Trad Talk Forums banner
1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Civil but Disobedient
Joined
·
10,698 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have finished all the pertinent sections of Archery Anatomy by Ray Axford. What I did not find in the book was any mention of bone on bone. In fact, if my interpretation is correct, bone on bone does not exist, at least in the sense that you can create a continuous skeletal connection from your bow hand to your bow arm, without angle changes (i.e. non compressive skeletal orientation). There are many angled connections that exist in the skeletal connections that make up the shooting position. There is much discussion on achieving optimum skeletal alignment for different body configurations. Also a lot of pros and cons for different approaches. Still not a single reference to bone on bone. So maybe I just do not understand the bone on bone concept. So what does bone on bone mean to you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,958 Posts
Of course you're technically correct. Heck if nothing else there's cartilage and tendons and stuff there too. Or at least what's left of 'em. :)

Anyway, to me "bone on bone" means establishing, as best as possible, a columnar stack of bone structures such that load is supported by that column in a straight everywhere possible except where a change in angle dictates otherwise, AND that that column is established and maintained with the least amount of stray unnecessary muscle recruitment.

And Archery Anatomy is a excellent guide to do just that, regardless of what terminology is or is not used.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
996 Posts
Bone on bone means putting your body into proper alignment in order to maximize correct skeletal alignment with minimal muscle load (strain).

For example, is it best to carry a heavy box with your arms fully extended and your trunk flexed forward? Or, should we hold the box close to our body and stand erect? The latter is more efficient, and will cause less strain to the structures (muscles, ligaments etc) that support the skeleton.
 

·
Civil but Disobedient
Joined
·
10,698 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Of course you're technically correct. Heck if nothing else there's cartilage and tendons and stuff there too. Or at least what's left of 'em. :)

Anyway, to me "bone on bone" means establishing, as best as possible, a columnar stack of bone structures such that load is supported by that column in a straight everywhere possible except where a change in angle dictates otherwise, AND that that column is established and maintained with the least amount of stray unnecessary muscle recruitment.

And Archery Anatomy is a excellent guide to do just that, regardless of what terminology is or is not used.
Best possible is the operative phrase. The columnar stack does not exist according to the anatomical pictures and descriptions in the book. I have found Archery Anatomy to be a very interesting book, and is a good compliment to any guide to shooting that you choose to use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,065 Posts
To me it means the guy saying it is convinced he knows more than me,and is now letting me know as well.
Other than that it may have something to do with correct bow arm feel or alignment,,,maybe,,who knows ?

John.
 

·
Civil but Disobedient
Joined
·
10,698 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Sometimes a phrase like bone on bone can be useful. Other times it can be a hindrance when it is not clear what it means. I remember spending a lot of time trying to figure out what a deep hook really meant. It sounded good, lots of folks used the term, yet I could not find a picture of it. So I was applying my own interpretation. Now I think I know...well, maybe.

John,

It comes off sounding like a platitude. As you say, it makes someone sound knowledgeable without actually saying anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,146 Posts
Bone on bone was the term used by my doctor to describe my hip and why I needed it replaced. There my be other meanings but that is a phrase I do not to hear agian in reference to my body.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,384 Posts
Where does the term "Bone on Bone" originally come from as applied to archery?
 

·
Civil but Disobedient
Joined
·
10,698 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Phil,

I do not know the origin. I have never seen it used in any of the archery form books I have read. I have seen it used many times here on Tradtalk and among archers I know. It is used to describe a level of alignment where bone is pushing against bone, and therefore, resisting compressive forces.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,384 Posts
Hank
It sounds to me like a layman has been try to explain the concept of joint congruence. There's a idea in biomechanics that because of the complex shape of some jont surfaces, certain joints have an optimum congruence where the maximum surface area of the joint interface is achieved giving the most stability. Most of the congruent joints (oblique Mid tarsal, Sub-Talar, Talo-navicular to name but a few) are joints that offer stability to the skeletal frame work against deformtion loads or resist high bending moments.
That would be my interpritation.

PS a working example would be an elbow where the line of force acting along the Radius and Ulna and on to the Humerus passing across the Elbow joint is in complete compression without creating a bending moment vector .... or to put it another way the line of force is acting through the centre of the joint.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Salskov

·
Barefaced tightropewalker
Joined
·
8,512 Posts
Getting 'bone on bone' means I can relax while holding the poundage. It's about the feeling of comfort and strength.
Given no mention of the term in his book it's curious that one of his diagrams is widely used to illustrate it.
I'd guess the term came with the introduction of biomechanics to archery as a means to easily explain what is trying to be achieved. And that it does whether 100% technically correct or not.
 

·
Barefaced tightropewalker
Joined
·
8,512 Posts
As you mention his comparison of different body types, it reminds me to look through it again. We have a new club member and an existing member which would definitely conform to the heavier built type. At least one is having problems with complete alignment. Probably due to muscle mass and lack of flexibility.
And that thought extrapolates to thinking that some of members here may also be of a heavier body set. With all the complications that brings for ideal form....and the advice we may offer.
 

·
Civil but Disobedient
Joined
·
10,698 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Aiden,

Now that I have read the book, I can commence with studying the book. There is so much there, and so much thought that has to be put into understanding what is being said.

By the way, I would not normally be on line this late. I am on 24 hour on call and just got off a problem.
 

·
Barefaced tightropewalker
Joined
·
8,512 Posts
10.43 am here. Letting the adrenaline die down?

My 24 hour 'on-calls' usually involve a drive in the cold, dark followed by a burst of physical exertion allied to performance stress then a clean up. Driving home, I'm fully awake and 'warmed up' and in no state to go back to bed and fall straight asleep. Hence, 'letting the adrenaline die down'....
 

·
Civil but Disobedient
Joined
·
10,698 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
2:44 AM Sunday where I am. I am on call until 7 AM and then I am off to shoot some field. I have a lot of work to do and could not go to the range yesterday (Saturday). I am going back to bed and hope that I do not get any more calls. Final prep is going on at my house this weekend for a juried garden tour that our house is part of next weekend. We will have from 300 to 500 folks touring our garden. I don't do anything outside. That is all my wife and her crew. A lot is needed inside the house to finish getting ready. So early to the range while the "crew" is working outside, and then work on the house the remainder of the day. I better get some sleep if I am going to make it.
 

·
Barefaced tightropewalker
Joined
·
8,512 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
798 Posts
A better explanation might be an example. A human standing is a picture of what archery deems as bone on bone. It takes little effort to hold your body weight, you use very little energy to simply balance. However, If you were to crouch, it takes much energy to hold this position because now your supporting weight with muscles. I think this is a good example of an archery coach's use of bone on bone, whether it actually exists or is just a training term, I don't know. I don't shoot that way, what I call olympic style. LOL, I do everything wrong with good results
 

·
Civil but Disobedient
Joined
·
10,698 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
It is not a useful way to describe what you are trying to achieve unless it leads to a specific understanding of the anatomical position that it represents. I have tried to take the term bone on bone and figure out how to achieve it, and could not, because the configuration does not exist. As such, it is a nice concept but not a useful one, since the body is not configured that way. I would rather have someone tell my how to properly align my body rather than tell me that I need to achieve a bone on bone configuration.

I actually run into the bone on bone term more in traditional rather than Olympic archery. I had never been told to achieve a bone on bone configuration from any NAA certified coach.

Aiden, I got called again. Looks like no sleep tonight.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top