Push, Pull, Expand

Barry C

New member
What do GNAS coaches teach? The Pull, the Push or Expansion? After reading through Total Archery last year and the Heretic Archer this year it seems an important part of the shot sequence but I never hear even a whisper or words similar from GNAS coaches, so it got me thinking what the current gnas coaching philosophy is based upon.
 


Last edited:

grantwomack

New member
I'm not sure that there is a cut and dry "GNAS standard" for this. I've met coaches who know nothing about back tension (back pressure) and suggest "pulling" until you go through the clicker. Pulling isn't the right word for it though. You really push towards the centre of your back with your drawing arm.
The way I was taught was to have a strong and stable front arm, continue holding towards the target (not actively moving the arm forward, just keeping the pressure there) and initiate back pressure with your other arm.
So I wouldn't see it as only one of the above three, sort of a combination of them all.
 


JohnK

Well-known member
Just an observation - most of the coaches (badged and otherwise) that I've met talk about "getting it on the back", "continuous pull", etc. without any appreciation for the fact that if the shoulders aren't aligned properly (i.e. in a line with the bowarm pointing to the right of the target for a right handed archer) it's a pointless exercise.
 


geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
My personal description is OPEN, like opening a book(viewed from above)
I mime it and explain it. The reasoning behind it is to get both arms working as a matched pair. I know one is folded etc. but for those who have a stunted follow through, it gets across the idea that both arms are going to help draw the bow. It also helps to get the follow through, felt in both arms.
I've seen so many bow arms do nothing at the follow through stage, or worse, collapse. Opening is something familiar to us all. It matches the action of the arms and it matches the way we open books. Very few books can be successfully opened using one hand.
 


JohnK

Well-known member
joetapley said:
???
Crossed wires somewhere.
No, although I could have explained more clearly :). You should be able to draw a straight line from the rear shoulder through the bow shoulder and down the bow arm. This line should point to the right of the target (from the archer's perspective) for a right handed archer. It's illustrated very well in Total Archery.
 


joetapley

New member
Substitute scapulae for shoulders and drop the reference to the bow arm :)

Shoulders and bow arm should line up with the target.
 


Rik

Supporter
Supporter
joetapley said:
Substitute scapulae for shoulders and drop the reference to the bow arm :)

Shoulders and bow arm should line up with the target.
I think John's referring to the fact that the string and your arm can't occupy the same space... so the eye/sight/string line points at the target, while the shoulder/arm line is offset from it. It took me a moment to twig... :)
 


moo-mop

New member
Barry, for the brief period when I was coached by one of the respected GNAS coaches, he recommended what the world would describe as pull. Of course it was a little more complicated than that and impossble to describe.
So you want a more professional thought on "pull" I direct you to the book: Archery Shot Execution - Larry Skinner, Jim Noble.
Always good to get different points of view from the usual suspects.
 


joetapley

New member
I think John's referring to the fact that the string and your arm can't occupy the same space... so the eye/sight/string line points at the target, while the shoulder/arm line is offset from it. It took me a moment to twig...
That's getting into deep water - I would be more inclined to go for the bow arm pointing at the target with the eye-sight line marginally left of centre. (string picture to bow side of sight pin) Very small angles whichever.

I think John is refering to the draw arm scapula moving back and the bow arm scapula going forward resulting in line through the "back" of the scapulae pointing to the right of the target (RH archer) while the shoulders and bow arm point at the target.
 


JohnK

Well-known member
No, I mean that a line drawn through the bow arm starting at the rear shoulder (or scapula, but both seem to work on most examples I've seen) should point to the right of the target (for a R/H archer).

Of course, the archer will look down and see their bow hand directly below the target, but as Rik says, the string and arm cannot occupy the same spot.
 


pwiles1968

New member
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
Finished my course recently and I was taught to Pull, the importance of arm position, alignment, back tension, grip, release etc was stressed, the coach would watch us shoot and point out if we were going wrong this was initially on a bare boss and with a bare bow so all we should be thinking about was form. The bow arm should be straight but not locked, it was explained to me that if I held my arm at my side relaxed then just raised it to the target as if shooting this is the correct elbow position.

She still watches me shoot and will occasionally point out if she thinks I need to concentrate on a certain area.
 


Last edited:

joetapley

New member
as Rik says, the string and arm cannot occupy the same spot.
OK I accept that is technically an argument :).

Forget the previous rubbish. Apologies all. This is quite complicated as there are parallel movements as well as angular ones. A lot depends on the archers physique. Yup I'd agree with John that the bow arm is angled wrt the plane of the bow - how much is highly variable I think.
 


Last edited:

Barry C

New member
Now we have a korean head coach does anybody think the gnas "general" theory will move closer to a Korean style akin to KS Lee?
 


geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
The draw force line is used frequently to describe the position of the two hands and the drawing elbow at full draw. Viewed from above it will be about the same line as the arrow. Viewed from the front of the archer, that DFL will be tilted down slightly compared to the arrow. The arrow is pointing to the gold or above, so the bow arm must be pointing to the right of the gold.
The push and the pull are equal whatever you "think" you are doing. The harder you pull on the string, the harder you must push into the bow. What really matters, I think, is the understanding in the archer. If the archer thinks the bow arm has to keep still to hold the sight, then it will keep reasonably still, but usually well into the follow through too. Sometimes, thinking "push" can give the archer the impression that the drawing hand is not working so hard and a dead loose can be the result. I ask my students to come up with something( expand, open, wider) that gets the feeling of both working all the time and into the follow through.
 


joetapley

New member
Now we have a korean head coach does anybody think the gnas "general" theory will move closer to a Korean style
I doubt we'll get the UK squad running up and down Ben Nevis carrying a rucksack full of bricks :).

Suk is ex Italian coach so maybe more towards the "Italian" style :).
 


JohnK

Well-known member
Barry C said:
Now we have a korean head coach does anybody think the gnas "general" theory will move closer to a Korean style akin to KS Lee?
I hope so. He has to fight against 150 years of fossilisation, ahem, sorry, tradition. ;)
 


GeoffT

Active member
Ironman
JohnK said:
I hope so. He has to fight against 150 years of fossilisation, ahem, sorry, tradition. ;)
Careful John...you'll get drummed out of GNAS if you start telling the truth
 


Rik

Supporter
Supporter
geoffretired said:
...
The push and the pull are equal whatever you "think" you are doing. The harder you pull on the string, the harder you must push into the bow.
Yes, that's obviously true (otherwise your bow would be moving forwards or backwards at full draw!). I think the words are a little deceptive though. The difference between "pushing" and "pulling" in this context is where the movement occurs to get you through the clicker. That is to say; "pullers" move the back half, off a static front. "Pushers" move the front, off a static back half. Or that's the perception, at least.
Interesting point: if compounders think in terms of push/pull, it can't be to get through a clicker, can't even be to do with movement, if they pull against the stops... Do more compounders consider themselves "pullers", I wonder...?
geoffretired said:
What really matters, I think, is the understanding in the archer. If the archer thinks the bow arm has to keep still to hold the sight, then it will keep reasonably still, but usually well into the follow through too. Sometimes, thinking "push" can give the archer the impression that the drawing hand is not working so hard and a dead loose can be the result. I ask my students to come up with something( expand, open, wider) that gets the feeling of both working all the time and into the follow through.
I'd agree there. It doesn't really matter how the archer thinks about what they are doing, it's the result that counts. If thinking "GOLD!" or "push" or "pull" or "float" or "pink flower fairies"(!) helps them get it right, then that's the right way for them to think about it. So why do some people think about pushing, and others about pulling (or something else entirely)? I think it's just a tag they hang on their form, to help them identify it. Of course, choosing a tag whose associations conflict with what you're trying to achieve, might interfere with the process... I wouldn't recommend someone to focus their attention by thinking: "miss"... :devil:
 


geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
I like your thinking,Rik. Good to bounce ideas around and clarify what WE really mean etc.
As a compound shooter, I do "open" myself against the stops. There is very little movement because of those stops, but the important thing for me is to keep working. If I rest, there will be a soft shot sometime, and a collapsed one soon.
 


Top