feel you're so much better than everyone else that you have to shoot all your shots one-handed because of the extra difficulty, then you better win or you'll get laughed right out of the building. "Yeah, well the other guy was using both hands" doesn't buy you anything.

[Viper]

Dave -

Yes and no.

The following is only my opinion, so that it for what it's worth.

The only time aiming systems "matter" is in competition.

Instinctive, POA and "gapping" really amount to the samething because there's a finite distance between the arrow and the mark that has to be "judged" correctly by the archer in order to be successful. Stringwalking, facewalking and sights are a different kettle of fish. Here, the archer is placing "the thing on the thing", meaning a defined object on the exact mark (or very close to it) he wants to hit. That thing, be it an adjustable sight pin or aperture attached to the bow or the tip of the arrow is a "sight".

This is where I'll side the the old NFAA definition over FITA (like that's anything new). One anchor point, one length arrow for a match - anything else goes into freestyle. Also, the addition of stabs and even clickers have no bearing on the aiming mechanism being used, unless of course the clicker is convieniently mounted in the sight window at the exact height necessary to line up with the bullseye. (Thats why under the arrow clickers were fabricated in the 60's and 70's - and yes, I have one!).

Enter reality - again. The real issue is what constitutes "cheating"? Cheating is something that is clearly definable and yields an undesputed advantage - AND IS READILY ENFORCABLE. "Instinctive", POA and gapping are not readily apparent, sting/face walking and sights are - that part seems pretty simple. But what about the guy who specifically "detunes" his rig so his point on is at exactly 20 yds and shows up at a major match and cleans everybody's clock? Or the guy who shows up with a #100 Browning Explorer II and gets bumped to "freestyle" because of the lamination stripes on the face of the riser? (I have one of those, and no, electrical tape doesn't hide the ridges!) Gets a little muddy.

So back again to what is "cheating" in reality? The only explanation that works is "a clear and willful violation of the stated rules for a specific event providing an unfair advantage". Does that always make sense? Nope, but given the variations due to the creativity of some folks - it's the only rule that works.

Again, personally; "Instinctive" (whatever that is), POA, and gap = barebow (stabs and clickers are fine) and any formal sighting DEVICE (including the arrow head) = freestyle. (OK, release aids go into unlimited FS.)

Viper out.

[Rednef]

Viper, I hope that this is a case of me reading too much into what you are saying. If I exercise greater skill in equipment set up than the other guy and I am able to set up my longbow to have specific point on in order to accomplish a specific objective I am dabbling in some sort of cheating "grey area"?

[Desert Archer]

That thing, be it an adjustable sight pin or aperture attached to the bow or the tip of the arrow is a "sight".

On the field course, using my face walking technique my POA on the 35 yard walk-up is one scoring ring below the target. So, the Olympic recurve shooter with a Sure-Loc Supreme and a Titan Sight Pin (forget the 36" stabilizer and clicker) who sets his sight mark for the pre-determined 35 yard setting (he has a 36 yard setting for the Hunter Round too) is on the same playing field as me looking over the rounded, indistinct point on my Navigator and holding it at what I estimate to be the width of a scoring ring under the target? And, I have a distinct advantage over the gap shooter who knows that the proper gap puts his arrow a little under the target at 35 yards?

OK. I'll shoot against the Olympic recurve guys. I may not beat them very often but if I work at it hard enough I might just give them a scare, and have a great time doing it! But let's be "fair"...traditional class needs to include every kind of recurve and longbow and all arrows. No whining about elevated rests or plungers as unfair or carbon and aluminum arrows as cheating.

Dave

[Viper]

Red -

No, you're reading me right, no cheating involved as long as you stay within the rules. I know more than one guy using a (relatively) light target bow with (relatively) heavy, full length arrows, (one guy with a 6 fletched arrow) that is point on at 20 yds shooting a whopping 98 fps. Of course that rig is totally useless past 22 yds, but for indoor spots, he's kinda hard to beat. That scenario to me doesn't make a lot of sense "philosophically", and that's why I just put a sight on the thing.

Dave -

The multiple anchor points and finger positions are still a heck of an advantage compared to the guy using only a std corner of the mouth anchor with a single point-on of 65 yds or more. As far as Kentucky windage or eleveation, we all use it at one time or another, even with sights.

It's a philsophical discussion, so there's no right or wrong answer. The only thing to do is know the rules of the governing body you're shooting under and stay within them, or at least don't get caught ;)

Viper out.

[Desert Archer]

It's a philsophical discussion, so there's no right or wrong answer.

I agree. Just kicking around the various viewpoints. I shoot Barebow (NFAA) against compounds who will generally kick my butt. I don't complain, just try harder.

I just signed up for an indoor Senior Olympics event (NFAA 300 Round) to be shot in August. They don't have "barebow" except for a dumbed down Traditional at 15 yards (guess 20 is too far). I'll be shooting against those Olympic recurves with my indoor Barebow recurve. Should be interesting.

Also, simply as a point of interest, that indoor set up is a 39# at my draw 70" recurve. I shoot full length 400 Navigator FMJs with 120g points. With my highest anchor I hold between 5 & 6 O'Clock on the Vegas 3 spot target faces, between the 3 & 4 ring on the Blue & White face. Wonder how many would think that's "cheating". (smiley face goes here)

Dave

[Papabull]

Red -

No, you're reading me right, no cheating involved as long as you stay within the rules. I know more than one guy using a (relatively) light target bow with (relatively) heavy, full length arrows, (one guy with a 6 fletched arrow) that is point on at 20 yds shooting a whopping 98 fps. Of course that rig is totally useless past 22 yds, but for indoor spots, he's kinda hard to beat. That scenario to me doesn't make a lot of sense "philosophically", and that's why I just put a sight on the thing.



I figure if that's what a fellow has to do to win, then he can go ahead and do it. That's not my philosophical ideal for it, either, but I don't care if that's the other fellow's strategy. It's within the rules and he's still got to shoot better than the rest of the field with whatever techniques they brought to win. Since the name of the game in indoor spots is hitting spots, I see nothing wrong with a guy using a lightweight 30 pound bow and fishing arrows if he thinks that will do the job for him. Part of the game, in my opinion, is choosing and tuning the equipment to be best for the game at hand, whether it's indoor spots, IBO 3D, squirrel hunting or big, dangerous game hunting, so it's all good, in my opinion. In competition, stay within the rules and no one has a right to complain about your philosophy. Of course, that doesn't mean they won't complain. Poor sportsmanship is part of the human condition, I'm afraid.

[Rednef]

I have taken the championship at my state indoor shoot for the last 3 years in a row. Nobody else has managed that before. I am still striving to beat the record though. (I also have some firsts and seconds in the state field and 900 rounds.) Eventually somebody will come along and beat me at my own game. That person, more power to them, will do that by exercising even greater skill at shooting and setting up their equipment than what I have. When that happens I guess that I too can then cast aspersions on their accomplishment by implying that they somehow cheated because they set up their bow better than I did.
A bow is a tool. Generally it is considered best to select and prepare one's tools based upon the job at hand. It must be quite a sight to see if you ever work on your own car, what with using that same 2# ball peen hammer on everything.

[Viper]

Red -

Really seems like you're defending yourself when no accusation was made or implied. As long as you're within the rules, it's cool.

Viper out.

[Martin Farrent]

Viper,

Sights were devised so people wouldn't need to use the arrow as a sight (whether on the spot or on a POA).

Stringwalking and facewalking use the arrow as a sight.

Best,

Martin

[Desert Archer]

Martin,

I'm pretty sure Tony (Viper) knew that already. (smile)

What point were you trying to make? Maybe I need another cup of coffee but I don't get what you're trying to say.

Dave

[Rednef]

You're right and I apologize for beginning to froth at the mouth. Its just that it gets old. Go to a trad only shoot and kick butt and I'm cheating because I don't shoot instinctive. Go to a mixed shoot and I'm cheating when I shoot from the compound stakes and still kick butt. (I still haven't quite figured that one out yet.) And now I hear that I'm cheating because I'm really good at setting up my bow. (BTW I NEVER keep my own score.) It just gets old.

[Martin Farrent]

What point were you trying to make? Maybe I need another cup of coffee but I don't get what you're trying to say.



Dave,

Tony chose to focus on the quality of the arrow as a sight. I was simply pointing out the opposite way of viewing things - that sights were devised to get away from sighting with the arrow. In that light, both a 'walker' and a gapper remain 'old school', whereas a sight shooter would be 'new school' - creating a dividing line that seems more logical than his... to me.

Best,

Martin

[Desert Archer]

Got it! Told you I needed another cup of coffee (or three - lol).

Dave

[SteveGabriel]

3 weeks ago PB and I were in a 3D "tournament" at my club.
PB came in 2nd in recurve. 1st place was a guy with a sight who shot from the blue "stickbows and women's" stakes, while PB and I shot from the white "bowhunter"stakes with the compound shooters.
Hey, whatever floats your boat:D

[Pinelander]

I saw DA's post as not having much to do with "rules in tournaments", but rather the innuendos thrown around that somebody is "cheating" because they use their arrow to aim. It's petty and it's misplaced arrogance IMO. And it also incorporates equipment use as well.... he used a lightweight arrow, he used an elevated rest, he used a metal riser, etc, etc. There is never a shortage of excuses why the fella who was doing it the "harder way" couldn't keep up with the guy who was doing it the "smarter way". Yes, I said smarter way.... take for example a simple $3 stick-on rest. Some people can struggle with tuning off-shelf and are fully aware that an arrow coming off shelf is usually not as consistent as coming off a rest. And then to insinuate that somebody is cheating based on their use of logic is..... well, illogical. But then again, who said this thing called "traditional" was supposed to be logical anyways.

[Silverback]

other then in tournament rules it shouldn't matter , people are always gonna worry that someones gettin over on em with equipment in shoots thus all the rules , but the last thing we need to do is fuss over how someone aims , or for that matter what kinda longbow or recurve they use , to each their own

[ahshoot]

It doesn't matter. This is like debating what type of truck is coolest. It only matters to the one who is shooting. Anything above that is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

[falconpro]

Desire, jelousy, shame, envy, So many emotions play into my competitive personality. What a draw back. When I fail to get first, (and lets face it, thats most of the time), I feel all of them. If I'm not lamenting about how sorry/bad I was to loose in that way, then I'm often stewing on how bad the other shooter was for daring to use (whatever) to win that way. Yes, we humans are a spoiled bunch. My ears always burn for a little while after a stinging defeat. Then I calm down and realize the other person just simply shot better than me. And that they prepared themselves better than I prepared myself. in reality, it does'nt matter what class your in. If we are in a tourney together, and you just flat out shoot me, I know it. If I win, because it was my day, I know that too. loosing is what drives me to work harder. I want to win every time. And I have NO idea why. Making ourselves and our archery better, thats where our attention should be, not on someone else's journey.

[SaltyDawg]

The only place it matters is in competition in which case the differences should be well defined, and fairly separated into specific classes.

Where is that dead horse emoticon when ya need it.

[Desert Archer]

The only place it matters is in competition in which case the differences should be well defined, and fairly separated into specific classes.

Where is that dead horse emoticon when ya need it.

So in NFAA Field I have to shoot against barebow compounds, which have two mechanical advantages over a barebow recurve shooter like me (flatter trajectory and much lower holding weight), just because I used more than one anchor point. Is that being "fairly separated"?

Dave

[SaltyDawg]

Desert Archer,
don't get your panties in a wad.

I offered no definition, nor any specific class separations.
Those decisions aren't mine to make as I don't run a competition.
I do have my opinions, but look closely - I didn't offer them.

If you will read what I wrote closely the word fairly pretty much covers it, and would/should eliminate the possibility of you having to compete against compounds with your recurve. I would never condone such a thing.

If things are done fairly, then no one needs to worry.
Right ?

[Desert Archer]

SD,

Don't wear panties and the Jockey shorts are just fine. This is Philosophy section so I was posing a phisolophical question, related to the original question of why does the aiming system used matter.

You brought up the concept of aiming being separated "fairly" into classes. I gave you an example (a real world example) of what I think is unfair, based only on aiming systems...in my case face walking. I can't use my chosen aiming system in any other class and compete in NFAA field archery, my chosen form of competition.

I wasn't and am not now any where close to as up set as you seem to be defensive. This is supposed to be a discussion, not a fight.

Dave

[SaltyDawg]

No Sir,

I am not even close to being upset.

I learned a long time ago, that arguing, or trying to prove a point on an internet discussion board was very much like competing in the special olympics.

:-)

[ahshoot]

No Sir,

I am not even close to being upset.

I learned a long time ago, that arguing, or trying to prove a point on an internet discussion board was very much like competing in the special olympics.

:-)

Because you get a hug afterward? After reading the last few posts, I think you might need one :) Many of the posters here are long-timers. So we do more often than not have very nice discussion and people do make points and others recognize them.

[Highlander]

To me it’s like this

First there were all sorts of estimation – there are plenty of other discussions on what that’s called!
Then notable markings, fixtures, components
Then there was adjustments in style –walking
Then sights
Then more and more ad on’s

Different bow designs throughout to get an added advantage this way or that.

So to some, if you perfect one style, one anchor point and shoot lots of distances, right out there to 100 yards why take the chance on changing your anchor why not just fit a sight, its the same difference where sights are allowed (Competition, law restrictions etc.), for others they prefer the sight of mind!

Its all as individual as the person themselves, its irrelevant to the majority but sacrosanct to the individual, it may not be the most suited style, equipment or aiming technique that is possible for them, but it works and gives the desired results.


That to some which matters, matters not to others, the matter of which matters for impartial equality


H.

[Desert Archer]

...why take the chance on changing your anchor why not just fit a sight, its the same difference where sights are allowed (Competition, law restrictions etc.), for others they prefer the sight of mind!

I'm sure this is going to sound "defensive" and to some extent it probably is. Would someone explain to me how, if my use of more than one anchor is "...the same difference..." as using a sight, the recurve shooters with sights routinely kick my ass?

An out of focus, rounded end of the arrow held some where on or near the target face (on the middle only at one yardage for each anchor) is hardly "...the same difference..." as a Beiter or Titan aperture on a Sure-Loc sight that is infinitely adjustable for each and every distance. Heck, string walkers have the advantage of always holding on the middle of the target. To make it "fair" should I be in a different class than string walkers? Or, as so many in the trad community seem to think, since it is "...the same difference..." as a sight should we face and string walkers just shoot against the Olympic recurves? Oh yea, I forgot. Why don't we just go ahead and shoot a compound.

It is a slippery slope. Once you start there's no where to go but the bottom.

Dave

[SaltyDawg]

LOL,

You guys have me all wrong, but hey, thats the internet.

I wont yank your chains anymore.

Shoot Straight
Have Fun

[Sam Dunham]

The game, the rules. Want to play? you have to go by the rules. New game? new rules. No game! no rules. No rules means it is not a game. No Geneva=no prisoners.:crawfish:

[Highlander]

Dave Sorry for the short response to the thread, but briefly; not from a result point of view, using POA on the target centre, whatever the mark is (sight, arrow point etc.), that is the reference.

I stated earlier on in the initial post some people don’t want to use multiple anchors for the very reason of additional deviations in style form (call it what you will), in addition add to this potential additional inconsistencies and you would probably get in most cases a poorer shot than with a sight.


So I do agree with you, the same difference in this instance was intended to mean, bringing the reference to the point you wish to hit!


H.

The mark to be hit, is in destiny’s hands a miss is highly improbable

[DanaC]

I think that the proponents of one system or another may feel that theirs is the most difficult way, and other methods are easy. And many people are just plain envious of those who (they believe) have it easier than they do. It's not just in archery.

I hear archers knock gun hunters, yet I wonder how many of them can actually shoot a high power rifle or slug gun well under field conditions.

And politics? How many politicians have made a career out of feeding the flames of envy?

I personally shoot 'instinctive' as I understand that term, but I know people who gap, and a few who string walk. I've tried them, briefly, but I return to what I know best. Does it limit me? In some ways, yes. On the target range probably more so than in thick woods at close ranges. But I know that learning another system would NOT be 'easy.' So my hat is off to those who have done so.

[Papabull]

I think that the proponents of one system or another may feel that theirs is the most difficult way, and other methods are easy.

I agree. That's how people rationalize it. And that's all it is; rationalization.

When two folks have the exact same equipment, they're on an even playing field. Those that assert that their style is more difficult do so as an excuse for their shooting and a dishonest excuse at that.

For example, if an instinctive shooter claims that gap shooting is easier, I'd have to wonder how he came to know this little tidbit of information. Did he learn how to gap shoot and master it and decide he'd never use it again because he shot too well with it? Did he try it and find out he couldn't shoot worth a damn with it, thereby rendering his assertion dishonest? Or is he just assuming that gap shooting must be easier because it's easier on his ego to explain the shortcomings in his own shooting skill that way?

If it's "more effective" and you don't use it; then don't blame someone else for shooting better than you do, claiming that you're doing it "the hard way" makes no sense because there's nothing hard at all about missing more than the next guy.

[Desert Archer]

Along the line PB is following, a case could be made that gaping, string walking or face walking is "harder" than instinctive because you have to do a lot more trial and error practice to establish your "gaps", "crawls" or "range for each anchor". And, the gaper, string or face walker has to remember all that...for every shot. Heck, just describing it is harder than saying "pull 'er back and let 'er rip". (smile)

Dave

[Papabull]

I think the honest truth is that everyone uses whatever technique with which they've attained the best results. For someone to claim that they didn't shoot as well as they could because they used a technique that is "harder" sounds like a sore loser saying "yeah, well I wasn't really trying to win" to me. If someone has an "A" game then they should bring it instead of smugly proclaiming that their technique is just "harder".

It's harder to hit a golfball down the fairway if you aren't looking at it when you swing the club but shanking it into the woods is still shanking it into the woods and using some sort of technique that makes it harder for you to avoid that sort of thing doesn't keep you from losing a stroke (or two or three) over it.

[sagebrush]

The governing bodies decided that if you shoot with X equipment you can compete againist other X equipment shooters.

By leaving shooters with the ability to "cheat" furthers our understanding of equipment set up and form. Which extends everyones effective ranges and enjoyment of the sport.

Can't we all just play by the rules and except that others might not.

To be a truly gifted archer ( Howard Hill ) in a trad class these days would be hard, everyone would accuse you of cheating only becuase you mastered the shot.

Tis only my opinion friends