Arrow/eye/anchor alignment, instinctive shooting
Herb Rodriguez
I shoot a longbow and have been studying Ferguson's book "Become the
Arrow".
I wanted to share with you a recent discovery or idea I've had while
struggling with Ferguson's idea of having the arrow directly under the eye
at anchor and sighting down it.
In general I've had difficulty with the idea of picking an anchor,
typically the middle finger at the corner of the mouth, canting the head,
and just looking at the target to shoot. First of all, the tip of my middle
finger was cut off in an industrial accident. I still have the 1st joint
so I can hold the string, but it doesn't touch my mouth. So I've been
trying to find where the anchor would be with my index finger.
Second, the concept itself seemd a little arbitrary. Most books would say
to pick an anchor, "generally at the corner of the mouth, but you'll have
to find your own", and then keep it. So how do you find your own?
Here's where Ferguson's concepts helped. He says the arrow has to be
directly under the "center" of the eye. (I interpreted that as under the
pupil.) He spoke about the difficulty he had copying Howard Hill's style
until he realized that his face structure and that of HH were different.
He had to find a different anchor point that fit *HIS* facial structure.
And once he did his shooting improved.
So I started experimenting in front of a mirror. Without a bow I assumed
the full draw position, bow hand extended, arrow hand at anchor. And
holding an arrow in this "shooting" position I sighted down the arrow and
moved my anchor position until I could tell when the arrow looked straight
or angled in my vision. If it looked straight I assumed it was directly
under my eye, as Ferguson suggests, and if it was angled I assumed it was
off to the side of my eye/vision. Lo and behold, when the arrow looked
perfectly straight in my vison my anchor point was further forward of my
face than I had previously been using, and more importantly, forward of
the typical "corner of the mouth" anchor! (It actually turned out that the
arrow *nock* was at the corner of the mouth and my finger was in front of
my eye tooth.) Had I finally found my true anchor?
Testing it out on the range demonstrated a marked increase in accuracy!!
My arrows were flying straighter and hitting closer to the mark more
consistantly. But some were still erratic.
Back at home I assumed the empty handed "shooting" position and played
around some more. I discovered that, because of back tension at full draw,
I sometimes had less head cant than at other times. When my head was more
"upright" my newly discovered anchor kept the arrow straight in my vision.
But if I held that anchor and canted my head, the arrow would now appear
at an angle. I would have to move my anchor very slightly back more to
re-position the arrow so it would appear perfectly straight again. I
assumed that the arrow was no longer directly under the center of my eye
when I added the head cant. So the degree of head cant also affected when
the arrow would be perfectly under the eye.
This is as far as I've gotten. I need more practise and experimenting to
come up with more conclusions. I need to stablize my form, and, especially
now, my head cant. I can say, however, that my accuracy has increased
since discovering what my truer anchor point is. It seems that Ferguson's
idea of aligning the arrow under the center of the eye works better for me
than the general (as in Asbell's) "just cant the head and anchor at the
corner of the mouth" version.
What do you think about this? Does anyone have similar or other experiences?
Thanks,
Herb
PS. Even though Asbell insists you don't "aim" with the arrow, isn't he doing
the same thing as Ferguson by insisting to cant the head over the arrow at
anchor? Is Ferguson just more honest (or more specific) about it?
Robert S. Carroll
Herb Rodriguez <rod...@spot.colorado.edu> wrote:
>Back at home I assumed the empty handed "shooting" position and played
>around some more. I discovered that, because of back tension at full draw,
>I sometimes had less head cant than at other times. When my head was more
>"upright" my newly discovered anchor kept the arrow straight in my vision.
>But if I held that anchor and canted my head, the arrow would now appear
>at an angle. I would have to move my anchor very slightly back more to
>re-position the arrow so it would appear perfectly straight again. I
>assumed that the arrow was no longer directly under the center of my eye
>when I added the head cant. So the degree of head cant also affected when
>the arrow would be perfectly under the eye.
>This is as far as I've gotten. I need more practise and experimenting to
>come up with more conclusions. I need to stablize my form, and, especially
>now, my head cant. I can say, however, that my accuracy has increased
>since discovering what my truer anchor point is. It seems that Ferguson's
>idea of aligning the arrow under the center of the eye works better for me
>than the general (as in Asbell's) "just cant the head and anchor at the
>corner of the mouth" version.
>What do you think about this? Does anyone have similar or other experiences?
>Thanks,
>Herb
>PS. Even though Asbell insists you don't "aim" with the arrow, isn't he doing
>the same thing as Ferguson by insisting to cant the head over the arrow at
>anchor? Is Ferguson just more honest (or more specific) about it?
I do believe that everyone has to find their own anchor. I will tell you that a
lot of my friends who shoot traditional don't really have an anchor. Most seem
to only draw probably 18 or 20 inchs of arrow and "let fly". I do know that of
my friends who have a consistant anchor, their shooting seems to be more
consistant. But one of my friends who never comes to a full draw is deadly in
the woods. He "knows" where the arrow is going when he shoots.
I have always shot while coming to a full draw and a solid anchor. I probably
don't hold more than a second at full draw, but it is the only way I can get any
consistancy. I anchor with the "hook" formed by the base of my thumb and index
finger hooked around the back of my jawbone. This places my middle finger
approximately at the corner of my mouth. I shoot split fingered with a pretty
deep hook on the string with my fingers. My actual anchor is probably more on my
face than at the corner of my mouth, but I have done it this way for so many
years, that it is automatic.
As far as the arrow being under my eye, with my anchor and probably about a 20
degree cant to my bow, the arrow is always "centered" under my eye. I don't look
at it but I know that it is there. I believe that this is the only way to get
windage accuracy at any range. (By the way, both of my eyes are on the same side
of the string. I have a clear unobstucted view of my target this way. I think
most longbow shooters shoot this way, and many recurve shooters. Many people
shoot with the bow held more in the vertical position, which places the string
between their eyes, but I can't.). I think the key is to develop a form that
works for you and work with it until you don't think about it. Then you can work
on accuracy, and the consistant form will enable you to become more consistant
in your shooting.
Just one shooter's opinon.
Sincerely,
Robert S. Carroll
rsc...@ix.netcom.com
John Kelly
In <4soevj$m...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> rsc...@ix.netcom.com (Robert
S. Carroll) writes:
>
>>Herb Rodriguez <rod...@spot.colorado.edu> wrote:
>>the degree of head cant also affected when
>>the arrow would be perfectly under the eye.
>
>> I need to stablize my form, and, especially
>>now, my head cant. I can say, however, that my accuracy has
increased
>>since discovering what my truer anchor point is.
I don't know about "truer anchor points," but I am certain that your
increased CONSCIOUSNESS of possible anchor point irregularities is
causing you to tighten up your act ("stabalize form") all by itself,
which automatically makes you shoot better. In other words, I'd bet the
better consciousness is itself more significant than locating one
special anchor point or another. High consciousness and consistency of
anchor point should allow you to shoot well, even if you chose to
always anchor from the tip of your nose! Nonetheless, I'm going to
explore your ideas (Ferguson's?) a bit myself.
>As far as the arrow being under my eye, with my anchor and probably
about a 20
>degree cant to my bow, the arrow is always "centered" under my eye. I
don't look
>at it but I know that it is there. I believe that this is the only way
to get
>windage accuracy at any range.
In other words, some arrow-shaft "aiming," conscious or semi-conscious,
is important to you. It is to me, too. That gets dangerously close to
conscious "gap shooting," however. I find that if I think at all about
gap, I miss every time, certainly at 40yds or less.
Harold Groves, master bowyer and fine archer (famous in the Sixties and
Seventies), designed his ultra-fast recurves to be shot upright, target
style, off a rest. He grumbles a lot about Asbell et al. He thinks
"instinctive" style has taken archery backward.
Key to Harold's archery technique are the following:
shoot three fingers under, anchoring with different fingers at the
corner of your mouth for different ranges. He believes that the nock
should be as close to the pupil of the eye as possible (tough if you
wear glasses, like me). That way the cant of your head has minimal
influence. He's a strong advocate of sighting down the shaft, "like a
rifle." Not many traditional archers shoot like Harold wants, these
days.
I have not wanted to read Asbell or Ferguson, preferring to learn
directly from guys that outshoot me. But I understand that my own style
is essentially Asbell. Not that anybody asked!
JK
Herb Rodriguez
John Kelly wrote:
>
> In <4soevj$m...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> rsc...@ix.netcom.com (Robert
> S. Carroll) writes:
> >
> >>Herb Rodriguez <rod...@spot.colorado.edu> wrote:
>
> >>the degree of head cant also affected when
> >>the arrow would be perfectly under the eye.
> >
> >> I need to stablize my form, and, especially
> >>now, my head cant. I can say, however, that my accuracy has
> >>increased since discovering what my truer anchor point is.
>
> I don't know about "truer anchor points," but I am certain that your
> increased CONSCIOUSNESS of possible anchor point irregularities is
> causing you to tighten up your act ("stabalize form") all by itself,
> which automatically makes you shoot better. In other words, I'd bet the
> better consciousness is itself more significant than locating one
> special anchor point or another. High consciousness and consistency of
> anchor point should allow you to shoot well, even if you chose to
> always anchor from the tip of your nose! Nonetheless, I'm going to
> explore your ideas (Ferguson's?) a bit myself.
I agree with you that high consciousness and consistant anchor, or form in
general, will allow you to shoot well, but what if you have consitant bad
form? You may be consistant, but not in the "correct" way! (Here I mean
correct as in the best posible way for you to shoot as opposed to having
built in errors.) Everyone agrees that if your equipment isn't tuned
properly, then you are fighting yourself even if you have good form. So what
if your -form- isn't "tuned" properly? Aren't you equally fighting yourself?
I try to be consciouse of my form as much as I can, obviously sometimes its
better than others. But with the same level of awareness, finding the better
physical position, with the arrow directly under the pupil of my eye, did
help with my accuracy. I see that as "tune" up my form so I'm not fighting
against myself by trying the best I can, but having built in errors with less
than ideal form.
Robert S. Carroll wrote:
> >As far as the arrow being under my eye, with my anchor and probably
> about a 20
> >degree cant to my bow, the arrow is always "centered" under my eye. I
> don't look
> >at it but I know that it is there. I believe that this is the only way
> to get
> >windage accuracy at any range.
>
> In other words, some arrow-shaft "aiming," conscious or semi-conscious,
> is important to you. It is to me, too. That gets dangerously close to
> conscious "gap shooting," however. I find that if I think at all about
> gap, I miss every time, certainly at 40yds or less.
Ferguson does say that, up to a point, his system is similar to gap shooting,
but then departs and becomes different. I don't profess to yet understand
what the difference is, however. He says something about visualizing the
trajectory of the arrow as a more reliable way of judging distance than
strict gap shooting. I *think* that's what he means by the difference in his
method, but don't qoute me on that as being an accurate representation of
him.
>
> Harold Groves, master bowyer and fine archer (famous in the Sixties and
> Seventies), designed his ultra-fast recurves to be shot upright, target
> style, off a rest. He grumbles a lot about Asbell et al. He thinks
> "instinctive" style has taken archery backward.
>
> Key to Harold's archery technique are the following:
> shoot three fingers under, anchoring with different fingers at the
> corner of your mouth for different ranges. He believes that the nock
> should be as close to the pupil of the eye as possible (tough if you
> wear glasses, like me). That way the cant of your head has minimal
> influence. He's a strong advocate of sighting down the shaft, "like a
> rifle." Not many traditional archers shoot like Harold wants, these
> days.
This sounds like what Ferguson is refering to when he mentions "face walking"
as a shooting method. He didn't describe it in great detail, but he did say
that that would be his preferred alternate method of shooting if he couldn't
shoot the way he does now. (At least the face walking part, not necessarily
the three fingers under part. I don't know if they go together since, as I
said, he didn't explain it in great detail.
The "sighting down the shaft" part seems similar to Ferguson's ideas, but in
an unconscious way not a direct way. As I understand Ferguson, the sighting
down the shaft, after the initial learning stages, is secondary. After
learning where to place the arrow under the pupil of the eye, then as you
progress, total attention is given to the spot on the target where to want to
shoot.
> I have not wanted to read Asbell or Ferguson, preferring to learn
> directly from guys that outshoot me. But I understand that my own style
> is essentially Asbell. Not that anybody asked!
>
> JK
I'd recommend giving Ferguson a try.
Herb
John Kelly
In <31F3B3...@spot.colorado.edu> Herb Rodriguez
<rod...@spot.colorado.edu> writes:
>
>John Kelly wrote:
>>
>> In <4soevj$m...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> rsc...@ix.netcom.com
(Robert
>> S. Carroll) writes:
>> >
>> >>Herb Rodriguez <rod...@spot.colorado.edu> wrote:
>> I don't know about "truer anchor points," but I am certain that your
>> increased CONSCIOUSNESS of possible anchor point irregularities is
>> causing you to tighten up your act ("stabalize form") all by itself,
>> which automatically makes you shoot better. In other words, I'd bet
the
>> better consciousness is itself more significant than locating one
>> special anchor point or another. High consciousness and consistency
of
>> anchor point should allow you to shoot well, even if you chose to
>> always anchor from the tip of your nose!
>form? You may be consistant, but not in the "correct" way! (Here I
mean
>correct as in the best posible way for you to shoot as opposed to
having
>built in errors.)
I don't think "form" is as crucial as consciousness and consistency.
For example, look at the many varying ways different baseball sluggers
approach their task. Wildly different "forms." I think archery is a
pretty close analog. I think the body and the mind can cope with all
sorts of different "form" alternatives. As a matter of fact, why
wouldn't our supercomputers be able to sort out that task, yet be able
to calculate distances and angles with incredible "instinctive"
precision?
Even such bad form as failure to hold on target, after release, can be
dealt with if we do it consistently.
>
>Ferguson does say that, up to a point, his system is similar to gap
shooting,
>but then departs and becomes different. I don't profess to yet
understand
>what the difference is, however. He says something about visualizing
the
>trajectory of the arrow as a more reliable way of judging distance
than
>strict gap shooting.
My experience is that the very act of "judging distance" is a
distraction, prevents good shots. "Judging distance" certainly implies
gap shooting, or something virtually identical.
>>
>This sounds like what Ferguson is refering to when he mentions "face
walking"
YUP.
He didn't describe it in great detail, but he did say
>that that would be his preferred alternate method of shooting if he
couldn't
>shoot the way he does now.
It is directly connected with classic gap shooting.
(At least the face walking part, not necessarily
>the three fingers under part.
Three fingers under are essential, physically, if you are to get the
arrow as near as possible to the eye, yet still be able to see anything
across the top of the shaft.
>
>The "sighting down the shaft" part seems similar to Ferguson's ideas,
but in
>an unconscious way not a direct way. As I understand Ferguson, the
sighting
>down the shaft, after the initial learning stages, is secondary.
Makes sense.
After
>learning where to place the arrow under the pupil of the eye, then as
you
>progress, total attention is given to the spot on the target where to
want to
>shoot.
Yes, any technique tends to become unconscious. Which doesn't
necessarily mean it's good, of course...we could be falling asleep!
One distinct possibility is that all roads lead to Rome, so to
speak...all learning techniques may resolve into the same thing.
I've seen some surprisingly accurate first-time "instinctive" shooting
by compound shooters who never before shot without sights. Oddly, their
high-tech archery seemed to give them "instinctive" practice.
JK
John Kelly
In <4t8200$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> assu...@aol.com (Assurgent)
writes:
>
>Greetings
>
>I have just purchased my first longbow it is a Martin ML-14
Mountaineer
>55#. I have also armed myself with referance material such as "Bow &
>Arrow" by Larry Wise,
>"The Archer's & Bowhunter's Bible" by Lea Lawrence and"Traditonal
Bowyers
>of America" by Dan Bertalan. My problem is that I seem to live in a
area
>where mentioning traditonal brings a snicker to many people lips and I
am
>finding it difficult to get set up. I guess I am basically looking
for a
>MENTOR that could guide me in my endavors with the longbow.
First, that's a great idea. Second, don't count on it. Mentors are
great, but you have to recognize that they're primarily people who have
been at it longer than you. I could probably pass myself off as one, to
somebody's ultimate distress. Hard to identify the right guy if you
don't have the initial basis for making the judgement calls. But, like
a lot of other things, this is a matter of trial and error, in the end.
Plus a little thought.
>questions but no one to ansewer them ie. Is $45 too much to pay for a
>dozen maple feather flecthed arrows spinned to my bow weight?
Don't buy maple. Lots of problems with unstable (warping) shafts, plus
they're much heavier than necessary, unless you're after moose or
Oldsmobiles etc. If you shoot traditional equipment, you should shoot
arrows you've made yourself. Opinion. You'll need to invest in a
fletching jig, of course. I like the 6-up Jo-Jan, but you might
consider an inexpensive Arizona one-up jig. I'd start with aluminum
shafts, even though I hate them and they are offensive in general to
traditionalists. $45/dz is cheap, incidentally, for wood arrows.
What are
>the pros and cons of leaving the bow strung (so as not to lose my
brace
>hight) or unstrung?
The con is that you'll damage most longbows, weaken them. There is no
real pro. Your brace height is something you will need to adjust
occasionally, even in the field. After a string is middle aged,
however, it won't vary much. Talking here about dacron B-50. If you've
got a bow that uses Fastflite, that isn't a problem anyway. But I doubt
you should use Fastflite on a Martin.
Did I make a big goof with the purchase of the Martin
>longbow ( I am able to draw it well but it does tire me out after a
>while).
Martins are fine. Inexpensive, pretty good performance. You'll want to
fiddle around with brace height, to get something relatively quiet and
that doesn't kick much.
"...tires me out after a while," eh? The real issue may be: does it
tire you out before you've been able to get some decent practice in,
several times a week?
Longbows, like bows in general, really make certain unusual muscles
work hard. Back muscles, certain arm and shoulder muscles. Tendeons.
Joints.
How big are you, weight-wise and height-wise? How heavy is your bow?
Are you generally fit, strong as hell, or used mostly to computers?
Your answer, about INITIAL bow weight, may lie there somewhere.
Naturally, you'll want something more powerful soon enough.
JK
>Thomas Holden
>aka Thomas Penrith of Stonehaven
>Baroney of Marinus
>Kingdom of Atlantia
Which means, I guess, that you're in SCA. Which in turn means that you
are limited by your organization to 35lbs, right? Which isn't much. If
you're a typical adult male, average size, relatively fit, you may be
able to shoot 50#-60# with some practice, in a year or so. But 35# is a
great place to start.
JK
Assurgent
Greetings
I have just purchased my first longbow it is a Martin ML-14 Mountaineer
55#. I have also armed myself with referance material such as "Bow &
Arrow" by Larry Wise,
"The Archer's & Bowhunter's Bible" by Lea Lawrence and"Traditonal Bowyers
of America" by Dan Bertalan. My problem is that I seem to live in a area
where mentioning traditonal brings a snicker to many people lips and I am
finding it difficult to get set up. I guess I am basically looking for a
MENTOR that could guide me in my endavors with the longbow. I have many
questions but no one to ansewer them ie. Is $45 too much to pay for a
dozen maple feather flecthed arrows spinned to my bow weight? What are
the pros and cons of leaving the bow strung (so as not to lose my brace
hight) or unstrung? Did I make a big goof with the purchase of the Martin
longbow ( I am able to draw it well but it does tire me out after a
while). My enthusiaism is very great in this. Well if anyone out there
has the patieance and the spare time and dont mind being asked silly
questions I would be forever in your debt.
I realize that I am put a great deal of trust in a somewhat blind endavor
and that I will possibly be miss led but I have faith in people and find
that in general thoses who shoot traditonal also have traditonal values.
Thank you for your time
Thomas Holden
Assu...@Aol.com or at the above GNN adress
Thomas Holden
JAMES WILLIAMS
Thomas,
It sounds like you've made a good purchase with the Martin bow. I shot
one for a number of years and they perform very well, for the price.
Forty-five dollars is not a lot for a good set of arrows matched to your
bow and you. Maple is heavy but your bow is designed to shoot a heavy
arrow. Give them a try. Unless you want precision in target archery
stick with wood arrow and feathers.
I would unstring my bow if I were you. Leaving it strung will probably
cause more string damage than bow damage. To maintain the brace height,
put a rubber band over the string and the string nock on the lower limb.
This will hold the string on the lower limb. When you unstring the bow
slide the loop of the string on the upper limb down the limb. It is
designed to do this. If you feel there may be burrs on the glass of
the upper limb, smoot the upper portion with a little steel wool and
wax the entire bow with good furniture wax. I wax my bows often. Don't
remove the string from the bow. If you feel you must remove the string
from the bow, be sure it doesn't untwist and use another rubber band to
hold the string on the upper limb to the bow.
Congratulation on selecting the longbow. There is no greater
satisfaction in archery than becoming a good archer with a longbow.
I'll try to help, if you want me to.
Jim W.
Robert S. Carroll
assu...@aol.com (Assurgent) wrote:
>Greetings
Thomas,
First, I think its great that you have decided to go "traditional". I know there
are a lot of compound shooters who "snicker" as you say at traditional
equipment, but the whole idea is to have fun. I can assure you that in the long
run you will be having more fun than they are. There is nothing quite so
fulfilling as stump shooting for an hour or so with your longbow. Also, keep in
mind anything I or anyone else tells you here is just an opinion. Try to keep an
open mind about suggestions people give, and make your own decisions.
As for the Martin longbow, though I do not personally own one, I have seen them
put some of the more expensive custom bows to shame. They are a solid, reliable
and well built bow. They have been building them for a long time now and have it
pretty well figured out. They are also a deep core type longbow which also lends
to a more forgiving nature when they are shot. I think you have made an
excellent choice for a "first" longbow.
I would have to agree with everyone else here that there are very few pros to
leaving any traditional bow strung. I will add, however, to please buy a bow
stringer specifically for the longbow. Though you probably would not damage the
Martin with either the "push-pull" or "step-thru" stringing methods, for safetys
sake, buy the stringer. They are only $8.00 to $10.00 and may save you many
times that.
I have a couple dozen maple shafts that I bought for a little custom flatbow I
own. Though I have not experienced any warping problems with them and they are
extremely durable, they are way too heavy for normal shooting! I shot cedar for
a number of years, but though light and straight, they are not very durable. I
think I would try either one of the pine shafts available, or ramin. (I shoot a
lot of ramin, but it has its share of problems too.) I really would not
recommend aluminum, because they are just not durable. If you plan on shooting
targets only, they would be a good choice, but if you plan on doing any stump
shooting, you will be disappointed.
You mentioned getting tired while shooting your new bow. I wouldn't have too
long a shooting session at first while shooting your bow. Give your muscles a
chance to develop. I also would resist the temptation to shoot every day. I'm
sure you will find the 55# weight a good choice if you take your time. Try to
learn to draw the bow with your back instead of your arms. Though harder to
describe than to do, this is the key to handling traditional bows with heavier
weights. If you come from a target shooting background, you might want to forget
the traditional "target" stance/form. I think most longbow shooters find a more
relaxed form works better, with a bent bow arm, canted bow and bent knees. Being
relaxed while you are shooting is much easier on all of your muscles.
Good luck with your new bow, and I hope your experience with "traditional"
archery will be as rewarding as mine has been over the years!