TargetTalk

I am sure that Jack agrees.

To be complete, we ought to add the second point from the BE forum post. That was that the many many shooting details found in dialogs and books, and found by trial and error in practice and plans, usually try to point straight to sight alignment and trigger control as something you "do". Thus bypassing the foundational skills (grip, stance....) that result in sight alignment and trigger control. Detail overload and confusion is likely unless we sort them out and stress the foundations before the results.

In other words

Details - learning, trial and error, to establish....

Foundations - things you do, practices, techniques, knowledge base, that result in....

Essential - NOT things you do, but conditions to achieve, i.e. sight alignment and trigger control.

Steve,

Thanks for your excellent description. Some of the excercises sound a lot like the ones in the Piddubnyy articles.

Some observations:

1. Dry-firing against a blank surface allows you to focus on the feel of the trigger and alignment of the sights, but the lack of a reference point deprives you of the feedback necessary to tell you if your trigger operation is disturbing your aim.

2. "Using the trigger to drive the sight" may be a strategy that evolved to cope with the relatively heavy trigger on the .45, vs. "using the sight to drive the trigger" which ultimately works better with the lighter triggers on AP's and FP's. Ultimately, they both accomplish the same thing physically, i.e., a coordinated movement of the gun and the trigger that culminates with the trigger breaking smoothly without extra movement as the sights enter the aiming area. But the mental focus is different.

3. I've been reading Hank Haney's excellent book on curing the yips in golf (Haney is Tiger Woods' swing coach, and has received just about every coaching honor that there is in golf). It seems that the yips aren't a mental thing so much as a product of a flaw in putting technique. Specifically, players who develop the yips in putting tend to have the face of the putter slightly open at the moment of impact during practice swings, and are unconciously trying to correct for this during the real swing, causing a disruption of the stroke. I was hoping there is something analogous to this in pistol shooting.

I discussed this with a friend of mine today who is a high master at BE. He, like everyone else, described gripping the gun by clamping it between the middle two fingers of the shooting hand and the muscle at the base of the thumb of the same hand. However, he also described thinking of the fingers as the stationary part of a vise, and using the muscle at the base of the thumb to press the gun into the fingers (a bit of mental imagery that I'd never heard before), rather than using the fingers to press the gun into the base of the thumb, which he said was inherently less stable -- at least for him. It also has the advantage of focusing on something that keeps the wrist tighter.

It seems promising -- I think I'll work on it for a while.

That kind of concrete mental imagery, I think, has been what is lacking in oer discussions so far. We talk about what we are supposed to do, but not about what it it's supposed to feel like, i.e., the feedback component of the shot process.

Regards,

Al B.

alb wrote:1. Dry-firing against a blank surface allows you to focus on the feel of the trigger and alignment of the sights, but the lack of a reference point deprives you of the feedback necessary to tell you if your trigger operation is disturbing your aim.

I prefer to think of it that dry-firing against a blank surface allows you to focus on the trigger and sight alignment without the distraction of worrying about your aim.

There is no rule that says that every training exercise must cover all of the aspects of firing a perfect shot.

David Levene wrote:

alb wrote:1. Dry-firing against a blank surface allows you to focus on the feel of the trigger and alignment of the sights, but the lack of a reference point deprives you of the feedback necessary to tell you if your trigger operation is disturbing your aim.

I prefer to think of it that dry-firing against a blank surface allows you to focus on the trigger and sight alignment without the distraction of worrying about your aim.

There is no rule that says that every training exercise must cover all of the aspects of firing a perfect shot.

What you say is true. However, without the feedback that a reference point gives, you may end up practicing something that turns into a bad habit. It is possible to use the trigger finger to drag the gun off-target while keeping the sights perfectly aligned. Don't ask me how I know this!

My second point was that everyone who shoots really well describes a coordinated movement of the trigger finger that culminates with the shot breaking when the sight is in the target area. Without the reference point, you simply can't practice this.

My last point was that virtually all of the discussions and writings that I've seen to date fail to describe what it's supposed to feel like. This feedback component is very important, since it not only lets you know if you're doing it right, but gives you something "in the moment" to focus your attention on.

Also, a good description of the 'feel' of the technique gives important information about the technique itself. The example I gave about grip is a case in point. Every discussion I've ever read on grip talks about pressing with the fingers straight back against the base of the thumb. But can't recall anywhere in any description that I've ever read where anyone mentioned activating the muscle at the base of the thumb as part of the grip. Perhaps it's a bad idea to grip the pistol that way. But it's something that never occurred to me because it was never mention by Steve's 'old great ones' or anyone else, and I'm going to give it a try.

I read a description somewhere about the coordinated movement of the trigger while bringing the sights on target as being like using the gas pedal while steering your car toward the entrance to a tunnel -- something that we can all relate to. If we think about what this entails, it necessarily means we have to look at the target rather than focusing on the sight. It also means that a long rolling release trigger would be more effective than a crisp trigger, since it gives a better feel for the motion of the trigger. In fact, I think that this particular piece of imagery may have been contributed by Brian Zins, who advocates a rolling release trigger and focusing on the target when using a dot sight.

My point is that imagery such as this is far more effective at communicating how to perform certain kinds of complex actions than a simple dry description of the mechanics of the action. It's also far more effective than prescribing excercises that break down the shot process into it's component parts in the hope that the shooter will somehow learn the correct 'feel' from the excercise. For example, I could dry-fire at a blank piece of paper for the next 20 years without it ever occurring to me to activate the muscle at the base of my thumb.

Regards,

Al B.

Please forgive me if I bounce around (and for the length), but I plan to address several things that have been covered throughout. Unfortunately, not very much of what I will add will be seen as the answer to the OP's question, but in a way there will be some info that I hope will help in that search.

Let's start with jackh's assertion:

He wrote:Many things will be discarded but You will not discard "sight alignment", "trigger control" and a "realization" that what counts happens at the gun.

What if I were to suggest that at a point of true confidence in your capability, you would be able to just decide to fire a ten and then pick up the firearm and fire a ten with no further care about how perfect your sights were or how pure your finger moved? Is there not a point at which you can perform a shot as simply as you type "jack" on the keyboard? Isn't the complication caused by our need to perfect the intricacies instead of letting go and performing through our subconscious? Maybe "what counts" is really even further back than the gun...

jackh also wrote:How does foot placement help me align my sights? It doesn't.

In the physical world, the correct placement of the feet will allow for the best balance of all the forces acting on the firearm. These forces will also affect the sights relative to the resulting hit. However, I believe this will "iron itself out' if you simply let go and "feel" your way there. Comfort is a close friend to consistency. If you study the "feelings" of what it takes to perform consistently, you will find the answer more easily than if you try to search technically for the answer.

----------

Steve Swartz wrote:The *only* thing you need to do is keep the sights perfectly aligned while dropping the hammer perfectly.

The trouble most of us deal with is the definition of "perfect." If you develop the attitude that you must have "infinite perfection" you will never be satisfied with what you see. New competitors need to allow for a wider definition of "perfect" in their routine; possibly the realization of the trigger being operated without hesitation could be their beginning definition of perfect.

BTW, Steve - Good luck with a speedy recovery and a quick return to shooting! Did you ask the doctor to make things extra "supportive" for your shooting endeavors? Hope to see you back in the results bulletins soon.

----------

Further on, jackh wrote:I agree, the time tested saying is sight alignment and trigger control. But how do you effectively accomplish this perfect sight alignment and trigger control thing?

I think we need to let the subconscious loose to define these things and quit telling it, it wasn't good enough. Focusing on the things we want and finding out what produces those results, while letting go of all the things that don't, will tend to allow our subconscious to run the technical part for us.

----------

alb wrote:In an attempt to further distill the essential difference between shooting and writing poetry, allow me to point out that writing poetry is a creative process -- shooting isn't.

Is not every endeavor of the human spirit creative in nature? Could we not compare the artwork of our targets with some of the "great" canvasses of the past?

I've written some poetry and other forms of words (much of which is posted on this board - well not much poetry here), but who would ever determine any of it as "great?"

alb also wrote:Trigger weight appears to be the essential issue. The use of greater force to activate the trigger on the .45 results in greater force being applied as well to making the muzzle do things it shouldn't.

I think this conclusion is flawed, although the use of "appears" tends to be correct. My suggestion is to study the muzzle motion while varying the trigger operation to include the finger placement.

Even further, alb wrote:Is there one essential thing to focus on that will accelerate the learning process?

I really think the trigger operation is where you need to place your studies. But, here's my (NSH) suggestion: learn to make a relatively fast, determined and controlled manipulation of the trigger. If you try to make a very slow, careful and critical movement, it will cover up any possible indications of quality that are provided by your sighting system.

----------

Steve Swartz later wrote: Dry fire against a neutral/blank surface. Support your arm while you do so, so you can concentrate EXCLUSIVELY on perfecting the manipulation of the trigger without distractions. Some principles:

1) use iron sights
2) focus on maintaining perfect sight alignment before, during, and after hammer fall
3) Concentrate on trigger/hand/wrist FEEL during the exercise

Objective: CONSISTENT, smooth, rapid application of pressure to the trigger in a way (at an angle) that results in NO MOVEMENT of the front sight- relative to rear sight- during hammer fall.

I agree almost entirely here with Steve, but I would allow the use of a dot, IF you look for the correct "picture." What would that be? IMNSHO, the correct thing to observe is the dot resting in the center of the tube, performing its intricate dance, undisturbed by the hammer falling. The reason I allow for the use of the dot, is because for some, the dot is more attention grabbing, but if you are an iron sight shooter, you obviously still need to work with that system as well.

----------

2650plus wrote:None of us seem to think that where we put our feet approaches the importance of sight allignment and trigger control. I am satisfied that the change in terminology is valid and worth while. I suspect Steve will agree . How about it Ed ,Jack,and the rest of the posters.

Sure, drag me back in...(smile)

Actually, all those terms: essential, fundamental, basic, etc. are just that - terms we use to convey our beliefs. Which are more important, may very well be only determined by the individual and even more so by where they are in their journey. It just may be that developing the proper trigger is fundamental to one shooter, where another may have moved the trigger operation totally out of their thoughts, because - it just happens for them, automatically (or automagically, if you prefer). My coach/mentor of long ago used to tell me that some things, although not necessary, will make it easier to shoot a ten. I still believe that if you study the things that work and lay aside the things that don't, you will gravitate toward all those things that will make it easier. The trick is to not get stuck hanging onto something due to comfort. If you fear losing ground, you may very easily become stuck on a plateau.

----------

Later on, alb wrote:1. Dry-firing against a blank surface allows you to focus on the feel of the trigger and alignment of the sights, but the lack of a reference point deprives you of the feedback necessary to tell you if your trigger operation is disturbing your aim.

The point of the drill is to learn the operation of the trigger as it relates to the gun and includes the anatomy from the elbow down. The aim is something different and can be left until the trigger operation is pure, as indicated by the sighting system. Remember that the trigger operation must be quick enough to expose any imbalances that could be covered up by too slow a trigger manipulation.

Additionally, alb wrote:That kind of concrete mental imagery, I think, has been what is lacking in oer discussions so far. We talk about what we are supposed to do, but not about what it it's supposed to feel like, i.e., the feedback component of the shot process.

Actually, there are many places where the mental imagery has been discussed to great lengths to include the addition of all the senses into the rehearsals for the shooting routines. I've added several things myself over the years. I've also changed my thinking on these matters over the recent past. For one thing, I used to think that you should marry a mental rehearsal of the shot unfolding with the actual shot unfolding during the last bit of time (longer than 200ms) prior to the break. I currently believe that to be incorrect, as what you are seeing is in the past and we can't conduct the shot in the past.

Even later, alb wrote:What you say is true. However, without the feedback that a reference point gives, you may end up practicing something that turns into a bad habit. It is possible to use the trigger finger to drag the gun off-target while keeping the sights perfectly aligned. Don't ask me how I know this!

I will not ask how or even to elaborate on this, but it is a new and unimaginable routine for me. If it was not negative in nature, I would ask you to describe it. What I would ask though, is if it is something you could use in the reverse? Can you use your trigger to improve your aim?

Then, alb wrote:Also, a good description of the 'feel' of the technique gives important information about the technique itself. The example I gave about grip is a case in point. Every discussion I've ever read on grip talks about pressing with the fingers straight back against the base of the thumb. But can't recall anywhere in any description that I've ever read where anyone mentioned activating the muscle at the base of the thumb as part of the grip. Perhaps it's a bad idea to grip the pistol that way. But it's something that never occurred to me because it was never mention by Steve's 'old great ones' or anyone else, and I'm going to give it a try.

Although there has been mention of the "feel" of the shot from time to time (remember J.P. O'Connor's, "Feel Center" closings?), Most shooters tend to talk technically and work on the "technically perfect" routine. But, you know what took me into the High Master classification after knocking at the door for years? It wasn't really imagery; it wasn't technical study; it wasn't an increase in matches; it wasn't even training. In fact, (I almost hate to confess this), I wasn't doing any physical training. I was shooting 90 rounds a week in a .22 league and an occasional match. But, what made the difference was a change in mental focus. (For our ISSF shooters, the NRA classification of High Master occurs when your scores in the matches reach 97% - usually 2619/2700. Although this can occur through only firing a .22, it is much more common to achieve this using the .22 and .45 calibers.)

Anyway, what brought me to finally making High Master was to stop looking at 2619 and start thinking about 2630. For whatever the true reason may be, that change moved me to firing a 2626 and a 2627 for the next two matches (three weeks apart), which averaged over the elusive 2619 mark by a few points. I later started focusing on 2650 and reached 2630. In my last post to this thread

I wrote:I actually finally made it back up over 2600 (first time this year). My first target was so bad I had to fire a 98 and a 100 on the next two to make up for it!

You know what changed between target one and target two? My thoughts! Instead of trying to figure out what might be wrong or how to be more technically perfect or how to be more careful or even how to correct anything, I decided that I needed a lot more tens. I even said it to myself, "I'm going to need more tens - a lot more tens!"

I'd better wrap this up before it gets too long - oops!

Take Care,
Ed Hall
U.S. Air Force Competitive Shooting Teams
Things of Interest to Bullseye (and International) Competitors

Ed wrote Is there not a point at which you can perform a shot as simply as you type "jack" on the keyboard? [/Ed]

As far as me typind JAck om the 5kebord, habe 6yuo seen me tipe??? I have5 to look at the keys most of the toime9. Ma6ey thatd why i shoos so bad. But i see yor point6 aboud automa66ic shooting..... \:)

I recall the Gallery match where I had several duds . Twice in time fire, being out of permitted refires, I was able to drop the present magazine, insert a new loaded magazine, and complete the 20 second string including a hand cycling of the slide to eject the dud round. (Actually the duds were light strikes due to a weakened hammer spring. Larrysguns set me straight on a fix for the 208s) Back to my point....

The very hurried operation to successfully complete my string was VERY automatic. I recall no real thinking. During the firing of the new magazine, I saw, but I did not think. The target was not bad either. Skill or dumb luck??

I believe it was my experience and following questions to the bullseye board and to NRA Competitions that led to a rules clarification on loading additional rounds in the next revised printing.

jackh wrote:The very hurried operation to successfully complete my string was VERY automatic. I recall no real thinking. During the firing of the new magazine, I saw, but I did not think. The target was not bad either. Skill or dumb luck??

Actually, I think you got your conscious out of the way so your subconscious could perform. I've been there many times. I have a couple 10x, fifty-foot, (Bullseye) Rapid Fire targets from just that type of firing. I was too distracted to fire consciously and went into lockup for about three seconds (tick, tick, tick...). Then, "Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang!" Oh man, what was that? Second string - distracted again - same scene! "Darn! Somebody else look for me..." What!? A ten-X!? Distract me more often..." BTW, one was with open sights, and neither looked good as far as sights/aim/routine were concerned.

(As to the light hits with the 208s, you might be interested in this post:

http://www.targettalk.org/viewtopic.php ... t=40#68438

Take Care,
Ed Hall
Bulseye (and International) CompetitionThings
U.S. Air Force Competitive Shooting Teams

Ed Hall wrote:

alb wrote:In an attempt to further distill the essential difference between shooting and writing poetry, allow me to point out that writing poetry is a creative process -- shooting isn't.

Is not every endeavor of the human spirit creative in nature? Could we not compare the artwork of our targets with some of the "great" canvasses of the past?

No. Sometimes, you're just trying to repeat a complex action over and over again with perfect technique each time. Thinking about shooting a '10' as a creative process doesn't help you to actually do it, especially if you're thinking about this while you're trying to do it!

Ed Hall wrote:

alb also wrote:Trigger weight appears to be the essential issue. The use of greater force to activate the trigger on the .45 results in greater force being applied as well to making the muzzle do things it shouldn't.

I think this conclusion is flawed, although the use of "appears" tends to be correct. My suggestion is to study the muzzle motion while varying the trigger operation to include the finger placement.

To clarify what I was trying to say, it seems to me that the greater weight of the .45 trigger would tend to amplify the result of any flaws in technique, although it wouldn't actually cause those errors. With a very light trigger, the flaws in technique woud still be there, although their effects might not be nearly as noticable.

Ed Hall wrote:

Even further, alb wrote:Is there one essential thing to focus on that will accelerate the learning process?

I really think the trigger operation is where you need to place your studies. But, here's my (NSH) suggestion: learn to make a relatively fast, determined and controlled manipulation of the trigger. If you try to make a very slow, careful and critical movement, it will cover up any possible indications of quality that are provided by your sighting system.

Later on, alb wrote:1. Dry-firing against a blank surface allows you to focus on the feel of the trigger and alignment of the sights, but the lack of a reference point deprives you of the feedback necessary to tell you if your trigger operation is disturbing your aim.

The point of the drill is to learn the operation of the trigger as it relates to the gun and includes the anatomy from the elbow down. The aim is something different and can be left until the trigger operation is pure, as indicated by the sighting system. Remember that the trigger operation must be quick enough to expose any imbalances that could be covered up by too slow a trigger manipulation.

Additionally, alb wrote:That kind of concrete mental imagery, I think, has been what is lacking in our discussions so far. We talk about what we are supposed to do, but not about what it it's supposed to feel like, i.e., the feedback component of the shot process.

Actually, there are many places where the mental imagery has been discussed to great lengths to include the addition of all the senses into the rehearsals for the shooting routines. I've added several things myself over the years. I've also changed my thinking on these matters over the recent past. For one thing, I used to think that you should marry a mental rehearsal of the shot unfolding with the actual shot unfolding during the last bit of time (longer than 200ms) prior to the break. I currently believe that to be incorrect, as what you are seeing is in the past and we can't conduct the shot in the past.

Even later, alb wrote:What you say is true. However, without the feedback that a reference point gives, you may end up practicing something that turns into a bad habit. It is possible to use the trigger finger to drag the gun off-target while keeping the sights perfectly aligned. Don't ask me how I know this!

I will not ask how or even to elaborate on this, but it is a new and unimaginable routine for me. If it was not negative in nature, I would ask you to describe it. What I would ask though, is if it is something you could use in the reverse? Can you use your trigger to improve your aim?

I'll try not to get too graphic, since I don't want to inadvertently transmit my problem to somebody else!

What I'm describing is referred to as a 'yip' in golf. In his book, golf coach Hank Haney describes a lot of research and testing that he and others have done in this area using a tool similar to the Scatt to record the putting stroke. What he found was that golfers who yip their putts tend to have the club face a couple of degrees too 'open' at the moment that the club contacts the ball, causing a right-handed golfer to consistently miss to the right. As the golfer brings the club forward, he unconciously tries to correct for this, causing a disruption in his stroke during the last 300 ms before contact.

What I'm looking for is a fundamental flaw in my technique that is analogous to the flaw that Haney described in putting technique. Using Scatt, I can see the same kind of disruption during the last 300 ms, when I'm making that "fast, determined and controlled manipulation of the trigger."

I started shooting BE in May. My scores went from the low 700's in competition to consistently in the 810-to-840 range in less than 2 months with the .22. I just got my .45 a month ago and I'm at about the same point with it that I was when I started with the .22. I suspect that I still have the same flaw in my technique that I had when I started with the .22 (I can still see the acceleration in muzzle speed during the last 300 ms with both the .22 and the .45), but that I've learned to at least partially compensate for it with the .22.

One thing that is different between the .22 and the .45 is how I place my finger on the trigger. Originally, I was placing the middle of the pad of my finger on the trigger with the .22. I switched to using the first joint, specifically so that I could eliminate inconsistencies in movement of the first joint as a source of error. It seems to have helped. Unfortunately, the grips that I currently have on the .45 are too fat to allow me to do this. I'm searching for some thinner grips.

Ed Hall wrote:

Then, alb wrote:Also, a good description of the 'feel' of the technique gives important information about the technique itself. The example I gave about grip is a case in point. Every discussion I've ever read on grip talks about pressing with the fingers straight back against the base of the thumb. But can't recall anywhere in any description that I've ever read where anyone mentioned activating the muscle at the base of the thumb as part of the grip. Perhaps it's a bad idea to grip the pistol that way. But it's something that never occurred to me because it was never mention by Steve's 'old great ones' or anyone else, and I'm going to give it a try.

When I refer to 'feel', I'm thinking about it in a strictly 'biomechanical' sense -- not in a psychological sense. The imagery that I described above is an example of this type of imagery; the example that P. J. O'Connor gives in his "Flowing in the Zone" article isn't.

In order for me to get my scores up to 'master class', I need to improve my mechanics. Think of a shooter as a feedback control mechanism. As the shooter lines up the shot and presses the trigger, he is getting constant feedback from his senses that allow him to make continuous adjustments at an unconcious level: visual, proprioceptive, and lastly auditory. I get visual feedback during the shot from the sight. I know from other shooting sports what a good shot is supposed to 'look' like. I get auditory feedback when I hear the gun go 'bang'. At this point, I know the shot is over. I get proprioceptive feedback from my muscles. But, I don't yet have a good enough idea of what a good pistol shot is supposed to 'feel' like. The kind of imagery that I'm looking for addresses this last issue.

I tried the imagery that I described above yesterday with the .45. There seemed to be an immediate improvement (I haven't yet had the opportunity to try it with Scatt), although it will take a lot more practice before I can do it consistently and unconciously.

Ultimately, the speed with which I can come up to 'master class' is dependent on the extent to which I can eliminate having to discover the correct 'feel' through trial and error alone.

I expect that my yipping problem will go away when I get the mechanics right, since I won't be attempting to correct for bad mechanics in the last 300 ms. At least, I hope so. I don't want to go back to archery. At my age, it's too strenuous!

As for "flowing in the zone," that's a whole different topic.

Regards,

Al B.

alb wrote:

Ed Hall wrote:

alb wrote:In an attempt to further distill the essential difference between shooting and writing poetry, allow me to point out that writing poetry is a creative process -- shooting isn't.

Is not every endeavor of the human spirit creative in nature? Could we not compare the artwork of our targets with some of the "great" canvasses of the past?

No. Sometimes, you're just trying to repeat a complex action over and over again with perfect technique each time. Thinking about shooting a '10' as a creative process doesn't help you to actually do it, especially if you're thinking about this while you're trying to do it!

I've been re-reading Herrigel's "Zen in the Art of Archery". In his view archery is as much an 'art form' as ink drawing or flower arrangement. The 'art' in archery is not the outward accomplishment with the bow and arrow, but the inner accomplishments that must be achieved and that occur each time a Master picks up his bow.
You know, it took Herrigal four years of almost daily instruction by a Master Archer to achieve a state of mind in which he could properly pull a bow string and release the arrow. And only after this did instruction commence on hitting the bullseye!

That is why I agree with an earlier comment that those of us who do not yet shoot 570 regularly in AP, or over 2600 in NRA Bullseye are still in the process of learning to repeat a complex action over and over again with perfect technique. We are not yet ready to simply pick up our pistol and, without further thought, shoot a ten. Or sit down at a typewriter to compose, and simultaneously type out, a five minute speech. I continue to hope that I can achieve that state (on a regular, on demand basis). As for instruction on how to achieve that level which is beyond that of technique - well, Herrigel points out that his Master could only show him the path.

Fred,
An interesting new book by chess/TaiChi prodigy and master is The Art of Learning by Josh Waitzkin. Here he deals with the utter absorption in the process of internalizing learning (insert "anything") so as to execute the fundamentals flawlessly and without thought so that the "art of of excellence and performance can happen. The thinking/mental aspects can only occur at the elite levels when free to not think about the foundation elements. Much to be gleaned from his insight, but we still need to train exhaustively to make the fundamentals natural and beyond cognitive detailing. Good read.

Fred Mannis wrote:I've been re-reading Herrigel's "Zen in the Art of Archery". In his view archery is as much an 'art form' as ink drawing or flower arrangement. The 'art' in archery is not the outward accomplishment with the bow and arrow, but the inner accomplishments that must be achieved and that occur each time a Master picks up his bow.
You know, it took Herrigal four years of almost daily instruction by a Master Archer to achieve a state of mind in which he could properly pull a bow string and release the arrow. And only after this did instruction commence on hitting the bullseye!

Hi, Fred. How are things?

It's been many years since I read Herrigel's book. I don't know that I would disagree with his characterization of the mastery of the achievement of the inner state of zen as an art. However, as I recall, the book really didn't have anything to do with archery at all, other than as a vehicle for achieving that inner state, i.e., as a form of active meditation. And it certainly had nothing to do with competitive archery.

If you want to develop a level of skill such that shooting a 10 over and over again can be done so easily that it requires no thought, you have to start by developing the mechanics necessary to shoot a 10. It simply doesn't take 4 years to get to the point where you can begin to think about doing this. Herrigel was certainly doing something during those 4 years, but he wasn't learning archery.

And if you ever get to the point where you can shoot 10's that easily and consistently, then you can begin to appreciate just how disruptive extraneous thoughts can be. Until you reach that point, it's much easier to stay "in the moment" because you're busy focusing on your fundamentals. You'll get to that point much faster if you switch back to using a dot sight.

Personally, my next goal is to get to the point where I can beat you on a regular basis without a handicap!

Craig, thanks for the book recommendation. It sounds interesting.

Regards,

Al B.

alb wrote: You'll get to that point much faster if you switch back to using a dot sight.

Personally, my next goal is to get to the point where I can beat you on a regular basis without a handicap!

I think I will take your suggestion and use my Pardini/red dot in the 22 league next summer :-)

Fred Mannis wrote:I think I will take your suggestion and use my Pardini/red dot in the 22 league next summer :-)

Bring it on ... by then I'll be ready!

This post seems to have developed a case of diaria of the keyboard. I am going to the range and shoot some tens. Hope to see some of you there. Good Shooting Bill Horton