Bowsite.com

It seems like as long as you come to a consistent anchor and do the same thing every time...that's it, you're good.

Any suggestions?

The whole 'Throwing a ball' analogy some of the instinctive guys use is fine but doesn't account for variables that will destroy your accuracy.

You will be a much more accurate and consistent shot if you develop good form- good alignment with consistent DL and anchor....then use whatever aiming technique you want.

Some of the instinctive guys don't know whether their bad shot was a result of bad form...or their internal calculator was off...because their form changes.

Its fairly easy to get proficient in archery...its the bad habits that are tough to conquer- get instruction

That being said, there are others who use gap shooting and are very successful. Howard Hill was a gap shooter, and few would doubt his abilities. Byron Ferguson also uses this method.

My suggestion is to find a traditional shooter in your area and work with them. Second choice, if you have the means,there are several schools around that will help you gain the accuracy you desire. PM me if you want more information.

Welcome to the family.

TBB

Oldgoat, thanks for the PM. I do a lot of work in Evergreen. I will make a stop to RMS.

As previously stated, form and aiming method are mutually exclusive concepts/terms, or should be really. Learning conventional archery with a bow weight that you'll eventually use to hunt with is a very big and common mistake. Yes, I too know all kinds of folks who bought 55# recurves to begin the process. Every single one of them either ended up quitting or should've of quit by now. You will learn nothing but terrible habits and that's because the bow's draw weight will be a big time issue. You can't learn proper form while struggling to get to, or at full draw.

I'm not at all an advocate of the bend, hunch, lean, short draw and snap shoot method that neotrads promote these days. Again, all of it is symptomatic of learning to shoot a bow incorrectly and have never known anyone that achieved their potential buying in to it. Don't let these folks convince you that it's the "traditional way" of shooting a bow for hunting either....it isn't. Full expansion and bone on bone is the only way to fully utilize our skeletal structure and muscles in alignment to dominate the bow.

Anthony Camera's "Shooting The Stickbow" is an extraordinary instructional book that will get you going in the right direction. He's on the leatherwall as well and posts under the handle "Viper". Tony will take the time to answer specific questions there too. I highly recommend you take advantage of that opportunity. On the other hand, listening to "traddies" will get you in to trouble quick.

I can tell you what didn't work for me: Quicker draws. Short draws. Fast anchors. Snap shooting. Bent waist and hunched shoulders. Seriously canted bow. Bent bow arm. Thinking about the arrow. I've done all these things and still made excellent shots, however...for me they prevented the consistent and dependable accuracy I craved. Once I figured out that all this crouching, humping and knotted-up form was destroying my accuracy I gave in and rebuilt everything according to good principles. I can tell you that I really enjoy the ability to slowly and steadily pull a 55-60 pound bow to full draw...find my solid anchor...and release when I want. As much as anything that takes strength, both physical and mental.

What makes the 'right way' is the repeatable form vs 'your way' which may not be so repeatable.

The best way to shorten the learning curve is to get a coach. Rod Jenkins is one of the best.

I would also reread what Pat said about GFA. He's spot on. DON'T use the swing draw or snap shoot.

GO to the web site I suggested on your other thread and buy the book "Shooting the Stickbow" by Anthony Camera.

If you go to the LW and trad talk and AT he'll answer your questions directly.

Bowmania

I've recently begun thinking about buying an Olympic style recurve for off-season fun and practice. I know it would be good for maintaining form and muscle memory.

Shooting 3 under or split finger is a matter of preferance, shooting the bow up right or canted is a matter of preferance, glove or tab is a matter of preferance, off the shelf or elevated rest is a matter of preferance, shooting straight up or bent at the waist, or open stance or closed stance, "Instinctive" or Gapping. When it come to matter of preferance choices there are advantages and disadvantages to each, but YOU are to one who has to decide what works best for you and you will only know that by playing with each. DANNY

I used and still to this day use what I call a 5 step approach. (though I now shoot compound and release) it still works best for me.

1. stance (open or closed)

2. posture (excellent posture a necessity)

3. draw to anchor (corner of mouth) I know some will use chin anchor.

4. look at spot (focus)

5. relax hold of string (the term release implied to me "let go" the thought of relaxing finger's worked best for me.)

Many years ago a very fine lady who taught Olympic and world champions was kind enough to give me a couple of point's on my form once and they worked great for me.

pt 1 softly cradle the bow in your hand

pt 2 hold bow hand steady to target after shot

pt 3 relax and enjoy our wonderful sport of archery

Personally I would suggest a low poundage bow to better create the proper form and make shooting more enjoyable and proficient before you move to a hunting weight bow.

Just a few humble thought's and my experience.

Should read..."can't do it well"...

Internet message boards are nice, but are also full of people who give out advice when they really should be asking for it. Before you let someone talk you into shooting a certain way, do a little research and find out if they can actually shoot well. I can't stress how important this is.

That works for me but may not work for others, just as I cannot shoot well using Asbell's method.

In some ways it seems fairly profound when you look at it more deeply. Repeatable multi-arrow accuracy is a non-issue in hunting. If the first arrow is dead-on accurate does any subsequent arrow really matter in hunting? When practicing with a barebones recurve or longbow and shooting more or less 'instinctive' (not a term I really like) what do multi-arrow groups prove, other than group accuracy? Another way of putting it:

I'd rather have five first arrows in the pipe than I would five in a multi-shot group. This is why I put extreme focus on my first-shot form. I can't have accuracy without form, and I can't take some warm-up shots before the money shot when I'm hunting. The only thing that matters is #1 arrow and I practice that way.

All that said, there is absolutely no down side to repeatable multi-shot accuracy with any bow. I mostly discount its importance for hunting practice, especially when shooting an unaided barebow. First arrow counts most.

Good advice here from Pat. Especially humbling if you go from a compound to traditional and think you are going to hit the bull all the time. Highly recommend starting with a sighting method. You can always go instinctive if you feel the need later on.

This.

However, trad. bows around 52" work fine for hunting in ground blinds and real world hunting conditions. But now we have another problem, finger pinch. A solution would be a release. But mechanical compound releases don't work well on trad bows because there is no let of. Is this problem solvable? Yes, it is...and there is a beautiful solution, trust me. And more than one solution, incidentally. And if you look closely at my elk pic, you may get a somewhat vague hint of what could be the future for many trad. archers and bowhunters...

Always important to differentiate between learning process and Eventual Outcome, because you can't begin at The End...

Personally, I would begin not by reading Fred Asbell or Tony or ANYBODY who is a specialist in Archery, and start off reading The Talent Code and/or Guitar Zero,because those are written by people who have been investigating the latest science on how we learn and how skills are developed.And not just "skills", but Mad Skillz.

Personally, I had a long lay-off from the recurves due to a 100-mile/day commute from CT to NJ, which means I go past NYC every day. Takes about 2.5 hours out of my life, every damn day. Does NOT leave a lot of time to stay in shape for shooting in a Mystical fashion.

So when I got back to shooting about a year ago, I went back to square one and also changed from a glove to a tab, which changed my hook, which changed my anchor, which caused me to shoot left. So I had to pay attention to straightening it all out.

But just by checking down the length of my arrow (EVERY TIME) to make sure that the nock is plumb below my eyeball and that the shaft is pointed straight at my target, I re-grooved my anchor. I don't gap-shoot, but I do everything up to the point where a gapper would begin to measure his hold-over/under.

I've posted this pic so many times now that I'm sure it's going to become a running joke, but just for your consideration... 4 shots at 13 yards (because that's as far as the back yard will allow!). First shot went lowest and I walked it up in order, low to high. All 4 shots hit the arrow that I stuck in the ground, and yes, when I started it had a nock on it.

It's only 13 yards, but I don't shoot a compound any better.

So JMO, read up FIRST on how to build a neuromuscular circuit, then do everything that you possibly can to build it as tight as humanly possible..

And PM me if you want any more detail on exactly what I did.

Oh, and FWIW, al lof these changes stretched out my draw length by abut an inch.

Hey David, I shoot my 62" recurve just fine upright.

I think if everyone wanting to try trad had some instruction and set up their bow with a 20 yd fixed crawl or learned how to gap....a lot more guys would have stuck with it.

You want to be able to hit stuff...and scattering arrows just isn't fun.

If you have shot for decades instinctively and it works for you- more power to you but most new guys [and pros] benefit from an aiming technique especially at longer yardage.

That was the funniest thing I have experienced today. It truly was. I'm starting to get right in line with roger's thinking too.

I've never been one to jump on the S.T.A.R. bashing band wagon but, I'm getting to the point I'd like to see some of it. I have zero problems with David making general comments or, talking about his experiences with it. I'll take his word for it on how well it works for him. But, when you make the comment of changing archery forever for everyone with your knowledge, then tease everyone with it for ????? years, it is time to produce it.

For 6 years, I have heard of this book, this method of shooting that will revolutionize trad archery. The can't miss, fix-it-all solutions for all the problems we all encounter. Come on man, bring it out. God Bless men

We have some great shots in this and other forums such as the Leatherwall, but unfortunately, it's not common. As I have said many times, I don't think the diffuclties of trad. archery is the fault of archers, I blame existing techniques and methods such as the most popular one already mentioned. A disaster, really. But of course, not everyone agrees.

In fact lately I have been seeking them out. When I was in Montana recently I went out of my way to arrange a little demonstration for one of my most vocal critics, but suddenly he was too busy to see me. Funny, because he claimed he could tell all these fakirs if they were ever so bold to actually meet him...

Jeff, you're talking about a typo? Jeeze, c'mon.

Jeff, you're talking about a typo? Jeeze, c'mon.

Now, I've heard about it. It isn't as you were just referring to you over the years. Only your experiences. That I would never discount. But, you have made the claims to revolutionize archery at times. You have stated how your method is superior to other methods when people express the way they do it. You have even stated you developed it for these reasons. So, when will we get the chance to see and read about it ourselves? Come on ma? God Bless

The rest of us over on the leatherwall have grown to be sick to death of the ramblings, rantings and constant name dropping. Not just me, not just Justin, not just Steve or Jeff, but absolutely almost everyone has explained to you how fed up they are over it.

What you refuse to address, because you know it's true, because all these guys have told you the same thing, for years and years on end, is that you proclaim archery will implode without your revolutionary technique(s)......and then you never produce. It's always coming, but then just never quite gets here.

You have, in the not so long ago past, vowed to stop talking altogether about S.T.A.R., and even went so far as to ask the mods' on the leatherwall to pull every single one of your S.T.A.R. posts.....only to return just a short while later obsessing over it all, again....then again....and again. And now YOUR calling ME a liar. That takes some big one's, buddy.

Also, the project is not so easy to publish, because unlike what roger and others think, it's not just one little questionable technique. For example I've invented a half dozen different types of nonmechanical releases and a small book could be written about each of those.

Then you have another problem. Production. What good is a book if no one else can shoot that way because the product is not available? Do you know how much trouble and hassle it is to patent and produce products such as these? Well, I'll tell you. You're looking at around $25,000 for each. And then you have the books. That's right there needs to be more than one book. Frankly, I don't want to do any of this although somehow I am now in the middle of it all, patent attorney, prototypes, etc.

Anyway, there you go, now you know a little more. I'll jut add this, I've done a lot of golf research as well over the last 25 yrs. and I need to bring that research to a conclusion and publish it as well. They are both huge projects and even just one is a full time job.

Anyway, if you have an extra $25,000 it will help speed things up...

I have no knowledge of what S.T.A.R. refers to, so my question was straightforward.

I will now excuse myself from this conversation.

I highly recommend Rick Welch and his DVD series! It's the method I have settled on.

The best 3D shooters that I've seen aren't good bowhunters.

Fred Asbell's methods work best for me when combined with Jay Kidwell's "aiming" methods. My freezers always stay full.

Your results may vary.

As far as the Star thing, it doesn't matter to me. I'm not bothered at all by it because I never paid it any mind on the Leatherwall either. Like the 'Addington' threads. I just skip em. No interest. Best of luck with it though.

Michael, I think you made the right choice on instinctive shooting methods. Most of my release methods would work in conjunction with it. Some would be illegal in competition, others legal. No problem with bowhunting.

By the way, as an example of innovation in this old sport, have any of you guys tried the Goat Tuff fletcher? An entirely new way of fletching and it works great for vanes and small feathers up to 4". Highly recommended and I'm delighted someone was really thinking outside the box.

Suckering Traditional Archers Repeatedly

S= STOP

T= TAKE A BIG BREATH

A= ASK A QUESTION

R= RELAX, THE ANSWER IS NOT COMING

Shhhh...don't let the secret out. :)

Theoretically, because in real life it is very difficult to be accurate unless one's head and eye position not to mention internal aiming is spot on. To be consistent in archery, alignments have to be extremely consistent, at least by hard standards such as oh say 260 and up on the 300 round. Now the exception would of course be close shooting/moving targets, etc.

Anyway, all of my release methods can be used with instinctive even though I prefer aiming methods. I do practice instinctive quick shooting at around 10 yds. for elk and deer than come in really close and quick.

The other reason is that the methods are, in my opinion, deserving of a full presentation and that won't be in some toss away post in a relatively obscure manner.

Unless I discover the thylacine, I probably will never again have the honor and thrill of being the one who discovered an entirely new way of using the human hand in archery. The bow has been around for maybe 40,000 yrs. maybe even much older and millions of people have tried to improve archery technique and apparently no one ever discovered this. I'm not sure why it fell on me, although I am creative and have extreme resolve. I almost willed it into reality it seems. But it works great although sure not everyone will agree. I know you probably know Rick Barbee was highly complimentary, but there are many others who agree it works great; but that said no one has seem the full gamut of methods. Most have only seen one or two.

While my critics think I have nothing or maybe just a quirky aiming system the truth is I have invented more methods perhaps than all the methods being used today. Well, that may sound like bragging, but when you think about it just how many techniques are there in trad. archery? Not that many, true? Basically, a half dozen or so.

I've got more than that and that's why I have never backed down one inch. I've proved these methods work in hunting and I guarantee archery is going to be a lot more fun fairly soon. And only with a full presentation will the birthing have the best chance for life, to really catch on and help the most people.

Now I have offered to Pat L. to show him the methods in person and I would be glad to do the same for you should we be able to meet. I expect to make a demonstration for 3 Rivers and Lancaster later on in 2016 if at all possible. I have a patent attorney working on some of nonmechanical releases, but they are so simple they may not be patentable, we'll see.

All of this costs money and a lot of it as of course does publishing books and producing DVDs. People say just publish the dam thing, but hey,they are not writing the checks...

As you know, most people think it's all a joke, a lie, or something very minor. At another time I made claims in golf that besides my putting work I had figured out the golf swing, particularly the Holy Grail which was Ben Hogan's swing. Serious golfers have been trying to figure that out for half a century. Why was he so good, what were his secrets, why can't anyone even the best PGA pros decipher it? I had hundreds of critics who were sure I was an absolute duffer and fraud.

Members from the forum were sent down to investigate just how much a duffer I was. You can read the result here, just click on the text to the right of "Dene" at the top "Before I get into the details..."

http://tinyurl.com/jnoet7h

I present this as an indirect proof that I'm no fakir. Of course golf is not archery, but I think you take my point and that's all I'll say for now and probably it was too much. It's no big drama to me, I just like working on biomechanics and I keep at it until I've satisfied myself however long it takes. Maybe it will all be a flash in the pan We'll see eventually. I know this I'll keep using it for my own bowhunting.

I will add just one more thing. As I can no longer trust myself with deadlines, if this goes on another year and a half or so, I will wrap it up with a simplified ebook and the heck with it as I want to move on myself.

Recently, I tried to arrange a little archery demonstration for one of my most outspoken archery critics on the Leatherwall and TradGang who said in effect he could tell liars because they never showed up or if he did meet them they would sleek away...the phone went silent for awhile as he was apparently in shock that I did show up...then he refused to meet with me or claimed he was too busy even when I tried to reschedule.

Easy to claim a man is a liar, try meeting someone and say that esp. a person who is willing to demonstrate what was supposedly impossible and a lie. The fact is I love to demonstrate these archery methods. I've helped a lot of people and I will continue to do so. One of my students came on the Leatherwall and gave a testimonial but so many people said he must be lying the thread got deleted eventually. And so on and so forth. The people who know me know it's real and that I'm a good guy. It's people who haven't met me and think it's impossible that say stuff like I'm a compulsive liar, that I have nothing at all, etc.

No wonder folks don't want him showing up at their houses.

At 10 feet, I can't imagine that a lot of counting is involved.....

Duh.

On the other hand... Which way will get you an Elk quicker: counting wraps of serving in low light so you can take AND MAKE that shot cleanly at XX yards... or passing up the shot altogether?

Strictly for giggles, I just Googled Mr. Alford and – not surprisingly – found myself back on the LeatherWall… about 6 years into the past.

Thought this particular post put its finger square on the problem here… Not the question of what any particular individual thinks of David, but the larger question of how much of accuracy with a “trad” bow is learned and how much is something you’re just Born With (and see here that I’m actually trying to de-hijack this thread….).

Anyway, one feller (who shall remain nameless just in case he was being facetious or has changed his mind) made this thoughtful and even-handed assessment of the whole situation: “Sight pins on hunting bows are for weaklings who have no confidence in their own abilities.”

Uh-huh. JMO, it would be equally accurate to say that shooting WITHOUT sights is for egotistical morons who are so arrogant that they are willing to wound an animal (or as many as it takes) just to prove that they have either been born with something that we Lesser Mortals will never get, or that they have attained some mystical level of ability such that they should be Exalted Among Men.

But seeing as I prefer shooting my recurves without sights on them, I’d like to believe that the Truth lies somewhere in between…..

And just to go on record right up front: “Instinctive” shooting is a Myth, based on a misconception as to what is actually happening.

“Instinctive” shooting is simply hand-eye coordination; NOBODY is born knowing how to do it, but (IMO) anyone who has sufficient hand-eye coordination to shoot well WITH sights can learn to be a reasonably proficient shot without them. If they’ll just pay attention to what they’re doing.

So here’s the Dirty Little Secret: An arrow will go wherever you point it. So if you want to know where it’s going to go, you have to know where it’s pointed. If you want it to go where you want it to go, then that’s where you have to point it.

And the problem that plagues so many people who do not use sights is that they have no real idea where the hell they’re pointing the damn thing. Sure, they can find out AFTER they’ve hit (or more often missed!), but the secret to Hitting is to know BEFORE you let go. And to make appropriate adjustments, of course.

All that sights do is to tell you, via an external reference system, whether your eye and hand are pointing at the same spot. And good sights are very precise because they are carefully made and well-suited to making very fine adjustments.

Pure hand-eye-coordinated shooting, on the other hand, relies on an INTERNAL reference system. Some of those systems are very carefully made and capable of making very fine adjustments (like when Frank Addington shoots a baby aspirin or a mustard seed out of the air… behind his back…), and others… many… maybe most… are NOT carefully made, and any adjustments are made in an almost random fashion, based on a fuzzy memory of what they felt in their body or saw in their peripheral vision before the shot. And that’s a shame, because every time you shoot a bow you are building and refining a neuromuscular circuit. Build it sloppy, and you will shoot sloppy. Build it very carefully, and you will get the Steve Austin version - better, stronger AND faster…

Most people can shoot very well with peep & pins. Why? Because the peep tell you where the tail of the arrow is, and the pin tells you were the head is. If you know that, you know where the arrow is pointed, so if it’s not pointed at the mark, you simply adjust.

Without a peep, you have to improvise, and most good shots do this by anchoring directly below their dominant eye. VERY good shots anchor in EXACTLY THE SAME PLACE directly below their dominant eye EVERY SINGLE TIME. Then, if you want to know where your arrow is pointed, all you have to do is look at the front end and see if your entire arrow is lined up on target. If not, you adjust.

BEFORE you shoot.

And if you always anchor in the same spot, making any necessary adjustments before you shoot, pretty soon you will find that the adjustments that you have to make are getting smaller and less frequent. Eventually, you might find that you needn’t make any at all. Because you will have grooved that anchor point to such a degree that your body literally DOES NOT KNOW HOW to anchor anywhere else.

And by that time, you will have lined up your bowhand on so many targets that you’ll probably find that you very rarely have to make much of an adjustment to the front end, either, because your bow-hand is now slaved to your dominant eye.

At THAT point, you will find that you can look at what you want to hit and actually HIT IT without even thinking about it. At least at modest range. Inside of 20, say…. At those ranges, THINKING about where you’re pointed may even screw things up, unless you do it very consciously and deliberately as you did while you were learning to shoot that way.

So JMO…. If you want to LEARN HOW to shoot without sights, all you have to do is to find a style which suits you AND which allows you to confirm, BEFORE EVERY SHOT, that your arrow is lined up – from nock to point – on the center of your target, using the most precise definition of “center” possible. (I’ve teased Frank Addington about cheating when he shoots those aspirins out of the air because I think he’s aiming as the intersection of the 3 lines that make up the letter “Y” in Bayer…. And he won’t deny it.) If you correct your mistakes before you shoot, then Hitting will become a habit. Why so many think it’s possible to ingrain the habit of spraying arrows all over the place and THEN expect to improve is beyond me.

Idiotic statement in my experience...those top 3D guys that hunt are 10x more successful than the instinctive guys...and they aren't just shooting 15 yd shots either

I've known some fantastic 3D shooters who don't hunt.. Go figure.

This thought process is similar to the traditional archer who bow hunts vs the compound archer who bowhunts... You always read how traditional archery is a much more difficult method of bowhunting and I am always wondering how the animals know the difference???

It would be better stated that bowhunting with a stick & string is much harder to hit the animal in precise spots.. Yeah, I think that's a better way to put it. And therein lies the ethical dilemma.

Same argument could be made for this discussion.

But it has been clear that the best scores are shot by guys that gap shoot. The guys that shoot instinctive can't achieve quite the high scores but do better shooting on animals.

Disclaimer: All methods of shooting have to be repeatable with consistent form, draw length, etc. But the "aiming" method is just different between gap and instinctive.

GF (two posts above) is right on when says that no one is shooting "instinctive". A better description is hand-eye coordination. Hand-eye coordination just doesn't sound as cool as "instinctive".

Maybe I should just say I aim by using the Force :)

The "instinctive" aiming method works well for a lot of us. Like I said above, my freezers stay full.

It has also been my experience that those who claim that even though they can't hit targets with any consistency, but are consistent on game, are in fact not.

Really, it all just sounds like some folks are jealous of other folks who do both very, very well......but whatever.

What are you doing here? Trolling for a fight??

There IS NO “ethical dilemma”. It’s no different than hunting with anything else – if you can’t make the shot, you wait for a better opportunity. If a guy can’t wait for the right shot with a recurve, then we shouldn’t trust him in the field with a scoped rifle, either, because all that does is allow him to be an idiot from a lot farther away. You want “precise spots”? Scroll up to my post from the 4th. How much more “precise” do you want? I’ve got an 85% LO Contraption with a peep and a bunch o’ pins on it, and at the same range, I can’t promise you that I can hold any tighter going right to left. Might zero in on the elevation a bit quicker after the first shot, but not by a whole bunch.

So JMO, it’s not really any “harder” than hitting with a compound (at normal whitetail range, at least) unless you deliberately set out to make it so. WHY would you do that? Beats the snot outta me, but a lot of guys do because they somehow think it’s more “Traditional” and/or that they should get style/prestige points for it.

They should get a DOPE SLAP is what they should get! They think we should accord them higher respect for being knuckleheads???? Screw it.

When I first got the Contraption, I noticed VERY QUICKLY that I could now shoot 40-yard groups that were about same size as my 20-yard groups with the recurves. The only difference was that what I considered a “pretty decent” group at 20 yards was suddenly looking Unacceptably Large at twice the distance. Huh?

The question came down to this: Was I content being less than half as precise with my recurve, or was I going to DO something about. So I set about DOING SOMETHING, and all I had to do was to make it a habit to pay a few dozen milliseconds’ worth of attention to where I was anchored and where my arrow was pointing before I loosed my shot.

If that’s “cheating”, I stand convicted. You can hang me with the same rope that you used on Saxton Pope when you’re done with him.

I generally think this is true but not in every case. I knew and hunted with a guy who I would call a relatively poor shot on the target range. I witnessed his shooting and he was pretty darned bad with a recurve and no sights. We spent a lot of time in the woods together and I saw what he accomplished with a bow. The truth is that he wounded extremely few deer and the majority of his kills were excellent shots. Explain it any way you like, but this was a case of a guy who was far better on his own and against an animal than any target butt.

Think also about the reverse. We've all seen guys who could drill the targets but would blow shots on game. It's not a matter of accuracy so much as mentality. I knew a compound guy who won tourneys but missed or wounded 5 deer in one season. Thankfully he got past that and became a very solid shot on game.

You can under-perform in either direction, depending on your tendencies. Being good at one doesn't guarantee you will be good at the other.

Got some news for some of you. Fred Bear was photographed and otherwise documented as far back as 1927 shooting his longbows with sights. He felt it was more accurate and consistent, therefore, the average archer should use them to their benefit. Fred didn't lose the sights until he came down with an extreme case of target panic, which he also used a clicker to help alleviate. He also admitted to being a lousy shot......Go figure

Howard Hill was a gap shooter. Yep, he knew where his arrow point was in relationship to the target and used it to his advantage. He even went so far as to say, "I've known a lot of instinctive shooters, but I never met a good one". Howie concurred with Fred on sights and felt that most folks should use them.

Jack Howard was an extraordinary hunter(and bowyer) throughout the 1960's who used sights on all of his hunting recurves and killed Elk with them out to 55 yards or so. Imagine that.

Plastifletch began making vanes in 1950. Flipper rests, stabilizers and mechanical releases have been used far longer than most neotards who say they "aren't traditional" have been alive. Ouch....that's gotta hurt.

A "fixed crawl" does not require counting wraps down the string. It eliminates that process, so again, you have no earthly clue what your talking about. Some of you aren't even smart enough to know how stupid and incorrect the things you say really are......and that's bad.....real bad.

As far as this post goes, I would look into a few different options. Give each one a test, seeing what works for you in a comfort level. Once you pick one, stick with it. I think a lot of guys shoot bad, just because they flip flop anchors, 3 under, split and so on.

Adam - here's the situation on that whole deal - a couple of his posts from April, 2010:

"The STAR Method promises and delivers on near compound accuracy for the average shooter at traditional bowhunting distances. It is not a lie, a fantasy, or hype as these bucks and many others show, but the real proof will be in the years ahead in the hands and minds of my friends and students, or anyone who is willing to think outside the box.

David Alford

The STAR Method"

"With the STAR Method (to be released late in 2010), you don't have to practice much once you have learned it. Little practice is required, but practice becomes even more fun when you are dead accurate. Shooting trad. bows is about to become a lot more fun...

David Alford

The STAR Method"

I’m willing to believe that David may have come up with a few ideas that may help some people shoot better, and I will certainly give them a look when they come out; I just haven’t seen them yet and am pretty much past the point where I’m willing to hold my breath. But honestly, people have been trying to get better at hitting things with arrows since before anything resembling recorded history. So suffice to say that if he has really come up with anything truly new and revolutionary that begins to live up to half of the hype… I’ll be floored.

I’ll also buy a copy of his book and have him autograph it: “To one of my die-hard skeptics – let me know if you’d like to eat that crow with a side of humble pie”

But on the subject of NeoTrads and the Trad Police in general… From the same 6-year-old thread where I just plucked those lines from David’s posts…

"when i was shooting double york rounds and double americans in the fifties and early sixties almost everyone used sights. even on longbows. my target bow in 1959 had a sliding sight with a 5 degree prism dot attached, a dental mirror for a draw check, an arrow rest, and i shot aluminum target arrows. i started shooting in 1953-54 and never saw anyone that didn't use something under the arrow at the shelf to elevate the arrow for good flight and low interference. most all the bows back then had a shelf and sight window that were hand filed and were as flat as a stick. the feather bundle on self adhesive tape was installed or provided with every bow we made back then. also, when you shot york and american rounds, even at state championship shoots, barebow archers sometimes placed objects between the line and the target for aiming aids. nobody thought a thing about it. the object was to score all 6 arrows in every end. pretty much never heard anybody boast about not being able to see his arrow until the last few years on the internet. who cares? if you can hit what you are aiming at people should care less about how you do that. do regret seeing the sport of archery turned into a 20 yard one arrow sport in america though! and having or not having sights on a bow should never be controversial. it's really nobodys business but the guy shooting the bow. having or not having a sight mounted doesn't make anybody any better or worse IF THEY CAN HIT WHAT THEY ARE SHOOTING AT. never been trad but have been an archer for almost 57 years."

So at this point we have to credit him with a good 63 years, including that nice bear that he got last spring. I'll let you guess who it is....

roger, no one has ever called me crazy that has met me. That's so far off it's a joke. Read the golf critics impression of me; I'm friendly although online I don't suffer fools.

But I did work crazy hard and I kept at it for a quarter of a century, maybe that's why I figured things out that others didn't? Ever hear "the harder you work the luckier you get"? Well, I try to eliminate luck, so let's just say the harder you work the better you get - almost invariably. I just worked very very hard on archery and of course golf as well.

Actually, David, I said your insane, not crazy. I'm certain there are some other fitting adjectives to describe your demeanor and antics, but I don't feel like testing Phil's limits at the moment, and really, I'm probably there already anyway.

Nick Muche, thank you; there's always a pragmatic thinker or two amidst the ravings of lunatics. ;)

"I’ll also buy a copy of his book and have him autograph it: “To one of my die-hard skeptics – let me know if you’d like to eat that crow with a side of humble pie”

Ok, that'll be fine.

no, I didn't read your endless rant on Dec 4. I typically don't read any of your posts so unless you quote me or name me directly, I won't read them. Don't like my posts, fine by me. Just move on to the next one and leave me alone.

You can Google image search my name + deer and you'll see I've been fairly successful bowhunting and guess what method I use?

Sorry, the method(s)flat out work, you're wrong. Your exit strategy on this should be "they may work ok for you but they're not for everyone and certainly not for me"...however, I think you're actually going to like them. But whatever...it's fine.

Curt, (elkstabber), I know personally and, do call a great friend. He too has traveled and, killed what most every animal we hunters find desirable. And he does it almost YEARLY. The question isn't if he will hit and kill it. The question is will he draw a tag to go and kill it. I reckon the same men who question his wording and, it's intent has forgotten the years of pics he has posted as proof.

Men, don't turn this into a fine line debate about aiming. And, don't question either of the these two men. I promise, they could teach us ALL something to help us keep our freezers full. And, neither claim or care to be a world champion bow shot. They care about killing what they hunt. And, they flat out get that DONE.

David, put the e-book out. God Bless

I offered to show Rick Barbee everything in case I get killed looking for the Tasmanian Tiger. I've had critics say that's a lie, too that I have never been there. Well, we're going to be going in places man has never been with gyrocopters. It's Roaring 40's bush flying and dangerous no matter how good you are. If I survive you'll get your book...

Almost isn't good enough for me. I guess I lack the talent to be a great instinctive shot, but even Rick Welch insists upon rock steadiness and hold hold hold until you sense your alignments and internal aiming is spot on.

But WV....

This IS a debate about aiming. The question (per the OP) was basically "Is it learned or are we born with it?" And it is at least 90% the Former. And anybody who tells you otherwise is either stroking his own ego, looking for an excuse, or trying to sell you something ;)

The paradox is that probably the quickest way to learn to shoot without sights... may well be to use them religiously. At least until you don't need to anymore... And if your shooting style doesn't work with a peep and pins, you've got to come up with the next best thing. And if that is an internal reference system, then one can be built much more quickly and precisely than anyone had any idea about back when SC and Curt (and even spring chickens like me) were learning to shoot. Not saying that just anybody can learn to shoot as well as they apparently do, but "anybody" CAN get to be just about 90% as good as they're ever going to get a whole lot faster than a lot of good shooters did.

Besides - if you're a good enough hunter, you don't have to be a hell of a good shot; I'm entirely willing to believe that he could teach me something about shooting better, but if I could spend a day out in the woods with Curt, you can bet your butt that I wouldn't waste any time debating shooting technique!

Bighurt - thanks for the quick tutorial; gotta agree- that sounds tortuous. But with all due respect, the rules for target archery (where there are very clear RULES) and the "rules" for hunting archery (where there ARE NO RULES) are two very different cases. You can cheat in a tournament, but in the woods you're either poaching or you're good to go. My complaint is with the NeoTrads (who frequently can't shoot for squat) who will complain that it's "cheating" if you use a bare bow, a single nocking point, and a single anchor point... and you have the nerve to hit what you're shooting at - just because you were paying attention to whether you were going to hit your target or not before you cut loose....

I'll add a bit more...the human hand can be made to release the string like a mechanical release, much more than any existing release methods and probably more than any release method in the long long history of the bow. It was there all those thousands of years waiting to be discovered. That was the original STAR discovery and STAR is an acronym for precisely what happens in that release, although it has other meanings and relevance to aiming and even other release methods that were developed later.

All of the pieces of the puzzle fit together wonderfully...the system and the many variations are fun and there are additional benefits because some of the releases are quieter than existing methods and it's always fun to have a quiet bow over a noisy bow.

For example when I showed one of the methods to one of my bowyers (River's Edge Recurve) the first thing they remarked on besides "wow!" was "it makes the bow so much more quiet!".

Show some responsibility and put the target against your own house. Only place a target should be if one has to shoot in a neighborhood.

Closer to "born again", or the Jihadis or any other religious fundamentalist whose "Pipeline to the Truth" belief system prevents them from being able to respect, value, or even just get along with anyone who doesn't fall 100% in line with their own, narrow interpretation.

Like the Limbaugh NeoCons who rediscover old wisdom, claim it for themselves, pretend they invented it, take it for a hard, right-hand turn down a bad dirt road and then tell the Old Guard they're doing it wrong.

WV: I'm looking forward to sharing a campfire and hunting with you next fall.

I'd also love to hunt with Nick Muche or Kevin Dill. Those two guys have taken lots of awesome animals with traditional equipment.

I re-read the OP's question and I think what he's asking is more along the lines of: can I learn this myself or do I need instruction?

Yes, you can learn it yourself by reading books and also by watching youtube videos. There is no doubt that you can learn a lot by yourself but at some point if you're like most of us you'll develop a few bad habits and you won't be able to see them yourself. After a couple of months it would help your learning to get some one-on-one coaching. Since you're in CO you could visit the Clum's shop (Rocky Mountain Specialty Gear) near Denver.

I'd hunt with a good number of guys here, and they all tend to have a common trait: They are more about getting it done than arguing about how best to do it. By the way...nice job on the elk Elkstabber!

I'll be practicing my shooting 'til then!

Hurt - thanks for the description. Hope David doesn't come looking for you for letting the cat outta the bag.

But I don't see anything remotely "new" in what you just described - just reminders to do what every good shot has always done.

Bighurt, nice try and maybe that could be a good mantra for some. STAR could also stand for saving traditional archery although probably a majority don't think it needs being saved.

Anyway, neither of the above.

Practice. A lot, and it's really not that difficult no matter the style especially if you willing to limit yourself to your effective range.

David, you mean to tell all these guys that you've invented a system that no one else has thought of when the bow has been around forever?

I'm not buying it buddy.

God bless

Manning and Favre (think great QBs, pitchers, and hitters) appear to operate on full instinctive mode but the truth is they weren't born with those skills. They didn't get good by just figuring it out on their own and doing whatever works. Even the most 'instinctive' and fluid athletes/performers have had an enormous amount of coaching and work on the fundamentals of form. I'll wager that Bret Favre would have made a fine farmer if not for those who coached him from high school on, and made him work hard on specific aspects such as footwork, hip rotation, arm position and extension, follow-through etc. That's what's beneath those breathtaking skills. Same with a great golfer or amazing bow shot. Fundamentals do matter, and for some guys can make a huge difference in their 'instinctive' shooting, golfing or pitching.

I definitely see this Intuition vs. Instruction in a shade of gray. You don't need a coach or someone's system. You don't need to be a human bow-machine. On the other hand, grabbing a bow and just going for it can be an exercise in years of frustration and ultimate failure. Thinking this is as simple as spitting on a leaf is incorrect. It's uncomfortable when you spit and miss for years. There is a good and happy middle ground where you can work on the basics of good shooting (you know what they are) and become sound at these...without having to become either a trick shot or an Olympian.

For practice, I used to kick a tennis ball down-range and pick it off as it skipped along like a cottontail. It's no fun if it slows down too much, but between kicking (hard!) and the time of the release doesn't leave a lot of time to get fussy about setting your feet, etc....

Sweet spot for hitting those was around a dozen yards.

Judo points, for safety, BTW... Before I get blasted for "reckless" behavior...

But I'm not planning on taking any 30-yard shots at a fleeing Elk as it jinks and jukes its way through the doghair, are you?

"Instinctive" (IMO) is developed through extremely precise (and correct) repetition, and in that sense we should really expect shooters to become competent at relatively long range on stationary targets long before they get to where they can pick off a flushed rabbit shooting from the hip. Even Fred Asbell likened it to learning to hit free-throws consistently before attempting to make a turnaround jump-shot or a hook-shot from half or a third of the distance....

I guess my point is simply that the way that far too many people teach them to shoot "instinctively" is by inputting fuzzy data over and over again, starting very close and radually moving back.

It would be far more effective (based on the latest brain science) to set them up with a bow that gives them a 40-50 yard point-on distance (and a 48" bullseye target with a 2" black dot in the center) and tell them to carefully an deliberately AIM down the arrow until they begin achieving decent groups. THEN, once they find themselves automatically going to the correct & consistent anchor on every shot... THEN they can start plinking at tin cans at assorted ranges ...

But if you wanna learn quickly and well, the trick is to NOT go ahead without thinking about what you're doing UNTIL AFTER the correct form has become so ingrained that you no longer NEED to think about what you're doing in order to hit what you're looking at...

Manning might be the best example - his instincts seem to have deteriorated lately.

LMAO....strange how "instincts" do that at the age of 39.

I have no idea why some analogize ball throwing sports to instinctive archery - they are nothing alike.

Placing a football on the numbers at 35 yards is about timing, repetition, mechanics, form and a number of other details, none of which are "instinctive".

I'm not buying it buddy."

That's fine. Here was the first buck that found out it was real, some 20 yrs. ago. The technique should have been found our 40,000 yrs. ago - there is absolutely no reason why it could not have been. Quite a few people weren't trying hard enough to be creative. But please notice in the Indian tribes, they tended to stick even to the same designs of arrowheads one generation after another seemingly for thousands of years.

If you really posses some sort of out of this world information on a technique that would/could help all of your bowhunting brothers and you've kept it to yourself this long, yet continue to speak of its release, I'd say that's pretty dang selfish Mr. Alford.

After more than 6 years of keeping this thing from our knowledge...whatever this thing is...I know you won't be coaxed into sharing it. You've got your reasons for that.

Are those reasons about financial reward? Are they about recognition and credit? Are they about ego satisfaction? What is your motivation behind protecting this for so many years and basically making yourself into the perfect target of ridicule and derision? I would think a guy would either share it openly and enjoy the accolades, or would remain quiet as he developed the concept and neared the time for introduction. I'd like to understand your reasoning if you will be so honest as to share that. Thanks.

Part of it Kevin is that I invented so many methods. The total number exceeds all the existing methods we currently have in all the books and DVDS for trad. archery. It's a dang big project. Part of this includes nonmechanial releases, I have a patent attorney and production costs that are substantial.

About ridicule and derision, well I have a lot of confidence so the bottom line is sometimes these things have motivated me to look harder and work harder to try to discover more, as I do like proving people wrong. I have a better overall result because I went deep and worked hard and am still doing a few things like high speed photography and using a Hooter Shooter to test various things.

About money, well I have to pay for product and production, but honestly it never motivated me. I had the thrill of discovery, and that was my main motivator. I tried to solve both archery and golf and I think I succeeded. The golf was very tough and I have to finish it off too, adding to the complexity of my work load by a huge factor.

No one will ever know or appreciate how hard I worked and not for a year or two but decades. So no, it deserves a real book not a bunch of posts on some thread.

Good shooting to all.

OK, I will answer this...Nick that buck is far from being a world record, there are many guys on bowsite who have taken much bigger bucks. But that was the first buck ever taken with a new to archery release method and it is an exceptional method and I have plenty of testimonials as you shall see someday.

It's hard to innovate in Archery...but not impossible. Ugh! Can't stand that word. Impossible? No no no.

An enormous amount of discussion about your creative shooting methods has taken place, yet there is still little to nothing known about them here...unless I missed the seminar. ;-) What has been the benefit in continuing with that for many years? Is it promotion?

When I first read these claims, I was excited as my traditional shooting needed some help. I have learned nothing from Mr Alford's dialogue. I too would purchase his book but life is passing by. Maybe after he dies, someone will find a rough draft and enlighten the world with his revolutionary methods.

Honestly, if I were moderating this website, he would be excluded from posting.

It isn't so much that folks think your lying about having a revolutionary technique(s). But rather you do possess information that could potentially help 'the masses', have bragged about it for at least half a dozen years, and each of those years promise it's coming at the end of it and then never produce. That's not lying per se, but it's an act far worse than lying.

You aren't doing anyone any good, either, by sharing said info with notable archers(and name-dropping them) for no other reason than to prove it does in fact exist, only to swear them to secrecy. In the end, your still not sharing information that will actually help folks. That is what people are po'd about, just so you know.

David, I like you, but you need to give us SOMETHING or you'll lose all credibility. It won't hurt your sales. Elknut has given up all of his "playbook" on various internet posts and people still buy it.

I don't go on the LW but sounds like this has been going on more than I knew about. I assumed it had sort of died. Give up some crumbs, buddy!

I decided to not wait for Dave's "solution" years ago and figured it out by myself. I haven't shot a compound since the early eighties, but the technique of shooting one seemed to be sound, so I came up with a system that let me walk out the back door, put an arrow on the longbow and shoot at a target forty yards away and hit the spot I wanted every time. OK, sometimes.

It was a system with a simple acronym thats easy to remember, and I would repeat if before each shot. (not really)

PS-FDA-S-C-PTC

It's a little longer than STAR, but unlike David, I'll tell you what it means.

PS-pick a spot FDA-Get to full draw. Any way you want. Solid anchor (not ankor) S-Stop. This is one spot the trad police might question you. C-Concentrate. Look at the spot, make any adjustments you think necessary to put the arrow where you want. PTC-Pull through click. The last word is the key. You will need to go to Three Rivers and order a clicker.

PTC will also tell you if you're over bowed. If it's a struggle, you may need to admit that, like a high maintenance girlfriend, the bow isn't right for you and you need to give her to someone stronger than you.

I've been told this is how the Olympic archers train. Works for me.

An added bonus of a clicker is that you can increase your power stroke with a stick bow (draw length).

You will, of course, have the stigma of something attached to the limbs.

This is NOT going to drag out for another 5 yrs. I'm very anxious to get it out there and I know I can do it because I have written another book before. It is within my ability and despite typos etc. in posts I can write OK, especially on sport biomechanics. The main problem is that I'm also writing the golf swing book and doing other things, but I am serious because I have reduced my schedule by a considerable amount to free up the necessary time. Worse case scenario, I'll release an ebook and I know I could do a simplified version in 4 months or less (production time). That would come in within a year for the more detailed version just wasn't happening.

It may be ironic, but I actually have a publishing company and have produced ebooks/ecourses and you can see those at SalesClosingPower.Com/. I'm not the original author, but I am the owner and I wrote significant portions of the books/courses. I did all of this in the last few years instead of the archery or golf to keep my word with my business partners.

It was a commercial project stemming from when I owned a solar energy company and had to do sales. The archery and golf work on the other hand has been a labor of love and never profit driven.