Some emerging points: *Lazy Shooting* This was accidentally cut out of the video. One of the things that we can probably universally agree on is that "lazy shooting" - that is, shooting without caring about form or visualising, is not instinctive. When "instinctive" is used an excuse for poor shooting, that's not instinctive. Archers generally understand instinctive to be a method, not the lack of one. *"You're mistaken about instinctive. It's not _______, it's __________"* Hey, don't spoil the video. That's the entire point. There is no universally prescribed definition of "instinctive" and two people will understand it to mean different things. When someone says "I shoot instinctive", that really doesn't objectively mean anything and requires further clarification. Build on this by describing what you do, not by relying on labels and assume everyone knows what you are talking about. *"_**____** and **______** are gap shooters, not instinctive."* This may be true. But if you look up instinctive archery tutorials, these are the people who pop up giving advice for or directed towards instinctive shooters. As outlined at the beginning, anyone who enters archery now is going to run into this tangled bramble of traditional archery.
In my profession as a researcher, I study how the brain processes information during learning. While we don't use the term "intuition" in neuroscience to refer to learned muscle memory, you described the principle just right (we call it "habit" or "automated action-chains"). You are also correct that "instinct" is a separate neural process in a separate part of the brain which stores what we call a "hereditary repertoire" of inborn behaviors. One key point is that there is still learning involved in instinct. Unlike reflexes (which are governed by yet another neural system), instinctual behaviors still require learning to know when to release them. The important thing is that the aiming part of the shot process is no different from every other part of the shot process. Many components of the shot process will, through repeated practice, become an automated habit. The shot process has enough components to it that you could never consciously control all of them, so many aspects become intuitive. Aiming is the same way. After enough practice, you can automate components of looking at your sight picture such that you aren't consciously controlling how you aim.
@@NUSensei That's pretty normal to have terminology that means different things to different people. The important part here is about how much of the shot process is consciously controlled and how much is automatic. For each of the separate brain systems that can control one's actions, there are some conscious and some non-conscious elements. There's really no good way to divide up the brain into a conscious mind and a subconscious mind. For your learned habits, the part that is conscious is your intention. When you are driving a car, you don't think about the muscles in your hands and feet, you just think "speed up", "turn left" etc. and your hands and feet do what you've practiced. Same with archery. If your intention is to bring the arrow to your face while you draw, often you will unintentionally curl you hand into a fist to achieve that result. Or if your intention is to create back tension, you may flex your pecs unintentionally to create that back tension. Where this influences the instinctive style of aiming is that if you've always shot with a pin sight and you've always used the intention of keeping the pin floating over the bullseye, then you won't have any basis for aiming when you remove the pin sight. If your intention is "shoot the arrow into the bullseye", then you can develop the pattern recognition and the automated action chains to produce that result. In either aiming style, you are focusing on some intention and then your body releases an automated action chain to achieve it. In fact, I'm not aware of any teacher of instinctive aiming who says that it involves a totally empty mind. On the contrary, they all say that it involves intense focus, just not conscious focus on a particular reference point. My big point of contention with many archery RUclipsrs is that they portray the aiming process as fundamentally different than the rest of the shot cycle, but from a neuroscience perspective, it's exactly the same.
I GET WHAT YOU SAY AND WILL FURTHER COMMENT... THAT IF YOUR INTENTION IS TO HIT THE TARGET WITHOUT DEPENDING ON SIGHTS OR OTHER SIGHTING AIDS. THEN YOU WILL ONLY PRACTICE WITHOUT USING THEM. AND YOU WILL THEREFORE DEVELOPE A SPECIFIC SET OF ATRIBUTES FOR THAT SKILL.... THAT IS WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT SIGHTS.....
@@questions6746 Depends. Fred Bear was an advocate of beginning with sights and then weaning off of them. If you use a sight, and fixate on it as your sole focus when aiming, then it's difficult to aim any other way. If you use a sight them but focus on the target while also paying attention to all the visual cues in your peripheral vision, then you can take the sight away and aim without it.
hey Nu Sensei, been watching your videos since around 2016 when I was in school, back then I couldn't do archery for personal reasons, but just this week I finally became a member of an archery club here in Sydney, glad to finally be in the community I've been wanting to be a part of after 8 years! Your videos have helped me get a head start into the sport and have helped me impress my instructors despite having only started, many thanks!
I think this has to be one of the best videos you have put together. I really like your description of instinctive archery along with the comments you make on shooting different disciplines. There are so many similarities between the different styles. There are so many misconceptions and bias. Thanks
👉 It's more "mechanical" than instinctive. A very good reference to this is your video on the "Draw, Anchor, Pull" method and the importance of using rubber bands and physically imposing it on yourself until it becomes so automatic that you can no longer do nothing else. Afterwards, I would add your video “Aim, Anchor, Alignment” in addition to the first one that I just cited.
Instinctive srchery is a trained instinct. Knowing your equipment, knowing how it's going to perform together, knowing what happens when you loose your bow are put together by your brain with the body mechanics trained by good form. You are right, and srrangely enough it was while watching 3 of the 4 'instictive' guys you mentioned that I came to the same realization. And Lars Andersen even said it in one of his videos that he realized this too. It's not really instinct or intuition, it's the body doing what we trained it to. The trick is to not interfere with the body while it is doing it other than to tell it where you want to hit. Great vid. I am going to start to use your mantra and see if it can help me. I've been forced to use a release with my barebow recurve due to nerve damage. Thanx.
I enjoyed this video. As a learner and a teacher actively learning with students, the messaging is fantastic. Thank you for making thoughtful, experienced content. 🙇🏻😎🏹
I think it should also be noted that this whole dramatic theater about the word "instinctive" in archery is a very western thing, particularly in areas where people use English as a lingua Franca to discuss archery. As a Korean, the term is essentially absent in Guk-gung (국궁) Korean Traditional archery. The idea of using the word "instinct" to describe accuracy feels extremely incompatible with how specific and particular the discipline is. In fact, I imagine I'd get a curious look or a laugh if I suggested that to my coach. For other traditional Asian disciplines like Kyuudo, or Manchu, Gao Ying, or Turkish, there may not be discussions on specific sighting tools; but it is deeply rooted in mechanics and methodologies that ammount to a system of aiming.
This is indeed a general misconception from mainstream viewers about historical archery (perpetuated by Lars Andersen) - that historical archers all shot instinctive. Build fallacies on top of that like all archers shot quickly, did massed volley shooting, and didn't need to hit individual targets when shooting at an army. But the historical manuals are very specific on how to aim. You're not using "instinct" to hit a 145m target. You're using instinct to hit a 5m target while riding on horseback. Shooting at a 50m target on horseback is bordering on luck, not instinct.
At least how I was taught Kta you aim with the meaty part of your palm, so there is zero ambiguity as there is nothing “instinctive” about kta. I tend to agree that if you are being “instinctive” and your goal is not to aim that you are doing yourself a disservice by not trying to be the best you can be. Instinctive is a protection method used by boomer trad archers to explain their deficiencies without coming off as lesser.
@@NUSensei @NUSensei ruclips.net/video/RHpi69mTDos/видео.htmlsi=23_rwjsyccQ2tKPJ&t=743 Lars Andersen: "I was wrong - instinctive archery does not exist!"
This is correct. The term was not even coined until the widespread use of sights in competitive archery in the 1920s, .I believe. Once sites hit the scene everything else needed a name. Gap shooting. Spring walking. Split vision aiming. Instinctive. It's not correct or descriptive but it did become a common turn.
Well said, the first part sums it up really well. People confuse long old 'primitive' skills with instinct, shooting a bow is as 'instinctive' as starting a fire out in the wild... surprise! it's technology and not instinct, because you need prior knowledge and the proper tools/methods to do so
Thank you, Nusensei. Thank you for doing a deep dive into this topic. I've been doing archery for about 6 months. I took lessons and joined a club. I was taught "instinctive archery. 🏹 I have also been learning by watching you along with other coaches on RUclips. Recently, I bought the book "TOTAL ARCHERY - INSIDE THE ARCHER" by KiSik Lee and Tyler Benner. This has totally transformed the way I do archery, and I'm only on chapter 6!!! 😮😊 I had an "Ah ha!" moment or session 🤔 when everything started to work, where I was more in control. I'm still at the place where I'm merely focusing on the target when I shoot. However, when I looked ahead at the chapter on Aiming, it was all about using the Olympic style sight. So, I'm reading Byron Ferguson's book, "Become the Arrow." He talks about Gap Shooting or what Howard Hill called Splt Vision Shooting. I am going to start learning about Gap Shooting and trying to practice this. I'm also watching Jake Kaminski, who was a student of KiSik Lee. I'm also going to watch Clay Hayes, Greg from Trad Archery 101, among others, to learn Gap Shooting.
This separation of styles is common in other shooting sports too. I've seen the same debate in the slingshot community. It seems to me that instinctive isn't a beginner's method anyway. You need experience with a good sight picture and muscle memory gained through thousands of shots. To apply archery terminology to slingshots, I'm a gap shooter. I catch myself occasionally not focusing and still smashing a beer can. However, that's always at a very familiar distance. If I took two big steps back and changed the distance, I'd probably be low and miss.
One of the best videos ive seen so far on the topic. And as someone who has been practicing archery since i was 10 years old (about 30 years) and is an "instinctive" traditional archer (but i have used sights and compound bows etc at different points in time) i would agree 100% with your assessment here. Although i really dont get too caught up on the semantics of it all, and what exactly constitutes "instinctive" or "traditional" archery. If you are using any kind of bow, without any sights, stabilizers, etc..to me, thats traditional. Whether you are thinking about aiming, or not thinking about it, your brain IS infact actively aiming, and how thats done is irrelevant if it works for you. I think that if you went back in time to the Battle Of Agincourt, and you picked the brain of the archers there, you would find that many of them most likely knew all about things like "gap shooting" or "string walking" (although they probably didnt call them by those terms) or actively aiming using the arrow or arrow tip. And if you went back even further, a good 5000 years, I think that you most likely find the same. And if you showed either of them how to make and use a bowsight, they almost all of them would most likely readily accept bowsights as a great thing and a valid part of archery.
I think you hit the nail Nu Sensei. If someone has to shoot at a target in darkness without any other reference but the target itself, there is a high probability of missing. Even if you think you don't aim, you are wrong. you take all your background and foreground and mix it with your experience to interpolate the aiming point (even if you don't notice). Let's say this target is a 3d deer. But it is the size of a rabbit. Of course, there is no other reference but the target itself. Then your reference will be the normal size of a real deer. Your mind will interpret that the siluhete is father than it is, since it looks "small". This is Luis Sandoval from Mexico. Best regards and thank you for your time and effort making these videos.
I was part of the elitism a bit when I came to archery. I thought archery was a pure traditional sport like we see in the media and books. I've been learning archery one and off for about half a year or so now and only until recently I was thinking that olympic recurve were a lot earier to shoot with then barebows and traditionals and just by knowing how to shoot the former would make it easy for me to breeze past the latter. But I've chnaged my mind after actually trying it. I always thought sights, and the additions made it easier butI can now that since they lower some of the aspect they aslo increase the others to balance it out. For the olympic recurve, I found that you have to be precise with all of your shots and included in that is the from and technique. When your form and technique is proper then you arrows can be on point. you can get away with this a bit when it comes to traditional archery but I understand now that correcting my form and technique with the recurve would help me a lot with my barebow and traditional shooting. I still havent found an aiming method that works for me as I'm currently experimenting but I have time.
I think part of the misconception comes from the fact, that when you shoot thumb release, you can't close your eye, align the string with the bow, put the arrow on the target and shoot. Thus, you can't „aim”, you can only „point”. Event if pointing still involves putting some (the same every time) part of the bow on (or right/left of) the target and adjusting for the distance.
Love this. I'd even simplify further and say that it's down to what people enjoy, and people should just STFU and let everyone enjoy what they want. "TradIntuistinctional Archery" 🤣 I did a day of trying target recurve, 3D recurve, axe throwing and crossbow a year ago, and found target archery and crossbow boring, but I immediately loved walking in the forest, looking at targets, needing to negotiate objects in the way of my sight, and estimating where I think I should be aiming to hit the target with no knowledge of distances. I loved the simplicity of an arrow on the bow shelf and nothing more on sights, weights, clickers etc. I did a beginner's course in target archery, which validated my feeling of disinterest in target shooting as a hobby (plus the number of snarky comments I got from the group about choosing a Samick Sage and shooting off the shelf was obscene), and then I did another beginner's session at a local field archery club. I signed up there and I love every time I go out, I have no plans on being competitive, I just love walking in nature and shooting arrows.
Incredible analysis and i agree in its entirety there isint much archery in my cuntry (Puerto Rico) and the little there is is largely convoluted for new archers because of confusing arguments like these and of course the elitist myth. Thank you for this wonderful and insightful video. love your channel ive been following fiw a few years now. Ohh might i ask what specific hat were you wearing in this video might wanna find one just like it if i can it looks fantastic😅
Intuitive is a good word here. Chat GPT comes to mind. What we get as an output from our prompts is the machine's intuition. It doesn't run a heavy calculation, it outputs a learned response. That's intuitive action vs doing a full audit of everything, every time. There is beauty in both methods, but I am not surprised some people have a clear preference for one of them.
I think this is a good take on a complex topic. 'Instinctive' probably means different things to different archers, and is probably felt/experienced differently as well by various archers. I believe the word 'instinctive' itself is misused often. 'Feeling the Force' and getting off the perfect shot without (conscious) aiming still takes thousands of arrows shot at the same distance before the body gets that automation thing going. There's nothing 'instinctive' going on there. As many have said this is standard process that everyone's brain does. IMO, ALL archers (gap shooters, string walkers, Olympic archers using sights, etc.) WILL shoot one arrow at least every once in a while that feels 'instinctive', where the natural shot cycle (or some part of it, whatever it may be for the person) gets overridden somehow and the arrow still winds up flying, perfectly (!), to the exact spot where it needs to be. The brain is so wonderful that way, auto-piloting for the conscious mind and letting us achieve incredible results. For me, that can easily happen at 10 and 20 meters, because I shoot SO many arrows at those distances. For 95% of my shots, I gap shoot, tilting my head to look down the arrow shaft, 3 under, with an anchor using my middle finger to mouth corner. I consciously aim with the arrow point. I take my time. I release. But I can also consciously alter my style to shoot split finger, with the index to the mouth corner, holding my head straight, and shooting at a baseball size target at 10m and hitting it with no difficulty, without any sort of conscious aiming process. But it's not instinctive per say, I just shoot some many darned arrows at that distance in my basement, that my body just knows when everything is just placed 'right' for that arrow to hit the mark. I don't even need to use my 'standard' form (though the 'instinctive' results are better when I at least stick to 3-under and the same anchor, minus the conscious aiming). I can't always willfully 'recreate' the exploit. Sometimes that brain magic just doesn't happen (but it happens often enough to not be chalked up to simple luck). Sometimes, I actually CAN'T gap shoot to save my life, and 'going instinctive' nets me more good arrows. Weird but wonderful! Anyway, there is nothing instinctive about archery, initially. The idea of consistently repeating the exact same motion, following the same cycle, understanding that any small deviation from the usual form will result in misses, that still takes time and practice (whether the archer consciously realizes this or not). Instinct is blinking when something goes towards your face. Those 'magical' arrows shot perfectly with no conscious aiming process taking place are the product of a LOT of practice, not 'instinct'... Also, for the record, Greg of Trad Archery 101 and Clay Hayes have stated in several videos that they are NOT instinctive archers (Clay even makes a point in an older video that's he's confident he can best any 'instinctive' shooter in a friendly 3D match). Anyway they are both gap shooters. As for Jeff I'm not sure... But great vid as usual, on a super interesting topic. Always glad to see a new NUSensei vid!
Good point about Greg and Clay. I brought them up because they appear in results for Instinctive Archery tutorials, which adds to the confusion over the labels we use.
I enjoyed reading this post, but I must say the fact that "Instinctive probably means different things to different archers" is a thing, is frustrating. Archery isn't a a platform for tautological debate. Words have meaning and communication is better when we collectively can agree on what those words mean. It's bizarre to see some people say "Well X means Y to me" but get angry and defensive when another uses the X word in their own context.
@@diatarussoulbane I agree. Hence the problem with dialogue. Whenever someone asks for a form check or advice and they say, "I'm shooting instinctively", I have to ask what they are specifically doing, because it could mean anything from gap shooting with a trad bow to closing their eyes and saying a prayer.
@@diatarussoulbane Indeed, absolutely agree with the idea of needing to agree on a definition of the term in order to understand what the other person truly intends to convey. Then again that particular challenge extends well outside the world of archery! :-) "What do you mean by x exactly?" If only we could all communicate more efficiently, we'd be the happier for it. Cheers,
YES. ITS ABOUT DEFINITIANS. INSTINCTIVE ARCHERY IN MY DEFINITIAN IS ABOUT TRAINING YOUR SUBCONSCIOUS TO SHOOT UNCONSCIIUSLY, WITH TONS AND TONS OF PRACTICE WITHOUT SIGHTS AND AIDS... WITH THE PRACTICE IT BECOMES AN INSTINCTIVE ACTIVITY TO US. IT IS A TRAINED (PRACTICED) ACTIVITY JUST LIKE ANY OTHER ACTIVITY. EG. I DONT EVEN THINK ABOUT MANUAL GEAR SHIFTS NOW... OR THROWING A BALL OR A "DAVID SLING" OR A TENNIS BALL WITH A RACKET, OR CONSTRUCTING AND SAYING A SENTANCE WITH YOU TONGUE. ITS ALL "INSTINCTIVE" ONCE YOU HAVE PUT IT INTO YOU SUBCONCIIUS WITH TONS AND TONS OF PRACTICE. "INSTINCTIVE" JUST MEANS THAT YOU DONT NEED TO CONCIOUSLY THINK ABOUT IT.
Aiming and “instinctive” are not the same. I can do both. But they are definitely not the same. Using sights or focusing on the arrow point isn’t as much fun as just focusing on the target. Takes a lot more work to get good target focusing versus aiming with sights or your arrow point. Shooting “intuitive or instinctive” whatever you want to call is like playing tennis or shotgun shooting. Aiming with a sight or arrow point is like riffle shooting. These are two distinctly different methods / skill sets.
Either I read this or I heard it on another video about a well-regarded instinctive archer/instructor who went into his basement and tried to shoot in pitch black darkness. His experiment showed, as you describe, there are frames of reference instinctive archers are still using. For myself, I think I need to find a class or coach before I develop bad habits that will be difficult to unlearn. Thanks for video and links.
To be totally pedantic, the use of the word instinctive in this (and frankly many other contexts) is really maddening. There is no innate ability to shoot a bow, or even throw a rock. Rock throwing, even when discovered individually is not instinctive. it is still a learned behavior. Instincts are full behavior patterns that are triggered by stimuli. So yes, the word instinctive, applied in the context of archery, is factually incorrect. Apologies for the rant. (edited for grammar)
That's what I found maddening about the "throwing a ball" example and its equivalence to shooting the bow. I agree that throwing is learned behaviour, but at least that is something that matches our physiology (limb movement, eye tracking), but yes, it's a conscious decision to pick up an object and release it, not an instinctive motion like avoiding a thrown rock. But putting an arrow on a bowstring, holding the bow, pulling the bowstring back and then lining it up with a target is definitely a learned skill. I think the good point you raise in this distinction is that we should appreciate skills like archery as learned behaviour and teach it explicitly rather than simplify it as "instincts". Experienced shooters have a very different perception of what is instinctive compared to someone who has never shot a bow.
Thank you for the comment, if not for this I would have had to make it :) I retrained myself from "instinctive" to "intuitive" archery after being corrected by someone who knows better: "Instinct you're born with, intuition comes from experienced situations". Disclaimer: "intuitive" might have a different connotation in German :)
IT IS ABOUT TRAINING OUR SUBCONSCIOUS BY REPEATED PRACTICE. I AGREE THAT MAYBE "INSTINCTIVE" MAY NOT BE THE BEST WORD. BUT I USE IT BECAUSE AFTER ALL THAT PRACTICE I DO IT INSTINCTIVELY. MEANING THAT I DO IT WITHOUT THINKING CONSCIOUSLY ABOUT THE SHOT. I JUST POINT AND SHOOT AND THE ARROW GOES WHERE I AM LOOKING.
WHO SAYS INSTINCTIVE IS INATE AND NOT LEARNED. NOT ME. EVERYTHING IS LEARNED INCLUDING PICKING UP SOMETHING AND THROWING IT. ITS JUST THAT WE START LEARNING THAT FROM THE BEGINNING AND EVERY MINUTE OF OUR LIVES BECAUSE OUR HANDS ARE ALWAYS CONNECTED TOO US.... THE MORE WE PRACTICE ANYTHING THEN THE MORE IT BECOMES INSTINCTIVE... THE REAL PROBLEM WITH INSTINCTIVE ARCHERY IS THAT VERY VERY FEW EVER REALIZE THIS BECAUSE MOST ARE DISTRACTED BY SIGHTS AND AIDS AND THEREFORE DONT GET THE AMOUNT OF UNDISTRACTED PRACTICE NECESSARY FOR IT TO BECOME INSTINCTIVE TO THEM. EVEN KRAMER TALKS ABOUT SWITCHING STYLES.
Im shooting sticks Watching them fly N sometimes hitting what I'm looking at I throw rocks with about the same success. But have lots of fun while I'm doing it
Fred Bear was a champion target archer before he was a hunter. He used a sight. His hunting form was different than his target form. He was conscious of how he aimed for target shooting, not when he hunted, but he still aimed (intended to hit the target). When I throw a ball I aim/intend to hit the target. Arab Archery (1500AD) has a chapter on aiming. It's traditional. ;)
People put to much thought and care in to names used to generally describe how we do things. Instinctive to me just means you don’t consciously aim or consciously make adjustments. Why this bothers so many people I’ll never understand. I feel like the people that have a hard time shooting “instinctively “ tend to hate it and the name.
Also also, to drive the point home about throwing a ball as a metaphor for "instinctive" archery, just look at ball throwers at the highest level: baseball pitchers, cricket bowlers, American football quarterbacks, bowling bowlers, etc. They are absolutely aiming and have extreme control over their bodies to deliver precise adjustments to their intended target. "Instinctive" is just a terrible misnomer for a vague style that doesn't involve a mechanical sight. People call Mongolians some of the greatest instinctive archers. But some of them crawl on the string with thumbdraw. Many mark the knuckles of their bow hand to sight. Is this instinctive? Do they care? Probably not.
I LOVE shooting instinctive. I HATE aiming and working a system of aiming. You cannot really do that when hunting on the ground. Bottom line.... I want to hit a deer or elk with my bow and arrow. It definitely takes practice though. I also love self-bows that I can make myself. That way, I feel like I have more control and an actual skill that can aid me when it comes to getting my own food.
I love your archery videos so much. Can i also ask if the war thunder videos are archived anywhere or pemenantly gone? I had the utmost resepct for both of those facets of you and your channel.
I think I shoot with what's generally considered the instinctive method. I tried "split vision" but I found that the effort to see the arrow in front of me was just a distraction. My "aiming" is just with my eyes, and I spend much more time aiming my eyes than you do here. Or call it "focusing." If I can focus on the target, aiming small, and I know that my form is correct, then I'm reasonably certain that my arrow will go fairly close to where I'm looking. The harder I aim with my eyes, the closer I get to the target. I'm not into the semantics of it. I just know that if my form is correct, then I'm lined up to hit where my eyes are looking.
Neuroscience and neuropsychology have a lot to teach us about theoretical framing of how we learn to do complex tasks like Archery. Sports psychology is full of examples where the conscious thoughts and explanations we have about how to do a task are only a tiny part of what’s going on in our brains and often of little value in and of themselves. Explanatory myths. Correlation vs causation.
Thank you for making this video, Ive been trying to explain this to ppl for years but noone believes it. Ive often thought, its the concept that is wrong. I believe we can never be (truly) instinctive archers since (as you also was mentioning) its not natural to our bodies. Never will be. So how can that truly be(come) instinctive? And im not bashing on the style here. Im an "instinctive" archer aswell as my absolute most prefered style. I think the word you used "intuitive" is MUCH more fitting and more correct.
You *can* feel the bow similar to how throwing is done, at least I can. I feel the resistance and the direction of the force while I'm pulling back , the time slows down. It takes an extra amount of focus but it can be done. Works better with a slightly stronger bow but not too strong. Doesn't mean the results are great, but it's not a draw->aim->loose kind of process.
Very compellingly presented perspective. Because my goal isn't the consummate harmonization of all archery styles, I may be biased... yes, I am, so much as I can be without being a prick. While I'd feel pretty stupid arguing with any of your well-made points, I can express my perspective, which differs. First, elitism sucks, in nearly every form. However; although I cannot objectively criticize anything about olympic/target style archery, it seems (very subjectively) absurd to me, eg the giant codpiece, sights, various gizmoids, etc. It seems comparable to putting a red-dot or laser on a spear or a Zeiss scope on a musket -- nothing wrong with it, but incredibly unappealing to me. Not for others obviously, but for me it defeats the purpose and appears an awkward hesitation to simply upgrading to a compound -- which is, because this will seem prickish if not repeated with redundancy, very subjective. See end of previous sentence for preface to the proceeding one: I shoot strictly on the wrong side of the bow, aka thumb and slavic draw. The Mediterranean style seems restrictive and unintuitive for me -- but I do have issues with authority, notably the arbitrary varieties. It imparts little satisfaction. The supposedly inferior and obsolete thumb-draw is very satisfying (for me). I also don't quite understand at what level accuracy becomes OCD, or where it becomes just as practical to push the arrow into the target by hand or hire a better archer. Gyroscopically stabilized target-seeking fieldpoints don't seem much fun, but they'd probably be popular. Regarding division in archery, for me it's quite lopsided -- the distribution of elitism, that is. As the only 'wrong-draw' archer at the club, I was seen as defective, or at least pursuing a defective style as a beginner. Nothing unfriendly, but not a whole lot of sympathy for a new archer learning the hard way. Now that I'm beginning to do things that others have difficulty with, there's a bit more 'respect'. I suppose this has resulted in my trying to 'make a case' for the style, with a bit poking fun at the other side. I'll end this with an example that makes sense to me: We could say the jet-ski crowd and the canoe (or sailing if you prefer) crowd are the same, because they're on the water and they're propelling themselves upon it. But with or without the hardware, they're most often a truly different breed. Lastly, I think you effectively, or mostly demystified the instinctive thing.PS: This channel is superb and much appreciated.
An artist can be versatile in how they create their work. An engineer must be precise. That's how I separate traditional styles from modern target. Historically, bows were ideal for the varied applications. The "instinctive" methods work best with these bows because they are used on horseback, against moving target (animal or human), and the best shooting was at short distance (20-50 metres). But the bow isn't a perfect tool for precision, and modern sport makes precision the single goal. It is, for an engineer, the drafting tools that an artist doesn't use. Modern sport archery perfects the tool so that the archer is capable of delivering the most precise shot over a greater distance. You're not putting a Zeiss scope on a musket. You're building a marksman rifle. I don't agree with your watersports analogy. Modern and traditional archery isn't jet-skis vs canoes vs sailboats. That's like saying guns and bows are the same because they both use projectiles. It's comparable to sailing in an 18th century schooner vs a 21st century racing yacht. I appreciate the advocacy for traditional Asiatic archery. But as someone who does both modern target and Asiatic traditional, my advice is not to turn misconceptions into bigger negative reactions towards the other side. Try to understand where they are coming from and bridge the gap rather than make further division through exaggerations and false equivalents.
Wish i saw this before. I shoot compound. One night at the range the shop worker called last end. I had 6 arrows in my quiver and thought i'd just aim and release rapidly. 4 out of the 6 caught x's and the other 2 were respectable 9s. I thought I was instinctively shooting, but after much thought and a few more months, I realize its more intuitive. Its the same feeling of shooting a shot, and even if you can't see where the arrow hit, you know intuitively that it was a good shot and probably it a 10.
As the only animal capable of overriding instinct, it's kind of pointless to say anything we do is instinctive. I do instinctive eating and instinctive walking and instinctive sleeping. Those are the only things I do that are still based in instinct. Everything else I do is a result of training... copious amounts of training.
With firearms, when the shooter focuses on the target solely and ignores the weapon’s sight system, it’s commonly referred to as point shooting. Maybe that reference would not conjure the feelings that “instinctive” does.
Instinctive vs intuitive is largely a semantic difference. It’s still a little different than aiming with, say, a rifle or pistol. In archery, there’s a target focus. In rifle & pistol marksmanship, the eye focuses on the front sight. In that sense, the instinct/intuition is still much more in play than it is with firearms.
Kids have to learn things like walking and throwing too, it's not an innate skill. The only instinctive things human do are breathing, swallowing and yanking from pain. Though I dont think any of it applies to our case. Instinctive, intuitive it doesn't matter how you call it, basically it means you shoot by feel. Though I would say you shoot by eye coordination, exactly like throwing. And it's quite possible with curved trajectories, how do you think basketball players score 3 pointers?
That was the point made in the video: *throwing* is more "instinctive" because you have a physical connection with the object being thrown. Your eyes coordinate the motion, but you control "by feel" what your hands do to get the ball into that target zone. Archery is different in that you don't control _how_ the arrow is shot. The arrow and the bow are constants. Swap the bow, or swap the arrow, or swap the point weight or fletching size, and the shooter can't feel where the arrow will go by instinct. The difference is in your elevation and how you determine your point of reference., At this point, you're basically crossing the line into referencing a visual alignment, not shooting by "feeling". You don't "feel" how far off you have to aim. You _know_ that from ranging your bow out. If you don't know, you're guessing until you do. Dynamic shooting (moving targets) is hand-eye coordination, but this is typically done in very short distances where trajectory isn't a significant factor. Static target shooting is not.
I remember surprised by Jake Kaminski discussing the importance of the subconscious mind influencing 70 meter accuracy when shooting Olympic recurve. Archers?
For lack of precise translation at a given moment I think one guy meant ”gut instinct” can be trained more than in modern and some traditional archery competion
My humble understanding of this is intuitive (or instinctive) shooters do not use a reference point on their bow or arrow to aim. But I'm only 2 years in my way in archery, so I might be very mistaken. In the end I'd just say: do what makes you happy, and let the others do wht makes them happy. As long as nobody gets hurt everything will be ok.
I would've agreed, except that when you reference what instinctive shooters say they do, the first thing is that they pick a point and they position their arrow over it. This may or may not be the focal point for the shot, and it may or may not be in their peripheral vision or subconscious. And it also happens that the ideal distances to shoot are in that 15-30 metre distance where the arrow is close to point-on. I use Clay Hayes at 8:27 as an example: "I put the top edge of my broadhead on top of the target, I don't really have to think about it anymore." That's also how we use sights. We put the ring on the target, keep our eyes focused on that spot with the sight blurred, and we don't think about it as we execute the shot. And this makes sense. That's how we use our eyes to aim. Of course, sights lock you into set distances while you can adapt for variations without one. But aside from that, it's not so different.
But then, is Clay Hayes doing intuitive/instictive archery? (Not to belittle his capacities because clearly what he does he does very well). I've heard some say they do not take any reference point on the bow/arrow. But then again, are they? In the end, is there any real intuitive/instictive archery? Does the little spoon exist?
@@samaeru666 This comes back to the question: what really is "instinctive" shooting? Because the answer is yes and no, depending on how they define it. Clay defines instinctive as "the sole focus is on the target and they are unconscious of everything else - the arrow tip, the bow, etc.", which he contrasts with "aiming" through being aware of the arrow tip. But when he explains his shot process, he consciously decides where to put the arrow first, then he opts to not focus on it and instead focuses on the target. If this was a debate, there's going to be a lot of backflips and mental gymnastics when discussing the semantics of instinctive. All of this would miss the greater point: understand what they are doing rather than what they are saying. I think my biggest point around instinctive is that it's not communicated consistently, which leads to poor dialogue between archers and styles.
I just stare at the target, and draw whatever feels comfy, not even a general anchor, I still hit 2 inch groups for 3 arrows per set, I don’t know how people do anything else. I’ve tried aiming with a sight, I’ve tried strong walking, I’ve tried point method, nothing else works for me. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’ve been accurate since my first time shooting, I’m only 2 weeks into getting my first bow.
At what distance though,accuracy doesn’t mean anything if you can’t do it at decent distances. If you were accurate every shot would grout at a good distance.
@@dominicking1530 most I’ve done so far is 15 yards, which is the average hunting shot I take, so far taken a few groundhog, my goal is small game recurve, preferably squirrel once they come back into season.
You're already telling people that all you have to do is look at the target and shoot subconsciously, and you're puzzled over how people can shoot any other method. But you're only shooting at 15 yards. Your method might get three arrows in a 2 inch group at 15 yards. A string walker will get that grouping at 50 yards. A sighted shooter will get that at 70 yards. If you're only shooting extreme close distance, the other methods actually don't work very well because the reference points are too far off the target. For your purpose of shooting small game at close distance, your method might be good enough. But don't be part of the problem by telling people to rely on instinct when you're shooting at a different target.
I'm subscribed to the Jeff Phillips (instinctive addiction archery) for shooting parts of video IDGAF about his style of shooting I use vintage compound bows with metal pin sights not fiber optic sight
Instinctive shooting isnt instinctive, you first have to train your subconscious mind to do it first - which is why you will rarely find young accurate instinctive shooters. Thats always been my understanding - and i think thats also pretty much what you're getting at.
Yeah. It's like throwing a ball. I need to aim when throwing a ball for the most part (by aim I mean consciously aiming and thinking about where it'll go), and even then I suck at it because I very rarely do it, yet my brother didn't have to do that when he played football because he'd already do so so much that he didn't need to consciously think about trajectory, or leading, or anything like that Another example would be skeet shooting, where you don't necessarily always have time to 'aim,' but with enough experience you just sorta intuitively know exactly where to point it and when to squeeze the trigger to hit the clay Edit: Just got to the part where he uses the ball example lmao
I believe it’s real, (I can’t do it YET) although I don’t believe it can be achieved without SHITLOADS of practice & we have to aim one way or another, even throwing a ball or a leg over 😉👍🏼🇦🇺
goddamn, i havn't seen one of your videos for years. cant even remember when i subscribed but, you didnt per chance do warthunder videos at some point? idk i remember always following you cause you were an aussie who frothed archery and games FWOOAAAh now its annoying me
:) got trad bow friends that simply annoy the dog crap out of me because i use a compound to hunt and don't use "instinctive shooting' . Started shooting way before compounds and sights were a thing and have been successful target shooting and hunting with them. I mostly shoot a compound now as i do not feel i can deliver a consistent, humanin shot with the traditional bows.
That's my understanding too. It's harder to gap at anything under 25m because the reference points are off target, especially if you are using a cheek anchor. At mid distance the gap closes and, imo, there's not much difference between gap and instinctive at this point.
I call it instinctive simply because my ears are bleeding when i hear the word "intuitiv".. it sounds strange to my ears. Of course i know instinctive is the wrong word per definition, but i just dont care. I look at a point on the target, lift the bow, get to anchor, i am aware of the position of my bow arm, when the feeling is right, when the side picture is right, i let the arrow fly. Sometimes i am aware of the arrow, most times not.
I’ve questioned this myself. Our organic computer/brain makes predictions based on past experiences that’s where our responses come from. Especially in faster situations. Good slow intentional practice trains you for automaticity more efficiently. I don’t believe it is instinctive.
NUSensei.... CAN A NEW BORN BABY OR A TODDLER, OR A 6 YEAR OLD THROW A BALL? OR DID ATXSOME TIME DID THEY LEARN IT....... YOU CAN "SENCE" WHERE THE ARROW WILL GO. SAME AS BALL. SAME AS TENNIS BALL OFF RACKET..
Thanks for clearing up this myth of instinctive/intuitive shooting. In forums on the Internet is so much BS around. It's basically impossible to only look at the target. There is so much going on in a short time. I think a lot of archers who praise them self for being an intuitive shooters are simply lying to stick out from the masses. Also: Who says that our ancestors were instinctive shooters. You simply can't prove that.
??? Homie all I do is focus on the target, draw the way that’s most comfortable, and it gets 2 inch groups every time. It’s really not that crazy, but it’s how it works for me. It’s just your subconscious correcting your aim. It’s the same thing with mouse movements for pro gamers, throwing footballs, accuracy with soccer, etc.
@@dominicking1530 I didn’t say anything even slightly close to that. I’m just mentioning my experience. Hence the “all I do” not “all everyone should do”. There is no mysticism, when throwing a rock do you look at the rock? When throwing a spear or axe do you look at those, boomerang, alotl? No, you look at the target. It’s your words to say anyones a gifted anything.
Instinctive archery is learning to use a basic bow with no bells and whistles attached purely for hunting dinner, when the shtf and the zombies attack your going to want to shoot fast and accurate, its a skill for survival imo.! You should be able to just look at the target and raise and shoot fairly quickly, release even before aiming, just guess and keep guessing and eventually you will start to shoot instinctive
In my opinion, you have completely misunderstood the koncept. You aim... You have a reference between you bow and arrow, and the target. The trick, is to not see the bow and arrow at all. It's definitely not easy, or better. But when you actually get it, you can actually pick any bow and be fairly accurate from the start. The reference to throwing is also misunderstood in my opinion. You also have to learn to throw. And throw accurately is also a set of skills you learn, based on past experience. I litterat shoot every kind of bow there is. And when I shoot instinctive, I shoot split to limit the tendency to see the arrow. In my opinion, your video is based on a bias, that you can't shoot instinctive, and therefore it must be false. Other people, like yourself misusing the koncept doesn't help at all. Shooting instinctive is just as hard work as aiming, just opposite.
I'm going to give you one instance where you may not be ENTURELY correct, NUSensei.. While I tend to use the term kinesthetic aiming, and I know the term "Instinctive" is problematic, I will insist that I have made what I call instinctive shots. And by that I mean shots that I had to make up on the fly that were not directly the product of repetitive practice. I actually believe that repetitive practice in a very disciplined way is the key to this style of shooting. It takes immense discipline not to look at your error and useic for aiming. It takes a lot of focus to let down if you have executed any part of the shop process incorrectly. Metacognition s the key to effective practice. My example: Several years ago I shot a grouse on the ground through brush that would not accommodate my normal trajectory. I did this by pulling the arrow back to seventeen or eighteen inches of draw and lobbing an arrow through a hole in a fir trees branches. I have never practiced that shot. I have never shot at anything from seventeen or eighteen inches of draw. I have never practiced lobbing slow arrows at short range. On the other hand the only reason I was able to make that shot was because I have over forty years shooting recurves amd longbows bows in hunting situations. I knew the bow and I made the arrows. I have spent, as you said, hundreds doing blank bail close up practice specifically so I could ignore my arrow and focus on the spot I wanted to hit. I have done thousands of hours of bale practice as well as stump shooting. I have shot everything from flying ducks to running rabbits to dear with my bow. To my mind, and you said this once on the reddit threads, it's very difficult to develop the skill, and paradoxically takes more practice early on the fundamentals It is NOT instinctive but that's the word we use, and there are many words like that on English.. It is in fact designed so that when the situation changes , we have those basics at our disposal, as well as countless hours learning range estimation. That's the only reason it's possible to change one thing and still hit the target. I have. A similar story where I lobbed an Arrow over a log and into the vitals of a cow elk. She was close and even closer to the log. In that instance I probably only drew back about twenty four inches instead of the normal twenty nine. But I knew my arrow system was up to the task.And I knew I would either hit her vitals or the log. Al Herrin, the Cherokee bowyer, author, and archer, once wrote in article in tmTraditional Bowhunter Magazine, called "The Partial Draw and Floating Anchor" where he discusses close range shooting at small game like fish, frogs, and crayfish. Partial draw is primarily a method of preserving your arrows on shots under ten feet straight at the ground or rocks. This is one of the few times I think that whenever shot is different You must rely on your ears of practice, but cannot rely entirely on that and must be creative.
I mean when I was 8 I shot a bow for the first time ever, 10m away from the target, and despite the fact that the bow was too large and much to heavy for me I hit my first shot, I also hit with most of the following shots. True I was told how to hold the bow, but that's not really a "class", especially considering my dad never got training and it was his bow. Anyone can pick up a stick and hit stuff with it, but if you want to hit a ball flying at you (baseball), someone is gonna have to tell you how to hold the damn thing, still that isn't training.
I'd argue that hitting things with a stick is more on the instinctive side. Our evolution led us to be able to grasp objectives like sticks, and innately prefer to have long tools because they act as extensions of our arms. We already instinctively hit things with our hands and arms, so hitting an object we track with our eyes with a stick is an instinctive skill. Training will make us better at hitting smaller and faster objects, but the motor functions are ingrained naturally. In contrast, bows don't make sense. Throwing is instinctive because to make an object go forward, we push it forward. Using a bow requires the projectile to be pulled back and let go to make it go forward. It's actually surprising at how many people in beginner classes think they have to push the arrow forward to make it go. The fact that most people don't do that is attributed to the popular knowledge of bows in fantasy and media. Then when you teach a beginner how to hold a bow but don't tell them how to draw or aim, their instinct is to hold it up to their eyes, point at the middle, pull it back until it feels too hard and they let go.All of these are natural instincts - visual alignment on target (lining the arrow), combined with the inherent fear of injury (keeping it away from the face, feeling the weight of the bow). The result is that the arrow flops short because they barely drew the bow. And then they start figuring out that if they pull it back further, or aim higher, it will go further. That's the beauty of our intelligent minds and intuition. We can learn - and we can teach. But a lot of archery - as with a lot of martial skills - requires basic instincts to be overwritten. This will become second nature to most archers, but it isn't first nature to anyone.
I don't think the term instinctive is elitist as much as it is a misnomer. We see in athletics that there are people with incredibly acute awareness and coordination of where their body is at all times. Their body mechanics awareness if off the charts. Think of the golfer who can bounce a ball on his 8 iron while holding a conversation then take a full swing and hit it 170 yards out of mid-air, then do it 3 times in a row. The baseball player who can see the spin on a pitch and adjust his swing to hit the curving ball at 90 miles per hour. The gymnast doing twisting double flips off the vault. The list goes on. My opinion is that so called instinctive archers that are really good shots have that acute body awareness/coordination to the point where if their anchor feels a little low they adjust their bow hand accordingly and can make it work. They can feel any misalignment and adjust for it in the course of the shot process. It's a subconscious process and while they are not thinking about aiming their body is doing all types of minor corrections in alignment to get that arrow to go where they want. To Nu Sensei's point, this has its limitations. At 5 yards 95% of the archers can successfully shoot "instinctive". Go to 15 yards and that number probably drops to 50%. Go to 30 yards and that number probably drops to under 5%. At the same time a much higher percentage of archers with repeatable form, anchor, release, and aiming methods will be successful at 30 yards and beyond. Are there "instinctive" archers that do all of this by feel and are successful? Yes, but they are in such a minority that trying to teach archery that way would be incredibly frustrating and unsuccessful for most new or experienced archers.
I agree. The term itself isn't elitist. The problems can arise when people who shoot instinctive (or more often, those who don't do archery at all) put it on a pedestal. Ultimately, it's _a_ method of shooting. It's not better or worse just because it's "instinctive". It's more suitable for some applications, less for others.
Nobody shoots instinctively, everybody aims. "Instinctive" is just a termed used by people who want to appear all mystical and therefore "special". Ask them to hit a target in complete darkness and watch their mystical instinctive powers disappear in a puff of bulldust.
Nusensei... THROWING A BALL IS NOT INATE. WE MUST LEARN IT. A BABY CANNOT THROW A BALL. WE SEE THEM LEARN. HAD ANY KIDS NUSENSEI? YOU NEED TO RESEARCH PROPERLY BEFORE MAKING YOUR DECLARATIONS. I AGREE WITH SHAIVERSITY ABOUT YOUR FALSE CLAIMS.
Young children have to learn how to throw a ball. They are not immediately able to hit the spot they are looking at from the first attempt. Instinct is not about learning, instinct is pre-programned a baby does not learn how to feed from a womans breast. The baby knows how to do it, it is pre-programmed ie instinctive. If practise and learning is involved it is not instictive.
I was thinking the same. Also, people, who haven't thrown things as a kid, really strugle to find any accurate and efficient bodymechanics to throw as an adult. It is a skill that requires a lot of practice.
Some emerging points:
*Lazy Shooting*
This was accidentally cut out of the video. One of the things that we can probably universally agree on is that "lazy shooting" - that is, shooting without caring about form or visualising, is not instinctive. When "instinctive" is used an excuse for poor shooting, that's not instinctive. Archers generally understand instinctive to be a method, not the lack of one.
*"You're mistaken about instinctive. It's not _______, it's __________"*
Hey, don't spoil the video. That's the entire point. There is no universally prescribed definition of "instinctive" and two people will understand it to mean different things. When someone says "I shoot instinctive", that really doesn't objectively mean anything and requires further clarification. Build on this by describing what you do, not by relying on labels and assume everyone knows what you are talking about.
*"_**____** and **______** are gap shooters, not instinctive."*
This may be true. But if you look up instinctive archery tutorials, these are the people who pop up giving advice for or directed towards instinctive shooters. As outlined at the beginning, anyone who enters archery now is going to run into this tangled bramble of traditional archery.
You made me spit my drink when you so calmly said "...and I'm Asian..." ^^,nice video too
But arent all asian people born with innate archery skills?
@@kereal2591 I think we can all agree they are a talented bunch regardless of what it is ^^
@@arkadiusznagorny3111 that is because most of them are more disciplined than us lazy Americans. We have become soft.
@@kereal2591 And Math. Archery Skills, Kung Fu, and Advanced Calculus.
Lars is more asian than this guy
Absolute same Topic we have in Instinctive Knife throwing :D good one brother
I follow you from France, I think you do a very good analysis of instinctive shooting. Thank you for addressing this elitist “myth”.
In my profession as a researcher, I study how the brain processes information during learning. While we don't use the term "intuition" in neuroscience to refer to learned muscle memory, you described the principle just right (we call it "habit" or "automated action-chains"). You are also correct that "instinct" is a separate neural process in a separate part of the brain which stores what we call a "hereditary repertoire" of inborn behaviors. One key point is that there is still learning involved in instinct. Unlike reflexes (which are governed by yet another neural system), instinctual behaviors still require learning to know when to release them. The important thing is that the aiming part of the shot process is no different from every other part of the shot process. Many components of the shot process will, through repeated practice, become an automated habit. The shot process has enough components to it that you could never consciously control all of them, so many aspects become intuitive. Aiming is the same way. After enough practice, you can automate components of looking at your sight picture such that you aren't consciously controlling how you aim.
This is an excellent breakdown. It highlights the difficulty of using the colloquial definitions of "instinctive"
@@NUSensei That's pretty normal to have terminology that means different things to different people. The important part here is about how much of the shot process is consciously controlled and how much is automatic. For each of the separate brain systems that can control one's actions, there are some conscious and some non-conscious elements. There's really no good way to divide up the brain into a conscious mind and a subconscious mind. For your learned habits, the part that is conscious is your intention. When you are driving a car, you don't think about the muscles in your hands and feet, you just think "speed up", "turn left" etc. and your hands and feet do what you've practiced. Same with archery. If your intention is to bring the arrow to your face while you draw, often you will unintentionally curl you hand into a fist to achieve that result. Or if your intention is to create back tension, you may flex your pecs unintentionally to create that back tension. Where this influences the instinctive style of aiming is that if you've always shot with a pin sight and you've always used the intention of keeping the pin floating over the bullseye, then you won't have any basis for aiming when you remove the pin sight. If your intention is "shoot the arrow into the bullseye", then you can develop the pattern recognition and the automated action chains to produce that result. In either aiming style, you are focusing on some intention and then your body releases an automated action chain to achieve it. In fact, I'm not aware of any teacher of instinctive aiming who says that it involves a totally empty mind. On the contrary, they all say that it involves intense focus, just not conscious focus on a particular reference point. My big point of contention with many archery RUclipsrs is that they portray the aiming process as fundamentally different than the rest of the shot cycle, but from a neuroscience perspective, it's exactly the same.
I GET WHAT YOU SAY AND WILL FURTHER COMMENT... THAT IF YOUR INTENTION IS TO HIT THE TARGET WITHOUT DEPENDING ON SIGHTS OR OTHER SIGHTING AIDS. THEN YOU WILL ONLY PRACTICE WITHOUT USING THEM. AND YOU WILL THEREFORE DEVELOPE A SPECIFIC SET OF ATRIBUTES FOR THAT SKILL.... THAT IS WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT SIGHTS.....
@@questions6746 Depends. Fred Bear was an advocate of beginning with sights and then weaning off of them. If you use a sight, and fixate on it as your sole focus when aiming, then it's difficult to aim any other way. If you use a sight them but focus on the target while also paying attention to all the visual cues in your peripheral vision, then you can take the sight away and aim without it.
hey Nu Sensei, been watching your videos since around 2016 when I was in school, back then I couldn't do archery for personal reasons, but just this week I finally became a member of an archery club here in Sydney, glad to finally be in the community I've been wanting to be a part of after 8 years!
Your videos have helped me get a head start into the sport and have helped me impress my instructors despite having only started, many thanks!
I think this has to be one of the best videos you have put together. I really like your description of instinctive archery along with the comments you make on shooting different disciplines. There are so many similarities between the different styles. There are so many misconceptions and bias. Thanks
👉 It's more "mechanical" than instinctive. A very good reference to this is your video on the "Draw, Anchor, Pull" method and the importance of using rubber bands and physically imposing it on yourself until it becomes so automatic that you can no longer do nothing else. Afterwards, I would add your video “Aim, Anchor, Alignment” in addition to the first one that I just cited.
Instinctive srchery is a trained instinct. Knowing your equipment, knowing how it's going to perform together, knowing what happens when you loose your bow are put together by your brain with the body mechanics trained by good form. You are right, and srrangely enough it was while watching 3 of the 4 'instictive' guys you mentioned that I came to the same realization. And Lars Andersen even said it in one of his videos that he realized this too. It's not really instinct or intuition, it's the body doing what we trained it to. The trick is to not interfere with the body while it is doing it other than to tell it where you want to hit.
Great vid. I am going to start to use your mantra and see if it can help me. I've been forced to use a release with my barebow recurve due to nerve damage. Thanx.
Nice explanation video
Thanks for this insightful, intelligent and very spot on video on a delicate subject! Excellent!!!!
"And I'm Asian" omg I've been shooting instinctive all my life T_T T_T T_T
I enjoyed this video. As a learner and a teacher actively learning with students, the messaging is fantastic. Thank you for making thoughtful, experienced content. 🙇🏻😎🏹
I think it should also be noted that this whole dramatic theater about the word "instinctive" in archery is a very western thing, particularly in areas where people use English as a lingua Franca to discuss archery. As a Korean, the term is essentially absent in Guk-gung (국궁) Korean Traditional archery. The idea of using the word "instinct" to describe accuracy feels extremely incompatible with how specific and particular the discipline is. In fact, I imagine I'd get a curious look or a laugh if I suggested that to my coach. For other traditional Asian disciplines like Kyuudo, or Manchu, Gao Ying, or Turkish, there may not be discussions on specific sighting tools; but it is deeply rooted in mechanics and methodologies that ammount to a system of aiming.
This is indeed a general misconception from mainstream viewers about historical archery (perpetuated by Lars Andersen) - that historical archers all shot instinctive. Build fallacies on top of that like all archers shot quickly, did massed volley shooting, and didn't need to hit individual targets when shooting at an army. But the historical manuals are very specific on how to aim. You're not using "instinct" to hit a 145m target. You're using instinct to hit a 5m target while riding on horseback. Shooting at a 50m target on horseback is bordering on luck, not instinct.
At least how I was taught Kta you aim with the meaty part of your palm, so there is zero ambiguity as there is nothing “instinctive” about kta. I tend to agree that if you are being “instinctive” and your goal is not to aim that you are doing yourself a disservice by not trying to be the best you can be. Instinctive is a protection method used by boomer trad archers to explain their deficiencies without coming off as lesser.
@@NUSensei @NUSensei ruclips.net/video/RHpi69mTDos/видео.htmlsi=23_rwjsyccQ2tKPJ&t=743
Lars Andersen: "I was wrong - instinctive archery does not exist!"
This is correct. The term was not even coined until the widespread use of sights in competitive archery in the 1920s, .I believe.
Once sites hit the scene everything else needed a name. Gap shooting. Spring walking. Split vision aiming. Instinctive.
It's not correct or descriptive but it did become a common turn.
Well said, the first part sums it up really well. People confuse long old 'primitive' skills with instinct, shooting a bow is as 'instinctive' as starting a fire out in the wild... surprise! it's technology and not instinct, because you need prior knowledge and the proper tools/methods to do so
Thank you, Nusensei. Thank you for doing a deep dive into this topic. I've been doing archery for about 6 months. I took lessons and joined a club. I was taught "instinctive archery. 🏹 I have also been learning by watching you along with other coaches on RUclips. Recently, I bought the book "TOTAL ARCHERY - INSIDE THE ARCHER" by KiSik Lee and Tyler Benner. This has totally transformed the way I do archery, and I'm only on chapter 6!!! 😮😊 I had an "Ah ha!" moment or session 🤔 when everything started to work, where I was more in control. I'm still at the place where I'm merely focusing on the target when I shoot. However, when I looked ahead at the chapter on Aiming, it was all about using the Olympic style sight. So, I'm reading Byron Ferguson's book, "Become the Arrow." He talks about Gap Shooting or what Howard Hill called Splt Vision Shooting. I am going to start learning about Gap Shooting and trying to practice this. I'm also watching Jake Kaminski, who was a student of KiSik Lee. I'm also going to watch Clay Hayes, Greg from Trad Archery 101, among others, to learn Gap Shooting.
Ty NuSensei for your 3 last videos, this made me think and it helped improve my way of shooting🙏🙏
This separation of styles is common in other shooting sports too. I've seen the same debate in the slingshot community. It seems to me that instinctive isn't a beginner's method anyway. You need experience with a good sight picture and muscle memory gained through thousands of shots. To apply archery terminology to slingshots, I'm a gap shooter. I catch myself occasionally not focusing and still smashing a beer can. However, that's always at a very familiar distance. If I took two big steps back and changed the distance, I'd probably be low and miss.
One of the best videos ive seen so far on the topic. And as someone who has been practicing archery since i was 10 years old (about 30 years) and is an "instinctive" traditional archer (but i have used sights and compound bows etc at different points in time) i would agree 100% with your assessment here. Although i really dont get too caught up on the semantics of it all, and what exactly constitutes "instinctive" or "traditional" archery. If you are using any kind of bow, without any sights, stabilizers, etc..to me, thats traditional. Whether you are thinking about aiming, or not thinking about it, your brain IS infact actively aiming, and how thats done is irrelevant if it works for you. I think that if you went back in time to the Battle Of Agincourt, and you picked the brain of the archers there, you would find that many of them most likely knew all about things like "gap shooting" or "string walking" (although they probably didnt call them by those terms) or actively aiming using the arrow or arrow tip. And if you went back even further, a good 5000 years, I think that you most likely find the same. And if you showed either of them how to make and use a bowsight, they almost all of them would most likely readily accept bowsights as a great thing and a valid part of archery.
I think you hit the nail Nu Sensei. If someone has to shoot at a target in darkness without any other reference but the target itself, there is a high probability of missing. Even if you think you don't aim, you are wrong. you take all your background and foreground and mix it with your experience to interpolate the aiming point (even if you don't notice).
Let's say this target is a 3d deer. But it is the size of a rabbit. Of course, there is no other reference but the target itself. Then your reference will be the normal size of a real deer. Your mind will interpret that the siluhete is father than it is, since it looks "small".
This is Luis Sandoval from Mexico. Best regards and thank you for your time and effort making these videos.
well made video thank you
I was part of the elitism a bit when I came to archery. I thought archery was a pure traditional sport like we see in the media and books. I've been learning archery one and off for about half a year or so now and only until recently I was thinking that olympic recurve were a lot earier to shoot with then barebows and traditionals and just by knowing how to shoot the former would make it easy for me to breeze past the latter. But I've chnaged my mind after actually trying it. I always thought sights, and the additions made it easier butI can now that since they lower some of the aspect they aslo increase the others to balance it out. For the olympic recurve, I found that you have to be precise with all of your shots and included in that is the from and technique. When your form and technique is proper then you arrows can be on point. you can get away with this a bit when it comes to traditional archery but I understand now that correcting my form and technique with the recurve would help me a lot with my barebow and traditional shooting. I still havent found an aiming method that works for me as I'm currently experimenting but I have time.
I think part of the misconception comes from the fact, that when you shoot thumb release, you can't close your eye, align the string with the bow, put the arrow on the target and shoot. Thus, you can't „aim”, you can only „point”. Event if pointing still involves putting some (the same every time) part of the bow on (or right/left of) the target and adjusting for the distance.
But this is, in essence, describing gap shooting, or using string marks or crawl marks. Which coincidentally are all.... methods of aiming.
@@diatarussoulbane That's my point, apart from not being able to align the string with the bow, there's not much difference.
Not sure what closing your eye has to do with aiming but you can absolutely gap shoot with asiatic.
Great Topic 🫡
It must be "mystical bullshit ".🤣.. I ALWAYS enjoy your content and sense of humor!
loved the video! ❤ I shot intuitive, olympic und compound so far.. none of these styles are easy, but all are fun!
Love this. I'd even simplify further and say that it's down to what people enjoy, and people should just STFU and let everyone enjoy what they want. "TradIntuistinctional Archery" 🤣
I did a day of trying target recurve, 3D recurve, axe throwing and crossbow a year ago, and found target archery and crossbow boring, but I immediately loved walking in the forest, looking at targets, needing to negotiate objects in the way of my sight, and estimating where I think I should be aiming to hit the target with no knowledge of distances. I loved the simplicity of an arrow on the bow shelf and nothing more on sights, weights, clickers etc. I did a beginner's course in target archery, which validated my feeling of disinterest in target shooting as a hobby (plus the number of snarky comments I got from the group about choosing a Samick Sage and shooting off the shelf was obscene), and then I did another beginner's session at a local field archery club. I signed up there and I love every time I go out, I have no plans on being competitive, I just love walking in nature and shooting arrows.
Yes! Thanks for a well thought out video, covering many thoughts on the subject and aiming to unify the archery community!
Nice analysis.
Huge thx from Hungary, Újpest
Incredible analysis and i agree in its entirety there isint much archery in my cuntry (Puerto Rico) and the little there is is largely convoluted for new archers because of confusing arguments like these and of course the elitist myth. Thank you for this wonderful and insightful video. love your channel ive been following fiw a few years now. Ohh might i ask what specific hat were you wearing in this video might wanna find one just like it if i can it looks fantastic😅
Intuitive is a good word here.
Chat GPT comes to mind. What we get as an output from our prompts is the machine's intuition. It doesn't run a heavy calculation, it outputs a learned response. That's intuitive action vs doing a full audit of everything, every time.
There is beauty in both methods, but I am not surprised some people have a clear preference for one of them.
I think this is a good take on a complex topic. 'Instinctive' probably means different things to different archers, and is probably felt/experienced differently as well by various archers. I believe the word 'instinctive' itself is misused often. 'Feeling the Force' and getting off the perfect shot without (conscious) aiming still takes thousands of arrows shot at the same distance before the body gets that automation thing going. There's nothing 'instinctive' going on there.
As many have said this is standard process that everyone's brain does. IMO, ALL archers (gap shooters, string walkers, Olympic archers using sights, etc.) WILL shoot one arrow at least every once in a while that feels 'instinctive', where the natural shot cycle (or some part of it, whatever it may be for the person) gets overridden somehow and the arrow still winds up flying, perfectly (!), to the exact spot where it needs to be. The brain is so wonderful that way, auto-piloting for the conscious mind and letting us achieve incredible results.
For me, that can easily happen at 10 and 20 meters, because I shoot SO many arrows at those distances. For 95% of my shots, I gap shoot, tilting my head to look down the arrow shaft, 3 under, with an anchor using my middle finger to mouth corner. I consciously aim with the arrow point. I take my time. I release. But I can also consciously alter my style to shoot split finger, with the index to the mouth corner, holding my head straight, and shooting at a baseball size target at 10m and hitting it with no difficulty, without any sort of conscious aiming process. But it's not instinctive per say, I just shoot some many darned arrows at that distance in my basement, that my body just knows when everything is just placed 'right' for that arrow to hit the mark. I don't even need to use my 'standard' form (though the 'instinctive' results are better when I at least stick to 3-under and the same anchor, minus the conscious aiming). I can't always willfully 'recreate' the exploit. Sometimes that brain magic just doesn't happen (but it happens often enough to not be chalked up to simple luck). Sometimes, I actually CAN'T gap shoot to save my life, and 'going instinctive' nets me more good arrows. Weird but wonderful!
Anyway, there is nothing instinctive about archery, initially. The idea of consistently repeating the exact same motion, following the same cycle, understanding that any small deviation from the usual form will result in misses, that still takes time and practice (whether the archer consciously realizes this or not). Instinct is blinking when something goes towards your face. Those 'magical' arrows shot perfectly with no conscious aiming process taking place are the product of a LOT of practice, not 'instinct'...
Also, for the record, Greg of Trad Archery 101 and Clay Hayes have stated in several videos that they are NOT instinctive archers (Clay even makes a point in an older video that's he's confident he can best any 'instinctive' shooter in a friendly 3D match). Anyway they are both gap shooters. As for Jeff I'm not sure...
But great vid as usual, on a super interesting topic. Always glad to see a new NUSensei vid!
Good point about Greg and Clay. I brought them up because they appear in results for Instinctive Archery tutorials, which adds to the confusion over the labels we use.
I enjoyed reading this post, but I must say the fact that "Instinctive probably means different things to different archers" is a thing, is frustrating. Archery isn't a a platform for tautological debate. Words have meaning and communication is better when we collectively can agree on what those words mean. It's bizarre to see some people say "Well X means Y to me" but get angry and defensive when another uses the X word in their own context.
@@diatarussoulbane I agree. Hence the problem with dialogue. Whenever someone asks for a form check or advice and they say, "I'm shooting instinctively", I have to ask what they are specifically doing, because it could mean anything from gap shooting with a trad bow to closing their eyes and saying a prayer.
@@diatarussoulbane Indeed, absolutely agree with the idea of needing to agree on a definition of the term in order to understand what the other person truly intends to convey. Then again that particular challenge extends well outside the world of archery! :-) "What do you mean by x exactly?" If only we could all communicate more efficiently, we'd be the happier for it. Cheers,
YES. ITS ABOUT DEFINITIANS. INSTINCTIVE ARCHERY IN MY DEFINITIAN IS ABOUT TRAINING YOUR SUBCONSCIOUS TO SHOOT UNCONSCIIUSLY, WITH TONS AND TONS OF PRACTICE WITHOUT SIGHTS AND AIDS... WITH THE PRACTICE IT BECOMES AN INSTINCTIVE ACTIVITY TO US. IT IS A TRAINED (PRACTICED) ACTIVITY JUST LIKE ANY OTHER ACTIVITY. EG. I DONT EVEN THINK ABOUT MANUAL GEAR SHIFTS NOW... OR THROWING A BALL OR A "DAVID SLING" OR A TENNIS BALL WITH A RACKET, OR CONSTRUCTING AND SAYING A SENTANCE WITH YOU TONGUE. ITS ALL "INSTINCTIVE" ONCE YOU HAVE PUT IT INTO YOU SUBCONCIIUS WITH TONS AND TONS OF PRACTICE. "INSTINCTIVE" JUST MEANS THAT YOU DONT NEED TO CONCIOUSLY THINK ABOUT IT.
Aiming and “instinctive” are not the same. I can do both. But they are definitely not the same. Using sights or focusing on the arrow point isn’t as much fun as just focusing on the target. Takes a lot more work to get good target focusing versus aiming with sights or your arrow point. Shooting “intuitive or instinctive” whatever you want to call is like playing tennis or shotgun shooting. Aiming with a sight or arrow point is like riffle shooting. These are two distinctly different methods / skill sets.
Either I read this or I heard it on another video about a well-regarded instinctive archer/instructor who went into his basement and tried to shoot in pitch black darkness. His experiment showed, as you describe, there are frames of reference instinctive archers are still using. For myself, I think I need to find a class or coach before I develop bad habits that will be difficult to unlearn. Thanks for video and links.
To be totally pedantic, the use of the word instinctive in this (and frankly many other contexts) is really maddening. There is no innate ability to shoot a bow, or even throw a rock. Rock throwing, even when discovered individually is not instinctive. it is still a learned behavior. Instincts are full behavior patterns that are triggered by stimuli. So yes, the word instinctive, applied in the context of archery, is factually incorrect. Apologies for the rant. (edited for grammar)
That's what I found maddening about the "throwing a ball" example and its equivalence to shooting the bow. I agree that throwing is learned behaviour, but at least that is something that matches our physiology (limb movement, eye tracking), but yes, it's a conscious decision to pick up an object and release it, not an instinctive motion like avoiding a thrown rock. But putting an arrow on a bowstring, holding the bow, pulling the bowstring back and then lining it up with a target is definitely a learned skill.
I think the good point you raise in this distinction is that we should appreciate skills like archery as learned behaviour and teach it explicitly rather than simplify it as "instincts". Experienced shooters have a very different perception of what is instinctive compared to someone who has never shot a bow.
Thank you for the comment, if not for this I would have had to make it :) I retrained myself from "instinctive" to "intuitive" archery after being corrected by someone who knows better: "Instinct you're born with, intuition comes from experienced situations".
Disclaimer: "intuitive" might have a different connotation in German :)
Exactly that ... throwing might be instinctive, but trying to HIT something is not. That is a complex process that has to be learned and perfected.
IT IS ABOUT TRAINING OUR SUBCONSCIOUS BY REPEATED PRACTICE. I AGREE THAT MAYBE "INSTINCTIVE" MAY NOT BE THE BEST WORD. BUT I USE IT BECAUSE AFTER ALL THAT PRACTICE I DO IT INSTINCTIVELY. MEANING THAT I DO IT WITHOUT THINKING CONSCIOUSLY ABOUT THE SHOT. I JUST POINT AND SHOOT AND THE ARROW GOES WHERE I AM LOOKING.
WHO SAYS INSTINCTIVE IS INATE AND NOT LEARNED. NOT ME. EVERYTHING IS LEARNED INCLUDING PICKING UP SOMETHING AND THROWING IT. ITS JUST THAT WE START LEARNING THAT FROM THE BEGINNING AND EVERY MINUTE OF OUR LIVES BECAUSE OUR HANDS ARE ALWAYS CONNECTED TOO US.... THE MORE WE PRACTICE ANYTHING THEN THE MORE IT BECOMES INSTINCTIVE... THE REAL PROBLEM WITH INSTINCTIVE ARCHERY IS THAT VERY VERY FEW EVER REALIZE THIS BECAUSE MOST ARE DISTRACTED BY SIGHTS AND AIDS AND THEREFORE DONT GET THE AMOUNT OF UNDISTRACTED PRACTICE NECESSARY FOR IT TO BECOME INSTINCTIVE TO THEM. EVEN KRAMER TALKS ABOUT SWITCHING STYLES.
Where’d you get your bow belt its awsome!
Im shooting sticks
Watching them fly
N sometimes hitting what I'm looking at
I throw rocks with about the same success.
But have lots of fun while I'm doing it
Yup that's what I do. Sure is fun!
Fred Bear was a champion target archer before he was a hunter. He used a sight. His hunting form was different than his target form. He was conscious of how he aimed for target shooting, not when he hunted, but he still aimed (intended to hit the target). When I throw a ball I aim/intend to hit the target. Arab Archery (1500AD) has a chapter on aiming. It's traditional. ;)
People put to much thought and care in to names used to generally describe how we do things. Instinctive to me just means you don’t consciously aim or consciously make adjustments. Why this bothers so many people I’ll never understand. I feel like the people that have a hard time shooting “instinctively “ tend to hate it and the name.
Also also, to drive the point home about throwing a ball as a metaphor for "instinctive" archery, just look at ball throwers at the highest level: baseball pitchers, cricket bowlers, American football quarterbacks, bowling bowlers, etc. They are absolutely aiming and have extreme control over their bodies to deliver precise adjustments to their intended target. "Instinctive" is just a terrible misnomer for a vague style that doesn't involve a mechanical sight. People call Mongolians some of the greatest instinctive archers. But some of them crawl on the string with thumbdraw. Many mark the knuckles of their bow hand to sight. Is this instinctive? Do they care? Probably not.
I LOVE shooting instinctive. I HATE aiming and working a system of aiming. You cannot really do that when hunting on the ground. Bottom line.... I want to hit a deer or elk with my bow and arrow. It definitely takes practice though. I also love self-bows that I can make myself. That way, I feel like I have more control and an actual skill that can aid me when it comes to getting my own food.
I love your archery videos so much. Can i also ask if the war thunder videos are archived anywhere or pemenantly gone? I had the utmost resepct for both of those facets of you and your channel.
They're all gone. They're pretty much outdated anyway, and there are better WT videos out there.
Cool Kings and Generals hoody!! :D
Looking good on the mound there,guy
_"It is important to draw wisdom from many different places. If you only take it from one place, it becomes rigid and stale."_
Sensei, I noticed that some of your fletching length is almost the same as your brace height. Does fletching length matter to clear the riser?
I think I shoot with what's generally considered the instinctive method. I tried "split vision" but I found that the effort to see the arrow in front of me was just a distraction. My "aiming" is just with my eyes, and I spend much more time aiming my eyes than you do here. Or call it "focusing." If I can focus on the target, aiming small, and I know that my form is correct, then I'm reasonably certain that my arrow will go fairly close to where I'm looking. The harder I aim with my eyes, the closer I get to the target. I'm not into the semantics of it. I just know that if my form is correct, then I'm lined up to hit where my eyes are looking.
Neuroscience and neuropsychology have a lot to teach us about theoretical framing of how we learn to do complex tasks like Archery. Sports psychology is full of examples where the conscious thoughts and explanations we have about how to do a task are only a tiny part of what’s going on in our brains and often of little value in and of themselves. Explanatory myths. Correlation vs causation.
As a fellow asian who has mystical asain powers i 100% agree.
The only truly instinctive shot anyone has taken, was the first shot they ever took...
PROOVES YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT INSTINCTIVE SHOOTING IS.
@@questions6746 But I can spell proves correctly...
Thank you for making this video, Ive been trying to explain this to ppl for years but noone believes it. Ive often thought, its the concept that is wrong. I believe we can never be (truly) instinctive archers since (as you also was mentioning) its not natural to our bodies. Never will be. So how can that truly be(come) instinctive? And im not bashing on the style here. Im an "instinctive" archer aswell as my absolute most prefered style. I think the word you used "intuitive" is MUCH more fitting and more correct.
You *can* feel the bow similar to how throwing is done, at least I can. I feel the resistance and the direction of the force while I'm pulling back , the time slows down. It takes an extra amount of focus but it can be done. Works better with a slightly stronger bow but not too strong. Doesn't mean the results are great, but it's not a draw->aim->loose kind of process.
I’ve also noticed most new people shoot really well at first until they miss a couple times get discouraged and start overthinking why they missed.
Very compellingly presented perspective. Because my goal isn't the consummate harmonization of all archery styles, I may be biased... yes, I am, so much as I can be without being a prick. While I'd feel pretty stupid arguing with any of your well-made points, I can express my perspective, which differs. First, elitism sucks, in nearly every form. However; although I cannot objectively criticize anything about olympic/target style archery, it seems (very subjectively) absurd to me, eg the giant codpiece, sights, various gizmoids, etc. It seems comparable to putting a red-dot or laser on a spear or a Zeiss scope on a musket -- nothing wrong with it, but incredibly unappealing to me. Not for others obviously, but for me it defeats the purpose and appears an awkward hesitation to simply upgrading to a compound -- which is, because this will seem prickish if not repeated with redundancy, very subjective. See end of previous sentence for preface to the proceeding one: I shoot strictly on the wrong side of the bow, aka thumb and slavic draw. The Mediterranean style seems restrictive and unintuitive for me -- but I do have issues with authority, notably the arbitrary varieties. It imparts little satisfaction. The supposedly inferior and obsolete thumb-draw is very satisfying (for me). I also don't quite understand at what level accuracy becomes OCD, or where it becomes just as practical to push the arrow into the target by hand or hire a better archer. Gyroscopically stabilized target-seeking fieldpoints don't seem much fun, but they'd probably be popular. Regarding division in archery, for me it's quite lopsided -- the distribution of elitism, that is. As the only 'wrong-draw' archer at the club, I was seen as defective, or at least pursuing a defective style as a beginner. Nothing unfriendly, but not a whole lot of sympathy for a new archer learning the hard way. Now that I'm beginning to do things that others have difficulty with, there's a bit more 'respect'. I suppose this has resulted in my trying to 'make a case' for the style, with a bit poking fun at the other side. I'll end this with an example that makes sense to me: We could say the jet-ski crowd and the canoe (or sailing if you prefer) crowd are the same, because they're on the water and they're propelling themselves upon it. But with or without the hardware, they're most often a truly different breed. Lastly, I think you effectively, or mostly demystified the instinctive thing.PS: This channel is superb and much appreciated.
An artist can be versatile in how they create their work. An engineer must be precise. That's how I separate traditional styles from modern target. Historically, bows were ideal for the varied applications. The "instinctive" methods work best with these bows because they are used on horseback, against moving target (animal or human), and the best shooting was at short distance (20-50 metres).
But the bow isn't a perfect tool for precision, and modern sport makes precision the single goal. It is, for an engineer, the drafting tools that an artist doesn't use. Modern sport archery perfects the tool so that the archer is capable of delivering the most precise shot over a greater distance. You're not putting a Zeiss scope on a musket. You're building a marksman rifle.
I don't agree with your watersports analogy. Modern and traditional archery isn't jet-skis vs canoes vs sailboats. That's like saying guns and bows are the same because they both use projectiles. It's comparable to sailing in an 18th century schooner vs a 21st century racing yacht.
I appreciate the advocacy for traditional Asiatic archery. But as someone who does both modern target and Asiatic traditional, my advice is not to turn misconceptions into bigger negative reactions towards the other side. Try to understand where they are coming from and bridge the gap rather than make further division through exaggerations and false equivalents.
What quiver are you using at 10' ? The one on the left side
It's a custom crossdraw quiver from Tengri Bows.
@@NUSensei thank you
Wish i saw this before. I shoot compound. One night at the range the shop worker called last end. I had 6 arrows in my quiver and thought i'd just aim and release rapidly. 4 out of the 6 caught x's and the other 2 were respectable 9s. I thought I was instinctively shooting, but after much thought and a few more months, I realize its more intuitive. Its the same feeling of shooting a shot, and even if you can't see where the arrow hit, you know intuitively that it was a good shot and probably it a 10.
As the only animal capable of overriding instinct, it's kind of pointless to say anything we do is instinctive. I do instinctive eating and instinctive walking and instinctive sleeping. Those are the only things I do that are still based in instinct. Everything else I do is a result of training... copious amounts of training.
With firearms, when the shooter focuses on the target solely and ignores the weapon’s sight system, it’s commonly referred to as point shooting. Maybe that reference would not conjure the feelings that “instinctive” does.
Instinctive vs intuitive is largely a semantic difference. It’s still a little different than aiming with, say, a rifle or pistol. In archery, there’s a target focus. In rifle & pistol marksmanship, the eye focuses on the front sight. In that sense, the instinct/intuition is still much more in play than it is with firearms.
Kids have to learn things like walking and throwing too, it's not an innate skill. The only instinctive things human do are breathing, swallowing and yanking from pain. Though I dont think any of it applies to our case. Instinctive, intuitive it doesn't matter how you call it, basically it means you shoot by feel. Though I would say you shoot by eye coordination, exactly like throwing. And it's quite possible with curved trajectories, how do you think basketball players score 3 pointers?
That was the point made in the video: *throwing* is more "instinctive" because you have a physical connection with the object being thrown. Your eyes coordinate the motion, but you control "by feel" what your hands do to get the ball into that target zone.
Archery is different in that you don't control _how_ the arrow is shot. The arrow and the bow are constants. Swap the bow, or swap the arrow, or swap the point weight or fletching size, and the shooter can't feel where the arrow will go by instinct. The difference is in your elevation and how you determine your point of reference.,
At this point, you're basically crossing the line into referencing a visual alignment, not shooting by "feeling". You don't "feel" how far off you have to aim. You _know_ that from ranging your bow out. If you don't know, you're guessing until you do.
Dynamic shooting (moving targets) is hand-eye coordination, but this is typically done in very short distances where trajectory isn't a significant factor. Static target shooting is not.
I remember surprised by Jake Kaminski discussing the importance of the subconscious mind influencing 70 meter accuracy when shooting Olympic recurve. Archers?
Call it what you will, it all falls into the same catagory, having your arrow hit where your focusing on.
For lack of precise translation at a given moment I think one guy meant ”gut instinct” can be trained more than in modern and some traditional archery competion
My humble understanding of this is intuitive (or instinctive) shooters do not use a reference point on their bow or arrow to aim.
But I'm only 2 years in my way in archery, so I might be very mistaken.
In the end I'd just say: do what makes you happy, and let the others do wht makes them happy. As long as nobody gets hurt everything will be ok.
I would've agreed, except that when you reference what instinctive shooters say they do, the first thing is that they pick a point and they position their arrow over it. This may or may not be the focal point for the shot, and it may or may not be in their peripheral vision or subconscious. And it also happens that the ideal distances to shoot are in that 15-30 metre distance where the arrow is close to point-on.
I use Clay Hayes at 8:27 as an example: "I put the top edge of my broadhead on top of the target, I don't really have to think about it anymore."
That's also how we use sights. We put the ring on the target, keep our eyes focused on that spot with the sight blurred, and we don't think about it as we execute the shot.
And this makes sense. That's how we use our eyes to aim. Of course, sights lock you into set distances while you can adapt for variations without one. But aside from that, it's not so different.
But then, is Clay Hayes doing intuitive/instictive archery? (Not to belittle his capacities because clearly what he does he does very well).
I've heard some say they do not take any reference point on the bow/arrow. But then again, are they?
In the end, is there any real intuitive/instictive archery?
Does the little spoon exist?
@@samaeru666 This comes back to the question: what really is "instinctive" shooting? Because the answer is yes and no, depending on how they define it. Clay defines instinctive as "the sole focus is on the target and they are unconscious of everything else - the arrow tip, the bow, etc.", which he contrasts with "aiming" through being aware of the arrow tip. But when he explains his shot process, he consciously decides where to put the arrow first, then he opts to not focus on it and instead focuses on the target.
If this was a debate, there's going to be a lot of backflips and mental gymnastics when discussing the semantics of instinctive. All of this would miss the greater point: understand what they are doing rather than what they are saying.
I think my biggest point around instinctive is that it's not communicated consistently, which leads to poor dialogue between archers and styles.
Newtonian law is marinaded in the dunning kruger saus on this one
Basically, if I understand what you say, what's important is what people are doing and not how they're calling it.
I just stare at the target, and draw whatever feels comfy, not even a general anchor, I still hit 2 inch groups for 3 arrows per set, I don’t know how people do anything else. I’ve tried aiming with a sight, I’ve tried strong walking, I’ve tried point method, nothing else works for me. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’ve been accurate since my first time shooting, I’m only 2 weeks into getting my first bow.
At what distance though,accuracy doesn’t mean anything if you can’t do it at decent distances. If you were accurate every shot would grout at a good distance.
You also sound like a knob. I’ve been shooting for two weeks and I’ve been great since I started😂
@@dominicking1530 most I’ve done so far is 15 yards, which is the average hunting shot I take, so far taken a few groundhog, my goal is small game recurve, preferably squirrel once they come back into season.
You're already telling people that all you have to do is look at the target and shoot subconsciously, and you're puzzled over how people can shoot any other method. But you're only shooting at 15 yards. Your method might get three arrows in a 2 inch group at 15 yards. A string walker will get that grouping at 50 yards. A sighted shooter will get that at 70 yards. If you're only shooting extreme close distance, the other methods actually don't work very well because the reference points are too far off the target. For your purpose of shooting small game at close distance, your method might be good enough. But don't be part of the problem by telling people to rely on instinct when you're shooting at a different target.
So you’re an irresponsible un ethical hunter to boot. 👏you’ve really been busy in the last two weeks lad
I'm subscribed to the Jeff Phillips (instinctive addiction archery) for shooting parts of video IDGAF about his style of shooting I use vintage compound bows with metal pin sights not fiber optic sight
Instinctive shooting isnt instinctive, you first have to train your subconscious mind to do it first - which is why you will rarely find young accurate instinctive shooters.
Thats always been my understanding - and i think thats also pretty much what you're getting at.
Yeah. It's like throwing a ball. I need to aim when throwing a ball for the most part (by aim I mean consciously aiming and thinking about where it'll go), and even then I suck at it because I very rarely do it, yet my brother didn't have to do that when he played football because he'd already do so so much that he didn't need to consciously think about trajectory, or leading, or anything like that
Another example would be skeet shooting, where you don't necessarily always have time to 'aim,' but with enough experience you just sorta intuitively know exactly where to point it and when to squeeze the trigger to hit the clay
Edit: Just got to the part where he uses the ball example lmao
AGREED. FEW UNDERSTAND THIS.
I believe it’s real, (I can’t do it YET) although I don’t believe it can be achieved without SHITLOADS of practice & we have to aim one way or another, even throwing a ball or a leg over 😉👍🏼🇦🇺
Any Target from any Distance 😎
I shot instinctively trad but your right half the time it's gap but I don't realize it because it's it's muscle and memory
Why do you switch sides of the bow when nocking the arrow?
I shoot both Asiatic thumb draw style and Mediterranean style, which use different sides of the bow.
@@NUSensei So thumb draw requires arrow on right side?
@@NDFlyFisher Yes.
NO. YOU CAN SHOOT RIGHT SIDE WITH ANY RELEASE TYPE.
goddamn, i havn't seen one of your videos for years. cant even remember when i subscribed but, you didnt per chance do warthunder videos at some point? idk i remember always following you cause you were an aussie who frothed archery and games
FWOOAAAh now its annoying me
War Thunder was eons ago. I removed all gaming content from the channel to focus on archery.
@@NUSensei man what a trip
glad you're still doin what you're great at
You actually recorded throwing arrows in slowmo wow it looks crazy and weird
:) got trad bow friends that simply annoy the dog crap out of me because i use a compound to hunt and don't use "instinctive shooting' . Started shooting way before compounds and sights were a thing and have been successful target shooting and hunting with them. I mostly shoot a compound now as i do not feel i can deliver a consistent, humanin shot with the traditional bows.
Right, so the problem with "instinctive" archery is just in semantics around the choice of english word..
For me instinct is anything under 25m, no drop... soon as it goes over that distant, its gap shooting.
That's my understanding too. It's harder to gap at anything under 25m because the reference points are off target, especially if you are using a cheek anchor. At mid distance the gap closes and, imo, there's not much difference between gap and instinctive at this point.
I call it instinctive simply because my ears are bleeding when i hear the word "intuitiv".. it sounds strange to my ears. Of course i know instinctive is the wrong word per definition, but i just dont care.
I look at a point on the target, lift the bow, get to anchor, i am aware of the position of my bow arm, when the feeling is right, when the side picture is right, i let the arrow fly. Sometimes i am aware of the arrow, most times not.
I’ve questioned this myself. Our organic computer/brain makes predictions based on past experiences that’s where our responses come from. Especially in faster situations. Good slow intentional practice trains you for automaticity more efficiently. I don’t believe it is instinctive.
NUSensei.... CAN A NEW BORN BABY OR A TODDLER, OR A 6 YEAR OLD THROW A BALL? OR DID ATXSOME TIME DID THEY LEARN IT....... YOU CAN "SENCE" WHERE THE ARROW WILL GO. SAME AS BALL. SAME AS TENNIS BALL OFF RACKET..
Thanks for clearing up this myth of instinctive/intuitive shooting. In forums on the Internet is so much BS around. It's basically impossible to only look at the target. There is so much going on in a short time. I think a lot of archers who praise them self for being an intuitive shooters are simply lying to stick out from the masses. Also: Who says that our ancestors were instinctive shooters. You simply can't prove that.
??? Homie all I do is focus on the target, draw the way that’s most comfortable, and it gets 2 inch groups every time. It’s really not that crazy, but it’s how it works for me. It’s just your subconscious correcting your aim. It’s the same thing with mouse movements for pro gamers, throwing footballs, accuracy with soccer, etc.
Ignore Mikerille.
He’s been shooting for two weeks and has decided he’s a gifted expert
@@dominicking1530 I didn’t say anything even slightly close to that. I’m just mentioning my experience. Hence the “all I do” not “all everyone should do”. There is no mysticism, when throwing a rock do you look at the rock? When throwing a spear or axe do you look at those, boomerang, alotl? No, you look at the target.
It’s your words to say anyones a gifted anything.
@@Mikerille i sight along the rock and adjust my gap, usually use a range finder because I have one eye and no depth perception.
@@dominicking1530 ooo nice! Range finders are awesome man, and hey if it works it works!
My first thought was that your shots seems to collapse. Pardon for a comment after 18 seconds ☺️☺️
I'm using a lot of stock footage from over the years. Few are actually shots that demonstrate good form.
I would like this twice but they won't let me
Instinctive archery is learning to use a basic bow with no bells and whistles attached purely for hunting dinner, when the shtf and the zombies attack your going to want to shoot fast and accurate, its a skill for survival imo.!
You should be able to just look at the target and raise and shoot fairly quickly, release even before aiming, just guess and keep guessing and eventually you will start to shoot instinctive
No one cares about hypothetical zombie killing.
In my opinion, you have completely misunderstood the koncept. You aim... You have a reference between you bow and arrow, and the target.
The trick, is to not see the bow and arrow at all. It's definitely not easy, or better. But when you actually get it, you can actually pick any bow and be fairly accurate from the start.
The reference to throwing is also misunderstood in my opinion. You also have to learn to throw. And throw accurately is also a set of skills you learn, based on past experience.
I litterat shoot every kind of bow there is. And when I shoot instinctive, I shoot split to limit the tendency to see the arrow.
In my opinion, your video is based on a bias, that you can't shoot instinctive, and therefore it must be false. Other people, like yourself misusing the koncept doesn't help at all.
Shooting instinctive is just as hard work as aiming, just opposite.
"instinctive" archery is like "aliens"
some people just want to believe.
I'm going to give you one instance where you may not be ENTURELY correct, NUSensei.. While I tend to use the term kinesthetic aiming, and I know the term "Instinctive" is problematic, I will insist that I have made what I call instinctive shots. And by that I mean shots that I had to make up on the fly that were not directly the product of repetitive practice.
I actually believe that repetitive practice in a very disciplined way is the key to this style of shooting. It takes immense discipline not to look at your error and useic for aiming. It takes a lot of focus to let down if you have executed any part of the shop process incorrectly. Metacognition s the key to effective practice.
My example: Several years ago I shot a grouse on the ground through brush that would not accommodate my normal trajectory. I did this by pulling the arrow back to seventeen or eighteen inches of draw and lobbing an arrow through a hole in a fir trees branches. I have never practiced that shot. I have never shot at anything from seventeen or eighteen inches of draw. I have never practiced lobbing slow arrows at short range.
On the other hand the only reason I was able to make that shot was because I have over forty years shooting recurves amd longbows bows in hunting situations. I knew the bow and I made the arrows. I have spent, as you said, hundreds doing blank bail close up practice specifically so I could ignore my arrow and focus on the spot I wanted to hit. I have done thousands of hours of bale practice as well as stump shooting. I have shot everything from flying ducks to running rabbits to dear with my bow.
To my mind, and you said this once on the reddit threads, it's very difficult to develop the skill, and paradoxically takes more practice early on the fundamentals
It is NOT instinctive but that's the word we use, and there are many words like that on English.. It is in fact designed so that when the situation changes , we have those basics at our disposal, as well as countless hours learning range estimation. That's the only reason it's possible to change one thing and still hit the target.
I have.
A similar story where I lobbed an Arrow over a log and into the vitals of a cow elk. She was close and even closer to the log. In that instance I probably only drew back about twenty four inches instead of the normal twenty nine. But I knew my arrow system was up to the task.And I knew I would either hit her vitals or the log.
Al Herrin, the Cherokee bowyer, author, and archer, once wrote in article in tmTraditional Bowhunter Magazine, called "The Partial Draw and Floating Anchor" where he discusses close range shooting at small game like fish, frogs, and crayfish. Partial draw is primarily a method of preserving your arrows on shots under ten feet straight at the ground or rocks. This is one of the few times I think that whenever shot is different You must rely on your ears of practice, but cannot rely entirely on that and must be creative.
I mean when I was 8 I shot a bow for the first time ever, 10m away from the target, and despite the fact that the bow was too large and much to heavy for me I hit my first shot, I also hit with most of the following shots. True I was told how to hold the bow, but that's not really a "class", especially considering my dad never got training and it was his bow. Anyone can pick up a stick and hit stuff with it, but if you want to hit a ball flying at you (baseball), someone is gonna have to tell you how to hold the damn thing, still that isn't training.
I'd argue that hitting things with a stick is more on the instinctive side. Our evolution led us to be able to grasp objectives like sticks, and innately prefer to have long tools because they act as extensions of our arms. We already instinctively hit things with our hands and arms, so hitting an object we track with our eyes with a stick is an instinctive skill. Training will make us better at hitting smaller and faster objects, but the motor functions are ingrained naturally.
In contrast, bows don't make sense. Throwing is instinctive because to make an object go forward, we push it forward. Using a bow requires the projectile to be pulled back and let go to make it go forward. It's actually surprising at how many people in beginner classes think they have to push the arrow forward to make it go. The fact that most people don't do that is attributed to the popular knowledge of bows in fantasy and media.
Then when you teach a beginner how to hold a bow but don't tell them how to draw or aim, their instinct is to hold it up to their eyes, point at the middle, pull it back until it feels too hard and they let go.All of these are natural instincts - visual alignment on target (lining the arrow), combined with the inherent fear of injury (keeping it away from the face, feeling the weight of the bow). The result is that the arrow flops short because they barely drew the bow.
And then they start figuring out that if they pull it back further, or aim higher, it will go further. That's the beauty of our intelligent minds and intuition. We can learn - and we can teach.
But a lot of archery - as with a lot of martial skills - requires basic instincts to be overwritten. This will become second nature to most archers, but it isn't first nature to anyone.
Instinctive is gap shooting but your just training your eye.
I started with ILF recurve but will retire this bow and stick with my cottonmouth 2 and my Ash War bow . by bostonbows
I don't think the term instinctive is elitist as much as it is a misnomer. We see in athletics that there are people with incredibly acute awareness and coordination of where their body is at all times. Their body mechanics awareness if off the charts. Think of the golfer who can bounce a ball on his 8 iron while holding a conversation then take a full swing and hit it 170 yards out of mid-air, then do it 3 times in a row. The baseball player who can see the spin on a pitch and adjust his swing to hit the curving ball at 90 miles per hour. The gymnast doing twisting double flips off the vault. The list goes on. My opinion is that so called instinctive archers that are really good shots have that acute body awareness/coordination to the point where if their anchor feels a little low they adjust their bow hand accordingly and can make it work. They can feel any misalignment and adjust for it in the course of the shot process. It's a subconscious process and while they are not thinking about aiming their body is doing all types of minor corrections in alignment to get that arrow to go where they want. To Nu Sensei's point, this has its limitations. At 5 yards 95% of the archers can successfully shoot "instinctive". Go to 15 yards and that number probably drops to 50%. Go to 30 yards and that number probably drops to under 5%. At the same time a much higher percentage of archers with repeatable form, anchor, release, and aiming methods will be successful at 30 yards and beyond. Are there "instinctive" archers that do all of this by feel and are successful? Yes, but they are in such a minority that trying to teach archery that way would be incredibly frustrating and unsuccessful for most new or experienced archers.
I agree. The term itself isn't elitist. The problems can arise when people who shoot instinctive (or more often, those who don't do archery at all) put it on a pedestal. Ultimately, it's _a_ method of shooting. It's not better or worse just because it's "instinctive". It's more suitable for some applications, less for others.
Стрелы ныряют вниз сразу после выпуска... Нужно гнездо или браться чуть выше по тетиве.
สวัสดีค่ะมารับชมด้วยค่ะฝีมือเยี่ยมมากๆค่ะ👍👍
Trolling hypothesis; competitive darts players are more accurate than competitive archers (relative to the size of the target).
Nobody shoots instinctively, everybody aims. "Instinctive" is just a termed used by people who want to appear all mystical and therefore "special". Ask them to hit a target in complete darkness and watch their mystical instinctive powers disappear in a puff of bulldust.
Nusensei... THROWING A BALL IS NOT INATE. WE MUST LEARN IT. A BABY CANNOT THROW A BALL. WE SEE THEM LEARN. HAD ANY KIDS NUSENSEI? YOU NEED TO RESEARCH PROPERLY BEFORE MAKING YOUR DECLARATIONS. I AGREE WITH SHAIVERSITY ABOUT YOUR FALSE CLAIMS.
Don’t deny your mystical bullshlt😄
Obviously in Asian cultures instinctive shooter involves a lot of math.
Where as instinctive driving requires no math at all.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 and I'm Asian. Must be some mystical bullshit😂😂😂 awesome
Young children have to learn how to throw a ball. They are not immediately able to hit the spot they are looking at from the first attempt. Instinct is not about learning, instinct is pre-programned a baby does not learn how to feed from a womans breast. The baby knows how to do it, it is pre-programmed ie instinctive. If practise and learning is involved it is not instictive.
I was thinking the same. Also, people, who haven't thrown things as a kid, really strugle to find any accurate and efficient bodymechanics to throw as an adult. It is a skill that requires a lot of practice.