Trad Talk Forums banner

Pointing or Split Vision?

6K views 67 replies 18 participants last post by  Martin Farrent 
#1 ·
There have been several threads on the so-called 'pointing' aiming system. They have all lacked visual aids, but I have now found this picture on the Austrian website www.traditionelles-bogenschiessen.at:



Interestingly, the drawing is used to illustrate Split Vision... whatever that may be.

A few explanatory words: What I see here is a direct '3D' line down the visible part of the arrow (more than depicted here) to the spot - not the tip covering the point of aim beneath the spot, nor the gap between the point of aim and the spot. It's a question of perspective.

Best,

Martin
 
See less See more
1
#2 ·
with out writen explaination the graphics illustrate, gapping, point on aiming, and split vision (well and instintive really) No matter what you prospective is on aiming at anyone yardage there is just one spot you can hold the arrow and hit the heart.

how you see that spot to hold the arrow or don't see the spot to hold the arrow........the arrow well be in the same place. your focus may be different but not the arrow

rusty
 
#3 ·
You're right, Rusty.

You can see gaps, POA or whatever there, depending on your own system.

But if you look at it in a certain way, you'll also see that single line from the back of the visible arrow to the spot. For me at least, the picture is drawn in such a way to facilitate that perspective... but that might just be habit.

(Mind you, I can remember seeing this picture over a year ago, before I understood the 'pointing' concept... and deciding that Split Vision, which it supposedly demonstrates, meant nothing to me.)

Best,

Martin
 
#4 ·
if only vertical shot placement wasn't such a challenge. Despite claims to the contrary, no aiming method eliminates the need to be very precise in distance estimation. Whether you si mply perceive the distance and angle the arrow will need to arrive at that distance or whether you assign numbers to it and call it "yardage", it must be done and it must be done right or the shot will not hit the target.

If you're 4 inches to the right or 4 inches to the left, it's a MISS. If you're 4 inches high or 4 inches low.... it's still a miss. :)

There are lots of aiming methods. They all work for someone or they wouldn't have proponents. But I can tell you for a fact that any claims that an aiming method elimnates the problems with distance judgement are complete .....

 
#5 ·
The question is whether distance estimation and aiming are two separate processes or one.

In POA or stringwalking, the answer is clear. The distance is estimated (explicitly) and the adjustments are specified before they are made.

In seasoned gapping, there may well be more overlap between the two actions.

And in pointing (split vision?) they become one, to an extent. Yes, this is due to perception of range and angle, but there is a regularity that makes it easy, almost automatic... once that certain perspective on the arrow becomes ingrained. It requires a measure of discipline in the way you use your eyes (if they wander to and fro arbitrarily, you're lost). But basically, it's only another way to marry the peculiarities of human sight and optics with the laws of gravity.

What I would really like to know is whether everyone can see that line I'm talking about.

Best,

Martin
 
#6 ·
Martin,

I think I have always shot that way but didn't know how to articulate the method verbally.

I used to shoot the same bows so much that this perspective was really in grained into my shooting until it was automatic. Now, I find my eye wandering to the target and back to the arrow trying to find the perspective. It seems arrow speed and even arrow color may have effect on being able to see the line.

Do you focus on the target and notice the perspective in your peripheral vision (split vision) or do you focus on the arrow and visualize the projected line explicitly?

Jonah
 
#7 ·
lizardbow said:
Do you focus on the target and notice the perspective in your peripheral vision (split vision) or do you focus on the arrow and visualize the projected line explicitly?
To over-simplify (probably), Jonah:

When I've anchored and my form is stable, I 'reach out' to the spot visually, then bring the arrow in line.

During my draw, I ignore everything connected to aiming. I draw with the arrow pointed well above the spot and see the nock until just before anchor, then the arrow wobbling around above the target as I stabilise everything. I don't pre-aim, other than my body being roughly in line with the target. When back tension is solid and expansion sets in, I start to aim as described above, bringing the arrow down to the line... with 90% of my mind on my back.

I used to think it was a special tune that did the trick. But I no longer believe that the tune is 'special'. Rather, it's the other way round. A perfectly tuned bow will shoot that way. If you specifically tune a bow to do so, the aiming method simply becomes a way of reaching a standard, good tune. If the tune is less than perfect, the line will be slightly off (among other things). You can compensate for that pretty easily, but it makes switching between bows more time-consuming.

Best,

Martin
 
#9 ·
That's the difficulty, Robert.

There are multiple conceivable lines - as your animation demonstrates, in contrast to the original still picture. If you look at the spot and the arrow long enough and neutrally enough, you will see them all.

Finding the correct line, ingraining it and seeing it every time is the challenge... which can only be overcome by plenty of practice. Also, the eye(s) must stick to a strict sequence during aiming. BUT: there is something more obvious about that special line, which sets it apart from the alternatives. There is an 'aha' effect when it is found, subsequently reinforced by routine (of course). Finally, it starts to become as vivid as the white lines on the road ahead of you when sitting in a car.

But it's not a 'different' line for every range, simply habitualised by routine. It is - or at least seems to be - the same line every time.

Best,

Martin
 
#10 ·
When I look at that picture all I see is a round spot on a deer.Am I missing something? ;)

Really I see your line, the gap and everything else but at the time of release all that is faded into the backgound and I only see that spot.I know all that other stuff is there and know I see it and use it to aim my shot but just don't focus on it much when it is time to shoot or worry about how it all relates to what I am doing.
 
#11 ·
Perhaps I should add that 'the line' is only stable and simple when acquired properly - it's like point-on shooting then and extremely accurate. But if your eyes dart around or your confidence is somehow shaken, you can lose it almost irretrievably (for that shot). I think that's where the simpler '2D' point on of stringwalking is superior (there are no two ways of seeing things in stringwalking).

It helps (me) for focus to be largely elsewhere during aiming, i.e. on back tension - which is a useful coincidence.

Best,

Martin
 
#12 ·
There is always more than one way to skin a cat, Martin. With the vertical errors always being the big problem at unmarked yardages due to distance estimation errors, we could take a page from the photographer's trick book. When they're making an important shot, they guage the light and exposure as well as they can based on their light meter readings but then they do something else that works extremely well. They do something called "bracketing". It's setting the camera to take a couple shots at lower light settings one at the optimal setting and a couplel shots at higher light settings with one push of the button.

This could work very well when applied to archery and was, apparently, a favorite method of Robin Hood, himself.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 

Attachments

#13 ·
I can actually understand the scepticism, Robert.

There are three possible explanations for this aiming system, as far as I can see:

1. The corrections made by the archer to maintain 'the line' at various distances coincide with the corrections needed to combat gravitational pull on the arrow over a certain stretch of the arrow's flight. This sounds unlikely, but is possible. To prove or disprove it, one would require a very deep knowledge of optics and human eyesight - which I lack.

2. The 'line' is a figment of the archer's imagination. In reality, there is a different line per distance, and the only reason the system works is because the archer has ingrained them via constant practice. This sounds far more likely, as I readily admit. However, the fact that people who shoot this way can tune a new bow/arrow combination of radically unaccustomed specifications - and then immediately proceed to shoot it successfully at a variety of ranges - functions as counter-evidence.

3. A mixture of #1 and #2. The 'line' largely coincides with the effect of arrow drop over a certain stretch, but the archer actually fine-tunes the sight picture via experience.

I tend to believe #1, or possibly #3. But as I say, the proof required is beyond my expertise. To complicate things, there are optical variables like anchor point and arrow length, along with mechanical ones like arrow speed, which play a major role in determining the distance at which this system breaks down. And the question of why it breaks down at all is also interesting. People often say it's due to accelerated arrow drop, but I think the purely optical side also plays a role.

Best,

Martin
 
#14 ·
To me, the proof is easy enough. When, an archer shooting unmarked yardage never misses high or low, we know that he's found a magical solution to getting the greatest obstacle to accuracy we all face as archers -- vertical accuracy at unmarked yardage with a relatively slow moving projectile.

I've always called that method split vision and used it a lot but with a slightly different anchor point. Still.... if I perceive the target to be closer or farther than it really is, the result is a miss and optical illusions can't fix that. Like I said before - apply numbers to it and call it yardage or not, if perceive the distance wrong and you pull your arrow from dirt instead of foam.
 
#15 ·
This dilemma is easily remedied by the use of a LRF. Howard Hill described what I call the "Bracket Method" whereby ranging arrows assist in the yardage determination of unknown distances. All those tournaments that he won back in the day were marked yardage, weren't they? He killed his first bull elk with the third arrow, according to his report, 185 yards...
 
#16 ·
PapaBull said:
I've always called that method split vision and used it a lot but with a slightly different anchor point. Still.... if I perceive the target to be closer or farther than it really is, the result is a miss and optical illusions can't fix that. Like I said before - apply numbers to it and call it yardage or not, if perceive the distance wrong and you pull your arrow from dirt instead of foam.
If you've used the method a lot, you've probably discovered it to be inconsistent. Same here.

Then I got round to investigating the inconsistency and now think it connected to inconsistent sighting routine, rather than false perception of distance. Since the results of my thoughts have led to greatly increased consistency, I consider the notion 'proven' for my own intents and purposes.

If you walk the string, shoot POA or gap (without split vision), you don't have this problem. The sight picture is essentially 2D and can thus be depicted quite simply in drawings. If you lose it by gazing elsewhere, you can return to it. It's solid, not sensitive.

A 3D perspective on something is by necessity far more fragile, since the balance between one's two eyes is dynamic. Rigid sequence in acquiring such a perspective, along with not attempting to hold it for too long can combat that fragility. Both can be practiced and soon become pretty easy (most of the time). Accumulated confidence is one essential prerequisite, and it also helps if aiming only occupies a short fraction of the shot cycle - and only partially. Since the latter is a good thing anyway, it kills two birds with one stone.

As for estimation/perception of distance, perhaps this method is a way of perceiving distance. If we point at an object with a finger and concentrate, we almost automatically focus on the distance between ourselves and that object, perceiving it far more intensely than if our hands were in our pockets. We don't translate that distance into yards, but we activate our capacity to 'feel' it in such a way that largely ignores distractions between ourselves and the object in question, reducing the number of variables involved and thus eliminating a great deal of complexity.

But that last para is only an additional thought and of no practical significance... I think.

Best,

Martin
 
#17 ·
As an experiment I took a laser pointer and inserted it into an arrow shaft. I then pointed the arrow at various objects as if I was shooting with a bow.

I would point the arrow at an object then turn the laser on. What was quite convincing about the "pointing" method was that almost always the laser dot would be very close to the intended aiming spot. This seemed uncanny since pointing with arrows seems to be much too crude to offer that sort of aiming resolution.
 
#18 ·
Shooting the same type of arrow from the same bow with the same anchor does a lot to engrain the ballistic trajectory into your head.

That's why when you guys talk about changing anchors I get nauseous and fall out of my chair...

At close distances (30 and under) range estimation and /or envisioning that trajectory is highly accurate.

But past that we seem to struggle, regardless of method.

I will say that I dont fucos on any part of the arrow at all, and I would wager that Im consistently accurate out to 30 yds, past that I usually end up ranging one then fine tuning to the target unless I am at a known distance.
 
#20 ·
Martin, I've investigated every imaginable way to handle the yardage estimation problem. If you think you've found an answer, you'll be the first to have a surefire method that I've ever known. As Lizardbow pointed out, "pointing" can be fairly accurate when you have a flat trajectory like a lazer. The problem of finding the right place for the arrows parabola to intersect the target will always be the big hurdle. Keep us posted on your progress. You'll know you've got it right when you eliminate your vertical misses with that method.
 
#21 ·
Steve Jo said:
At close distances (30 and under) range estimation and /or envisioning that trajectory is highly accurate.
That depends on what you consider "highly accurate", Steve. I've been to the World Championships a few times shooting in the RU class with the highest scoring recurve shooters in the country. None of the top shooters I've known use a "pointy method". Very few, if any, use arc visualization. All have shot damned fast bows. And all are damned good shooters that can only average about 9 points per target because of high and low misses due to the inevitable distance estimation errors that even the most skilled, experienced shooters are going to have. The best medicine for this problem is arrow speed and lots of practice judging yardage. That's why most use actual yardage. You can practice that essential skill with nothing but a rangefinder when you use yardage as your measure.
 
#22 ·
I defer to your competition experience.

but offer that range estimation, regradless of method is still a constant between methods and one system does not handle this issue more effectively than th other.

As for one method being more conducive to field archery than the other, I think that is self evident.
 
#23 ·
I agree, Steve. Range estimation is definitely a constant problem that no aiming method fixes. No doubt about it, instinctive, gap, point of aim, split vision, "pointing", any method you use and anything you want to call it, range estimation is extremely critical in unmarked yardage situations. For marked yardage situations, that can be thrown out of the equation and then a definite edge goes to the very systematic, methodical aiming systems that are calibrated for exact yardage.

I've seen some awesome fixed yardage shooters get a lesson in humility when doing 3D for the first time, not because they weren't outstanding shooters, but because they weren't experienced at judging yardage. And you know.... people are still trying to figure out a really slick fix for that and good luck to them. Who knows, maybe they can find it. But virtually every method people have gotten excited about turned out to be the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and ultimately, I've concluded that there's simply no substitute for shooting a lot, judging yardage a lot, shooting in fields, woods and from elevated heights.

Of course, if someone could prove there's a method that really is foolproof and works better than simply being an experienced and GOOD judge of distance, I'd definitely give them their kudos because that would be breaking some serious new ground.

By the way, I've heard countless times that instinctive shooters don't have to judge distance, but they're confused a bit. Even if they don't put numbers to it and all it "yardage", they still have to judge the distance just right. Once again, if high and low misses are the score-suckers, (and they are for all good shooters), then distance judgement is nearly always the culprit. Dropping the bow arm or target panic are a couple of other causes, but they just compound the problems.
 
#25 ·
I can offer a little insight here I actually shot using the line of the arrow for range estimation and on flat ground it worked real well.

Now when you are shooting up hill down hill or in a compromising position it goes to heck pretty quick as it is hard to get the sight picture the same everytime.

I switched to a modified gap and have never shot better and keep getting better it does take yardage estimation, but the proof is in the score cards that is more effective than an imagined sight picture for me.

Jordan
 
#26 ·
Well guys these discussion are fun and instructive but........Who won worlds last year in BBR class feild archery??? I don't know actually but just speculate with me a minutes. How may times do you think the World Champion bbr has been around a field course, how man matches do you think the world champ has been in. How many arrows do you think the world champion has shoot at 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 yds??.

Nothing but nothing makes up for 1000's and 1000's of arrow shot on the courses. No amount of judgement, no aming schemes, no books and no DVDs. The fact is if ya wanta be good, great, or world champ nothing will replace 10,000 arrrows a year. Some of the olympics shooters actually shoot 20,000 arrows a year.

I would almost bet that last years olympic champion, after being lined up correctly could hit the target with his/her eyes closed. I will never have the time (or body left) to shoot 20,000 arrows a arrow. I can tell how much ya can improve shooting 800 arrows a week for a few weeks

The point is (although i enjoy it alot) discussion doesn't replace time on the field (in my case).

Really in the end the only thing that will prove that your point of view works is who ya can beat in the field. Some archers suggest and I do understand their point, that scores don't matter, some archers suggest that the only person they shoot against is themselves. I do understand that. A checking account and a score board show in the end how well your are remonerated for what you do. While you can have a wonderfully successful life and niether of those things be important to you (and I bless you if you are that mature) if you want your point of view to be repected and you want the right to bring a point of view to a public forum and be able to defend it....ya got to defend it with posted scores. Short of that we will just be repeating what we have read from people who posted the scores. :)

LOL, I suspect I will always be repeating what I've read from the people who posted "the" scores...but I am going to be shooting with them when they post the scores. Ya'll know cause me scores will be on the same score board....just a little lower down.

rusty
 
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