Trad Talk Forums banner

How pointing might work

Tags
pointing work
3K views 28 replies 7 participants last post by  Martin Farrent 
#1 ·
I've given this 'instinctive'/arm-pointing business some more thought.

Hank says this: Point your arm at the target and as you move out, the angle will change to automatically accommodate for arrow drop. (For some reason, the changes coincide at both ends.)

At one stage, he also said this: Point your arrow at the target, and as you move out… ditto.

The principle is the same, but the latter variant may be more palatable to most people who either gap or shoot point of aim via the arrow tip. It's important to note, however, that you must look at the arrow in a different way when 'pointing'. You must see, as Elkdreamer once put it, a 'laser beam' going through the entire arrow (or arm) into the bull's-eye.

It's also important to stress that, according to those who practice it, you must tune your nocking point and/or anchor for the method to work with a particular bow (elevation-wise).

Yet, still the method seems to contradict the laws of physics. "Surely", a gapper will object, "an arrow shot from a slow bow will drop more at any given distance than one from a fast bow. So how can you treat both the same way?"

Answer (I think): You do. And you don't.

You do treat slow and fast arrows the same: because arrow drop follows the same pattern regardless of speed. At any given range, the arrow will have dropped about four times as much as at half that range. (Try this with a ballistic calculator, using various viable arrow speeds and configurations.) All archers adjust to this drop by increasing the objective angle of the arrow correspondingly. The arrow is always raised relative to the target and raised more with increasing distance - though point-of-aim shooting and target-end gapping may obscure this fact for optical reasons.

You don't treat slow and fast arrows the same: because the tuning effectively sets an equipment-specific 'base' arrow angle at the tuning distance. All angles adjusted for range are governed by it. Thus, the actual angle of the arrow relative to the target (as opposed to the angle you see) is always going to be steeper with slow equipment, flatter with a faster set-up.

What the 'pointers' are essentially maintaining is that the necessary angle changes on a tuned set up coincide with the adjustments you make automatically when you look at the arrow (arm) in a certain way. In the light of the above, that is no longer too hard to believe. I lack the knowledge to substantiate or disprove it. But given the fairly universal pattern of arrow drop over distance, it is at least feasible.

Pointers also say that the method only works out to a certain distance - generally, but not always given as the spot-on range of any particular constellation (spot-on, that is, if the archer were aiming conventionally, i.e. with the arrow point). The faster the bow, the further away the limit. In theory, however, there's no reason for this to be the case.

I think it may have to do with the 'base' angle mentioned above being flatter on a faster bow. Of course, this objective arrow angle must in some way interact with the perceived one. The flatter the latter, on the other hand, the easier the 'laser beam' is to see - even at extended ranges. I think the spot-on limit is probably only approximate and depends on a person's ability to judge adjustment at longer ranges. But it's easier with a faster bow, so the spot-on barrier may be about right for the average person.

Another possiblity is this: Any irregularities (and there are some) in the 'factor 4 principle' mentioned above will be more consequential for a slower arrow - because the total drop is much bigger. This phenomenon will increase with distance.

Best,

Martin
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Not sure I buy it (LOL) but that is the clearest explination of this idea I've read here so far. At least I followed it, which I've had trouble doing with most of the other posts.

Now that I'm back to shooting again (applause in the background) I will have to give this a try after I've recovered my old form. Still working on fundamentals today. (smiley face goes here)

Dave
 
#3 ·
Lots of variables involved as well. Many who have tried it and see its merits are shooting heavier bows than I and are also shooting 3 under. I am shooting a lighter bow, spilt finger and a lower anchor point.

The trick is to find the magic in both bow setup and your form, once you do -- game over.

Seriously, it is a terrible system that only works in make believe. You might be better off gapping :)
 
#5 ·
Desert Archer said:
Now that I'm back to shooting again (applause in the background) I will have to give this a try after I've recovered my old form.
Problem is this: You have to know the picture you are looking for. And while you can see the picture with just about any set up, it also has to work on the target, of course - otherwise, it's simply a mirage. When I was trying this via the bow arm, I got a feeling for it and could take another bow and experiment with different anchors until one worked. I knew that picture and could find it with any anchor. But it only actually functioned with one.

I've found the method even more precise using the arrow-pointing variant. From using the bow-arm style, I knew roughly how I should be looking at the arrow. So again, it was only a question of finding the right anchor.

Alternatively, you can adjust other variables pertaining to elevation until 'the picture works'. What you can't do, however, is this: Aim conventionally and with all your usual factors in place, then look at the arrow and hope to see 'the magic'. Unless everything is right by pure coincidence, you will not see a thing. The arrow is aimed correctly in one of many ways, but the picture is elsewhere.

Put another way: You see the picture. Then you make it work. Once it works at ten yards, it will also work at 20. Other sight systems function the other way round - by adjusting the picture to the objective conditions.

Once you've done this for one bow/arrow combination, you know it will work and you can easily do it for another - because you have confidence in the picture. But until you've experienced success that first time, you are in fuzzy zone. You sometimes think you can see the picture, but the arrow goes wild. And sometimes the arrow hits, yet you didn't quite suss the picture. It's a tough puzzle until solved once.

Afterwards, as I said, it's a very precise method up to a certain range. The length of my garden plus the width of the road in front of our house gives me about 35 yards (when I'm audacious enough to shoot from the road). And the results were excellent on the very first day.

It's just that sight fatigue problem that bothers me. Shooting this way, my eyes tire far quicker than when aiming conventionally. I experienced the same effect when using the bow-arm variant.

Best,

Martin
 
#6 ·
Re: sight fatigue. Using most systems, it seems efficient to start acquiring elements of the sight picture before you are actually aiming. With the arrow-pointing method, this does not make sense and may lead to early wearying of the eyes and a leakage of mental energy. Because you see bull's-eye and arrow so differently and in one (somewhat imaginary) line, it's probably better not to look at them separately beforehand - you will only have to wrench your eyes away, a waste of effort.

Once you are at full draw and ready to point, you want to employ the fastest possible way of constructing your sight picture. For me, that begins with focusing on the front third of the arrow. Light conditions can be a problem, here - not just brightness, but a host of factors. These and other aspects make this sight picture such a demanding one. Conservation of sight/mental energy would appear to be paramount, if your goal is to shoot a lot of arrows using this style.

Mixing this style with others - e.g. with point of aim for longer shots - also poses some challenges. When switching from pointing to more conventional aiming, you need to ensure that you take appropriate care of windage... which is hardly an issue while pointing. When switching from aiming to pointing, you need to pull your attention away from the tip of the arrow. As I said in another thread, it probably makes sense to aim with one eye shut, thus eliminating peripheral vision... but to point with both open, thereby maintaining a clear mental distinction between the two methods.

Simply because the pointing style is so accurate at the ranges where it works, it would be great to incorporate it in an overall system. But you need to address the above problems and probably several others. For a hunter or a 3D shooter (as you remarked elsewhere), they are probably insignificant - since neither sight fatigue nor the necessity for a second method need arise. But for a target shooter they would be pretty weighty.

Best,

Martin
 
#7 ·
Martin Farrent said:
Problem is this: You have to know the picture you are looking for. And while you can see the picture with just about any set up, it also has to work on the target, of course - otherwise, it's simply a mirage. When I was trying this via the bow arm, I got a feeling for it and could take another bow and experiment with different anchors until one worked. I knew that picture and could find it with any anchor. But it only actually functioned with one.

I've found the method even more precise using the arrow-pointing variant. From using the bow-arm style, I knew roughly how I should be looking at the arrow. So again, it was only a question of finding the right anchor.

It's just that sight fatigue problem that bothers me. Shooting this way, my eyes tire far quicker than when aiming conventionally. I experienced the same effect when using the bow-arm variant.

Best,

Martin
and when one masters the how........it is so sweet.........i am just as deadly with it barebow as using my other chastain with the halo........but martin.......as you point out ........halfway through a 3d course the sight fatigue problem sets in and my mind often as not will not raise my bowarm to the sight picture that my brain is screaming for before the loose........just not raise it that fraction of an inch needed..........for several targets........then the brain will gain control again and i can regain that zone needed to use this system........what i am playing with more and more........still using the bow arm......still using the "laser beam" from my shoulder through my arm/bow hand.......i also now notice the arrow tip as a second hard core reference to the mark.........a split second additional sight picture........that seems to enable me to overcome the sight fatigue problem that i had occuring with only just using the bowarm............of course using just the bowarm ingrained picture for bowhunting at the ranges that it works for me.....out to 35 yrds +/-..........really is not an issue as usually my first 5 shots are right where i want them when ever i shoot this way..........as mentioned......now that we are into hardcore hunting.........i'm shooting the halo [or what ever it's now called] with my hunting bow........but at least 2/3 times a week i will shoot my other chastain .....barebow .......this way.........and the concession that i give to this way of shooting a barebow.......well.....it gives me a pure raw shooting high.......that doesn't come with shooting the halo ......... or gapping........or point of aim...........i had the halo up and testing before i started messing with this style of shooting........i'm not going to mess with that until the season is over.........then i will pull it and we will see how the hunting chastain works with the zone of hank.........b
 
#8 ·
elkdreamer said:
and when one masters the how........it is so sweet.........i am just as deadly with it barebow as using my other chastain with the halo........but martin.......as you point out ........halfway through a 3d course the sight fatigue problem sets in and my mind often as not will not raise my bowarm to the sight picture that my brain is screaming for before the loose........
Yes, Elkdreamer, that sight picture is very demanding. It looks strong and convincing when achieved, but is actually pretty fragile in another sense. I'm trying to work out ways of preempting the fatigue and confusion by conserving mental/visual energy. Here are a few steps I've thought of:

1) When using the arrow variant, don't visualise arrow flight before the shot - it contradicts the 'laser beam' image. Perhaps it's better not to visualise the picture you'll be looking for either. Your imagined version of it might acquire 'a life of its own' and liberate itself from the 'real thing'.

2) Don't focus on the bull's-eye and/or the arrow while coming to full draw. You'll only have to force yourself to look at them differently a little later. Gaze over the top of the target, for instance. Don't start aiming/pointing until you're ready to shoot.

3) Work out how you can build the sight picture most efficiently. Perhaps
concentrate on the front third of the arrow (or arm) first, with the bull's-eye blending in from the background. Tip and full shaft come into line later, as the adjustments near perfection.

4) Don't pause to enjoy the sight picture before shooting. If you're no longer adjusting aim, allow your release to occur.

5) Don't wait for sight fatigue to set in before fighting it. Take the above steps on every shot, even when your eyes are fresh and they seem unnecessary.

No doubt I'll find more....

Best,

Martin
 
#9 ·
Martin, I don't want to hijack the thread but would like to emphasize one of your points for onlookers. Your point four about not taking time to enjoy the sight pic is a very important one and probably not made or emphasized enough on this site. I think we are all so conscious of the need to warn folks not to snap shoot but to hold long enough to get a solid anchor and to acquire the picture, we forget to remind them to stop holding the string as soon as they have the picture. This prevents too much waivering, fatigue after too few arrows, and will help guard against the dreaded TP.

Now, your point 1 is probably a good admonishment early in the pointing game, but I truly think you will soon reach a point where you don't need to get the point laser on and then think adjustment for trajectory. This will become a single step with an automatic trajectory correction based on perceived range. When these steps collapse to one, I think you will find that "sight fatigue" will become less of a problem. If these things don't happen then it's usually the shooter "mentating" or thinking too much about the process so that, as with a great improvisational musician, the head gets in the way of the sense of the music. I know things don't happen the same way with every shooter, but most who've used the Welch method end up here.
 
#11 ·
For me , when I'm shooting my DAS I have to shoot 3 under to get the right sight picture. But when I'm shooting my longbow I have to shoot split finger to get it to work for me. Now the crazy part is that I have the same sight picture with both bows and I still hit out to somewhere around 40 yards with both bows. The longbow I'm shooting is very slow compared to the DAS and the aiming system won't work quite as far as the faster DAS but it still works much farther than what you would expect it to. I don't understand how it works but it does.
 
#12 ·
dave....i shoot 3 under........anchored with the index finger corner of the mouth/thumb first knuckle solid behind jawbone........nose touching fletch.......knocking point is 1/2 above square.....bow brased at 7 3/4.......off of leather over a small halfmoon piece of limbsaver.....sidewall piece of limbsaver/leather as a plunger at about 1/8th.....this gives me a deadon at 25 yrds........my hunting bow is setup the same way with the halo...........have never really tried it split finger..........b
 
#13 ·
Oz in OH said:
Now, your point 1 is probably a good admonishment early in the pointing game, but I truly think you will soon reach a point where you don't need to get the point laser on and then think adjustment for trajectory...
You're probably right, Oz. In the meantime, I think the sight fatigue largely comes from reaching the right 'mode of looking' in an unmethodical, even chaotic way, or else via a method that is strenuous. For the first 30 minutes or so, even this is relatively easy. But it's an energy drain in the longer run.

Meanwhile, with more experiments I've found one method that (apparently) invariably gets me there, if done properly. It's in contradiction to some of the measures I outlined above, but it meets the main demand of efficiency, ease and natural flow. It works on the assumption that you're using the arrow to point and shooting below your spot-on range. It also presupposes that you like to lower the arrow while aiming, rather than raising it. All the same, people doing the opposite or even pointing the bow arm (rather than the arrow) may be able to transpose the jist of it.

What I can do is this: As I reach full draw, I virtually gun-barrel the arrow at the bull's-eye as perfectly as possible in a second or less. Then I start lowering it gradually. At some point fairly soon, the correct mode of vision switches itself on automatically. This can cause a mental click that might persuade you to shoot, because it's similar to the feeling that everything is already in place (though the latter is actually less of a mental kick and more considered). But you don't release yet. Instead you pause, almost imperceptibly, then continue to gradually lower the arrow until you see that laser-straight line.

The longer the range, the more important to do this gradually, since you can otherwise easily skip past both the mode-switch point and the correct sight picture - because, coming from above, you will be lowering the bow less with distance. But done properly, the sight fatigue issue is much reduced. I got it to work until dusk today and could have continued, had the sun not gone on strike.

Best,

Martin
 
#14 ·
Desert Archer said:
Is there any consensis about what anchor works best (high or low) or if 3 under is better or worse than split finger with this system?
The anchor is found on a per bow basis, Dave. (You can also adjust the nocking point, but the anchor method is easier.) You look at the arrow in the right way, then find the anchor that gets it to hit. If that anchor - or rather, the arrow position it generates - is easier for you with three under, then that's the best mode. If split fingers are more comfortable, then shoot that way.

Best,

Martin
 
#15 ·
Martin, there is no question that building mental cues into the shot process is very effective. The best shooters did it and once they arrive they call it automatic, but it's really all in the triggers you recognize are working and build in right now - you seemed to have had a good handle on that very early in the process.
 
#17 ·
Two interesting points so far --

1. Pointers vs Gappers: Pointers are simply playing connect the dots while Gappers are measuring the difference between the dots.

2. Looking at Deathwinds post you have a DAS which is on the higher end of performance and a Longbow which is much slower and yet the difference between the point of no return is very little.

This tells me that 10 to 20 fps is not that big of deal (or more) and as I have stated before, this system pretty much negates speed and without a doubt it does at hunting distances.
 
#18 ·
Hank said:
Pointers vs Gappers: Pointers are simply playing connect the dots while Gappers are measuring the difference between the dots.
Nice way of putting it, Hank. And informative, too.

However, in combination with this...

Hank said:
This tells me that 10 to 20 fps is not that big of deal (or more) and as I have stated before, this system pretty much negates speed and without a doubt it does at hunting distances.
... and your earlier remark on not setting limitations too early, I'm wondering what your research and experience says about the relevance of point-on range for the pointing method.

Your above remark on gapping and my latest experiences with finding the correct mode of vision indicate that point-on is the limit for arrow-pointing. But that range is possibly evened out between various configurations by the adjustments made to facililate pointing.

However, things should be different if you're pointing with the bow arm. Variables other than the distance between arrow and eye then enter the equation - notably the position of the grip.

Is this correct?

On another level: You only need to look at a ballistic calculator and compute average speeds between 0 and 40 yards, then to consider the fact that your arrow will be in the air for far less than a second to reach that distance. Even a 30 fps difference in speed cannot render much more than five yards difference in point-on range.

Best,

Martin
 
#19 ·
I can't edit the above post anymore, but need to add some additional considerations.

Martin Farrent said:
Your above remark on gapping and my latest experiences with finding the correct mode of vision indicate that point-on is the limit for arrow-pointing. But that range is possibly evened out between various configurations by the adjustments made to facililate pointing.
Or is point-on just a limit imposed by my way of coming down from spot-on aim to the correct pointing angle? If I started looking at the arrow in pointing mode from the onset, or brought it up from beneath, could the method work beyond the point-on range I would get as a gapper?

Martin Farrent said:
On another level: You only need to look at a ballistic calculator and compute average speeds between 0 and 40 yards, then to consider the fact that your arrow will be in the air for far less than a second to reach that distance. Even a 30 fps difference in speed cannot render much more than five yards difference in point-on range.
The above is an over-simplification because of the optical factors associated with aiming. All you can say is that an arrow shot from a machine would fall to the same height x yards later than a slower arrow. The way this interacts with optical point-on range is more intricate.

Best,

Martin
 
#20 ·
Your point of no return with pointing the hand is determined when the arrows start to hit lower than where you are pointing and/or your hand starts to cover up the target.

After that you have to basically pick a secondary point above your intended target to point at.

Seeing your hand point at what you want to is only the beginning, after awhile you will also sense or feel where you are pointing and will be able to develop this to a much higher and precise degree.

then it gets fun :)
 
#21 ·
Hank,

After further thought, I don't think this has much to do with bow/arrow speed, either. At least not directly.

If you point your finger at a fairly close object with both eyes open and in the bow-pointing mode of vision, then close one one eye, you will see the gap you would expect beneath that object. If you do the same with something in the distance - 500 yards - you will still see a gap under that object. In terms of shooting, this would be the wrong gap.

I think this mode of vision coincides with arrow drop over a certain distance, pretty regardless of bow speed (the bow is tuned to account for that). Then it stops functioning that way, though the arrow continues to drop according to the same rules. In short: the phenomenon is optical and the differences (relatively slight) reported between maximum working ranges are largely connected to people's individual way of seeing things. Perhaps also to subconscious compensation at longer ranges. Arrow speed should only play an indirect role, as tuning for differences will influence the position of the arrow/arm. Maybe faster constellations allow for slightly longer working ranges due to this.

The above makes it pretty clear that arrow pointing must stop functioning at point-on range, at the latest. The bow arm, on the other hand, must have a point-on range of its own at which the method should also cease to work. Perhaps this is sometimes a little further out.

Best,

Martin
 
#22 ·
Oz in OH said:
If these things don't happen then it's usually the shooter "mentating" or thinking too much about the process so that, as with a great improvisational musician, the head gets in the way of the sense of the music. I know things don't happen the same way with every shooter, but most who've used the Welch method end up here.
Oz, I've given this aspect a lot of thought over the past few days, and I'm sure your head is inevitably going to get in the way. Perhaps that's why many 'instinctive' archers (at least, those subconsciously using this method) snap shoot.

I think attempts to avoid mentation are usually doomed to failure. Rather, your mind must be conscious of the method's parameters, and your aiming routine must be constructed around them:

1) That laser beam down the arrow into the spot is dependent upon perspective. It's a perception, and there are other feasible and similiar perceptions. To see the same one every time depends upon getting the same perspective.

2) Repeatable eye/arrow position aside, acquiring the same perspective on every shot means looking at things the exact same way. Importantly, the beam should be the one that fits the definition of pointing most naturally for you. That's what the tuning component of the method is for - to make that particular beam work. Just as importantly, one must establish a visual drill to acquire it reliably, though this should later become subconscious. You can 'build' the beam from the front (by focusing on the spot) or the back (focus on the back of the arrow shaft) or wherever, but it's important to establish a consistent sequence.

3) The timeframe for aiming is limited. Once your arrow is roughly pointing at the spot, fine adjustments are possible and desirable. But if you look at that line for too long, contemplation and doubt will set in - and you will invariably start shifting perspective. Realising this, you have an advantage over snap shooters: While they release almost immediately for unspecified fear of losing correct perspective, you know that you have a certain amount of time after coming to full draw. Perhaps it's a second, perhaps three, depending on the individual. Just don't exceed the limit.

4) All the same, getting your aim approximately right is a matter of less than a second. Any further adjustments should be minor - or you will most certainly shift perspective. This is where you have to trust your original judgement, which is (ideally) based on your natural perception of the correct pointing line and a bow tuned to it. If aim feels totally wrong, you can a) shoot and see what happens anyway, or b) abandon the shot. Only practice can reinforce confidence and enhance judgement.

5) Within the method's effective range, missing is very commonly due to lack of trust in your own spontaneous judgement. It's important to realise that the pointing line is not subject to reason - because it's only one of many feasible options. What holds true for the aiming process also applies to thoughts you may have beforehand: Your sequence is tuned to getting aim just about right. Don't introduce other considerations - e.g. supposed aim corrections based on your last shot.

6) Ideally, you should blank your mind from the moment you start pointing until release - letting subconscious processes take care of fine adjustment. However, since an empty mind is hard to achieve, you might focus on something other than aiming - e.g. the spot you want to hit or the arrow's desired trajectory (I realise this contradicts some ideas I had in an earlier post). Making sure your visual focus doesn't move during this stage is paramount. Keeping it fixed via a thought like "focus on the spot" serves two purposes at once: You retain your perspective and mantra your mind away from mental interference.

Interestingly, some of the above sounds conspicuously like the advice given to people desirous of learning the 'instinctive method'. However, simply telling people to 'burn a hole' is hoping their subconscious minds will somehow do the right things in the meantime. Telling them why they might want to burn a hole at a particular stage of the aiming process is a different kettle of fish. Likewise, advising them to ignore the arrow is not the same as saying, "Don't look at the arrow too intensely."

What's similar is a degree of emphasis on intuition and subconscious processes. What's totally different is the framework. Rather than telling people that their subsconscious minds will eventually figure things out - i.e. total reliance on the efficiency of conditioning processes - the idea here is to identify the parameters within which correct subconscious steps can occur most easily.

The pointing method is fragile, to an extent. That's its biggest drawback. But investigating the fragility and drawing the necessary conclusions can greatly strengthen it, I believe. I originally attributed this fragility to sight fatigue, but I then realised that confusion was the real culprit. Confusion, of course, is a mental phenomenon - but it can only thrive in a context containing tangible contradictions. If you can identify the contradictions and explain them, preemptive steps can be taken.

If, on the other hand, you're taking all or some of the preemptive steps, but don't really understand why, you're probably an instinctive shooter (perhaps following the philosophy of some guru or other). Not understanding one's own technique is generally a bad thing, in my view. It facilitates distortion and mutation of that technique over a period of time - at which stage there are no yardsticks to help diagnose things.

Best,

Martin
 
#23 ·
Yes, Martin, for certain types at least, mental "block" seems inevitable. Unfortunately, I'm one of those. The better I get at pointing, the more my rational mind wants to question it, for some reason. Darryl Trucks, probably the best slide guitar player recording now, said it best in an NPR interview, "I just try to keep my head out of the way of my fingers."
 
#24 ·
Martin

I think you are thinking way into this more than you need to. It is only fragile because you are making it so. This is not instinctive shooting, it is a precise hand/eye coordination style of shooting.

If you are having problems simply deciding where to point your hand, then my guess is that you are not in sync with your form and bow setup. I have noticed on one of my bows with my form and set up that the impact point is much higher. I also noticed that I could actually retrain myself to point lower by sense and still feel that I was pointing at the target -- if I wanted to.

You may want to have a dot on a target to point at and then place a piece of tape lower on the target at a position to place the top of your hand on so the arrows will hit the dot (at maybe 10 yards). Place your hand on the tape everytime and shoot at the dot. Even though this is gapping with your hand, forget about that aspect of it while shooting and really focus on the pointing part of it until it just becomes a natural feeling to point at the dot.

After you really have the feeling of pointing down, pull the tape off the target and shoot.
 
#25 ·
Oz in OH said:
Yes, Martin, for certain types at least, mental "block" seems inevitable. Unfortunately, I'm one of those. The better I get at pointing, the more my rational mind wants to question it, for some reason.
With me, it's control. My mind wants more conscious control than the method allows.

Oz in OH said:
Darryl Trucks, probably the best slide guitar player recording now, said it best in an NPR interview, "I just try to keep my head out of the way of my fingers."
Improvised music is a good parallel, Oz. Everyone who has ever engaged in it (many years ago in my case) knows that best results are rarely achieved on stage, but in private when a musician is free to takes risks. In a performance context, you more or less stick to well-tested phrases... control. The trick is to relax your urge to control the music just enough for it to flow, but not enough to facilitate blunders.

Best,

Martin
 
#26 ·
Hank said:
If you are having problems simply deciding where to point your hand, then my guess is that you are not in sync with your form and bow setup. I have noticed on one of my bows with my form and set up that the impact point is much higher. I also noticed that I could actually retrain myself to point lower by sense and still feel that I was pointing at the target -- if I wanted to.
I can relate to that, Hank.

I believe it's due to the fact that holding an object for it to be pointing somewhere is a matter of perspective. Objective pointing would be possible if the object were a tube and you were looking through it. Perceived pointing - which is what we are talking about here - is an issue of having the same perspective every time.

At any given moment, I can see how I'd want to point my arrow. Then I can tune my anchor for it. Then I can shoot very well for a couple of hours, days or weeks. Then my perspective shifts, because I'm looking at the arrow differently. You're right: excessive thought is the problem. Once you start pondering the direction of the arrow/arm, your perspective is bound to change and you lose certainty.

Loss of confidence is usually the trigger for the thought process.

Hank said:
You may want to have a dot on a target to point at and then place a piece of tape lower on the target at a position to place the top of your hand on so the arrows will hit the dot (at maybe 10 yards). Place your hand on the tape everytime and shoot at the dot. Even though this is gapping with your hand, forget about that aspect of it while shooting and really focus on the pointing part of it until it just becomes a natural feeling to point at the dot.
Makes sense. What I'm doing now is a fundamentally similar exercise in 'calibration'. I follow a specific aiming sequence in tune with my earlier post. My first shots of the day are taken at short range. I sometimes miss slightly with the first arrow, but generally hit with the next nine. Then I gradually move out to 35 yards (when at home), taking about 20 arrows to do so. Once again, results are generally good.

But when I put ten arrows in my quiver and shoot them all at one distance, I sometimes put the first five in the right place, then maybe miss slightly with one. That experience often launches a process of doubt and contemplation that usually throws the next few arrows off mark, too.

To rebuild confidence, I can re-calibrate at some other - shorter - range. But this does not seem a very practical solution. That's why I devised such a rigid aiming regime, which is intended to ensure that my perspective remains consistent. Of course, the tough bit is sticking to it...

Hank said:
This is not instinctive shooting, it is a precise hand/eye coordination style of shooting.
No, this isn't instinctive shooting - nor, of course, is gapping. But both styles can be the real mechanics behind a method subjectively regarded as 'instinctive' by the shooter.

What pointing has in common with instinctive shooting - and more so than gapping - is the necessity to trust your own judgement in a sort of non-debatable way. Notably, you need to continue trusting it after a miss. That ain't exaxctly easy.

Best,

Martin
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top