The physics of torque tuning!

ArcheryFox

Member
I recently read about the concept of torque tuning a compound (as popularised by Jesse Broadwater) and decided to try it myself. The results suggest I need to move my rest forwards (towards the target) because the arrows impact in the opposite way to where my stabiliser points. Sadly I can't move my existing rest any further forwards, but before I rush out and buy a new one I tried to understand why torque tuning works.

I did a lot of googling, and despite many sources telling me 'how' to torque tune, I found none explaining (properly) 'why' it works. I also found some sources (Reo Wilde) that say it doesn't work!
As a result I decided to try myself and did some back of envelope sketches looking at how peep-rest-scope-target positions change as a result of twisting about different points, but couldn't theoretically generate the results one expects from torque tuning.

So my question is, does anyone have a source or in-depth explanation of why torque tuning works to satisfy my curiosity, ideally with a nice diagram?

I know some say that it places the rest over the pivot point, but if you then re-align your peep-sight-target your arrow rest will be off-centre, always in the opposite direction to which your stabiliser was pointing. In my mind the only way you can have zero deviation when torque is applied is when the scope and rest are both on the axis about which you apply the torque, but clearly experiments suggest this is not the case.
I am open to having discussion on this topic to try and satisfy my curiosity.
 


geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
I like discussions about such things. I like to have my own ideas and if they are wrong... I am quickly put right by those who know better. So a win win situation.
I remember the first torque tuning theories I heard were based on the rest on an extension behind the grip and above the wrist joint of the bow arm. Jesse Broadwater had an extension named after him I believe.
I could never understand why the wrist joint was considered to be the pivot point that generated torque. I could see that if I allowed my wrist to bend more or less, I could move the bow grip from side to side, taking the whole riser with it. It also took the limbs side to side at the same time.
To me, that simply looked like moving my bow arm.
Another idea that arrived at my PC at about the same time was that torquing the bow at the grip by having inconsistent hand position, caused the riser to turn at the grip and with it the sight and the limbs/axles. The sight moves one way and the limbs/axles in the other.
I think James Park was involved in working out some of the physics or the maths and did some work on sight extension distances to compensate for the overall movement of the arrow are a result of the hand torque. From what I remember it seemed that 7 inches extension was a pretty good setting to compensate for torque at the grip. I would guess that the 7 inches was similar to the brace height of the bow and therefore the position of the cams in relation to the arrow rest.
When you torque the bow at the grip, the cams move one way and the sight the other. The arrow is on the string at the same anchor point and the rest doesn't move, so the arrow isn't moved off its original position. But the sight moves off the gold and is corrected by the archer.
If, for example, a right hander torques and moves the sight to the left, then the cams move to the right. The bow, viewed from above, is pointing left even though the arrow isn't. The sight moves left and the archer compensates and moves the whole bow to the right. Perhaps the bow facing left and then being moved to the right right (though still facing left) compensate and the arrow lands in the middle.
I am not sure how many archers still use a Jesse bar extension.
 


ArcheryFox

Member
Hhhhmmmmm thanks for the reply Geoff, that gave me something to think about.
Let me go through my thought process:

A well set up bow shot properly (always the main goal) will have peep-cams-rest-arrow-scope-target all on a nice line, and the arrow will hit the centre.

If we torque to the left (tip of stabiliser points to LHS of target) then the scope moves left.
As a result we move the bow hand right to counteract and bring the scope back into alignment with peep-target.
This moves the arrow rest right and so the arrow (fixed at the anchor point) now points rightwards and will miss right, opposite to the direction we torque the bow.

I couldn't get my head around why the arrow would every fly the same way as the torque, but I had been assuming that the string would move directly forwards from the anchor point. Your comment about the position of the cams/axles got me thinking however...
After release the string will want to track back onto the cams.
The effect of this will be to try and push the arrow in the direction the bow is pointing.
This will result in a miss in the direction it has been torqued.

So now there are two competing effects: the angle of the torque that the bow wants to push the arrow, and the angle the arrow is pointing at anchor due to the rest moving as the sight is re-aligned.
Torque tuning allows us to find a sweet spot where the two balance out.

What confuses me now is the process described for finding the sweet spot (miss in direction of torque, bring rest back).
It would appear to me that there are too many variables to know which direction will improve things and it is more trial and error.
I think I'll take a break from thinking, and return with fresh eyes later on.
 


geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
This moves the arrow rest right and so the arrow (fixed at the anchor point) now points rightwards and will miss right, opposite to the direction we torque the bow.
I think you matched what I was thinking, but at the point where the sight is moved back to the gold, and the arrow moves in that direction too, it might be wrong to assume the arrow will miss to the right.
Although it is pointing to the right, where it will land is still going to be determined by what happens at high speed during the power stroke.
I am not going to try and predict what that might be. I feel there are too many things going on that we never really see or get our heads around.
If the arrow rest is moved forwards relative to the bow grip, if torque is to the left, the arrow rest will move a little left too. That will be a little further left than having the rest above the bow grip. If the rest had been fitted on Jesse bar, the arrow rest would have moved to the right when the bow was torqued. I can't imagine everything that goes on, but my guess is that the rest position front to back could move the arrow position enough to compensate to some degree for the torque.
One problem with trying to do this in our heads is that we could tend to imagine the bow stays still( torqued the same amount) during the power stroke. I don't think it will as the reaction to the power stroke is powerful. A laser pointer would show up the original torque as it would point off line compared to the sight no matter where the sight was pointing. It would certainly react to the power stroke,too. If the riser tried to recover from the torque, the laser dot would flick across to the right.
 


ArcheryFox

Member
Although it is pointing to the right, where it will land is still going to be determined by what happens at high speed during the power stroke.
I am not going to try and predict what that might be. I feel there are too many things going on that we never really see or get our heads around.
Yes, I think we are on the same page - this is what I was trying to say in the second half about the string trying to track back onto the cams and shoot in the direction the bow is pointing. :D

I agree that it is a complicated process and we can't really separate into two distinct competing processes as I have tried to do above - though the thought experiment was useful to me - we can only try and find the sweet spot by trial and error.
The one bit I still don't fully understand, therefore, is how we get the rule of "impact opposite; move rest forward", but I can see how changing just one variable (rest position) will give this behaviour, so I guess I can perhaps settle for that (for now).
It would be nice to get some slow-mo video like recurvers have for pressure buttons to show the effects of different positions under torque, but that would be a lot of effort when we already have the empirical evidence of how to tune.
I did come across this video showing torqued arrow flight, and it looks VERY messy, though the arrow is clearly planing as it leaves the bow - my discussions so far have concerned where the arrow points rather than considering planing.
I think once we add planing into the mix this becomes too complicated to figure out on the back of an envelope as you say!

At present my rest is as far forwards as it will go, but results suggest it needs to go further still, so I might keep my eye out for a second hand freakshow or similar. This is interesting as it used to be all the rage to run a massive overdraw to get the sweet spot (hence Jesse's long freakshow rest extension), but I actually need a rest close to the berger hole! My guess is that it is very dependant upon the bow - indeed in the recent interview with BJM Jesse now runs the rest up near the berger hole on his Mathews to find the sweet spot.
I know sight extension also plays a part, so perhaps I should try bringing my sight closer in and see if I can get a better result - this would not be a permanent fix though since I have a nice peep-sight picture and system for field.
 


geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
The longer the sight extension; the further the sight moves in relation to the target when torquing the bow. If all other things are the same, the arrow will impact further to the right for RH archer. So if the archer torques the bow so the sight moves left, it will move further left on a longer extension. If the previous setting gave arrows to the left, the longer sight extension would tend to bring them back to the right a little.
The one bit I still don't fully understand, therefore, is how we get the rule of "impact opposite; move rest forward", b
I think that rule probably applies to the arrow rests that are well behind the throat of the grip. It would mean the archer had over done the cancelling effect of the overdraw.
Not torquing the bow is probably far easier than trying to compensate for it. If the setting of the arrow rest, back or forwards can reduce the effects, it numbs the archer into thinking all is well. If you can see your longrod when at full draw, you can see if the bow is being torqued and learn to hold the bow so you cancel the problem.
 


ArcheryFox

Member
Not torquing the bow is probably far easier than trying to compensate for it.
:ROFLMAO:
Amen to that.
I fully subscribe to 'shoot properly rather than fiddle all day', but being bored at the moment with not much to prepare for I read about this and decided to give it a go. I then got thinking which is a dangerous habit!

The other thing that occurs to me is that the way we enforce excessive 'torque' in the tuning process is very different to how it would occur naturally as we fatigue or get nervous which raises questions on the validity of the result - especially as behaviour during the power stroke is clearly important.

Overall I think I will conclude that the bow/arrow behaviour under torque is a complicated process, and the process of tuning for it has a bit of the black arts thrown in!
Thank you for the thought-provoking discussion though - it provided some entertainment during these times.
 


geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
I think all ideas like this one are worth exploring.
There was a time when all release aids had index finger triggers and light pressure.
I only changed mine because I ended up with target panic and the way out was to make my new shot process very different from the TP one.
Starting something very different helps prevent the old habits coming back.
It's like learning to do triple jump after you have had years doing long jump... you need to get a different routine or you end up jumping first and missing out the hop and step. heehee
So, if you like a discussion, how about no travel triggers v long travel triggers?
 


ArcheryFox

Member
At the danger of verging off topic - though hopefully not an issue since there are only two of us here anyway...

I am a 'settle and execute' archer rather than a 'rip the axles out the bow' archer :p so I have the trigger set reeeeasonably light with low travel.
I found that if I have it too heavy I end up distorting my form at full draw and shaking, and the shot won't go.
Of course, if you're putting a lot of pressure on the wall you want a heavier trigger with more travel to stop it going bang as soon as you touch it.

Specifically with regards to travel I will admit to only shooting compound for a couple of years and not really having tried a lot of travel on the release - low seems to work for me, and if it ain't broke...
Though perhaps it can be my next lockdown experiment after torque tuning. ;)

With regard to target panic, I have recently been having issues under pressure where the subconscious act of bringing my thumb to rest on the trigger once I anchored would be accelerated to the point where I would be smacking it without reaching the stops or aiming. To try and combat this I changed my shot cycle to try and reach the stops, settle in, be ready to start executing and have the sight near the gold before I then consciously bring the thumb onto the trigger once I feel the shot is 'set up and good to go'. My hope is that breaking the subconscious step that was accelerated under pressure will help. Sadly it looks like it'll be a while before I can test the theory in a competition.
 


geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
My TP lasted over ten years and it was evident on every shot I made. I was self taught in compound, as were most of us in those early days.
I believe, that because the compound can be held at full draw for so long compared to other bows, they should come with a warning..... Beware of over aiming.
I overcame my first TP a few years ago, but in getting through that, I was left with a residual problem.
My First TP showed itself as triggering the shot before the sight reached the gold. It would move from blue into read and off it would go.
It was described as "impatience with the trigger". That was a pretty accurate description as the trigger went off without ever waiting for me to settle. The feeling was like looking over the high diving board and someone giving me a push. Not enough to send me over, but enough to react backwards with heart in mouth.
I now find I can aim for a long time but the longer I aim the more uneasy I feel. Currently, I am working on being able to trigger the shot as a surprise. I have been working on this for about 7 years.
It is clear to me that trying to dig myself out of this mess will not work because the guy in charge of what I try next, is the guy who has been getting it wrong for nearly 20 years by now.
However, looking back is no help so looking forward I need a set of goals to reach.
I want my shot sequence to be in the correct order. It is easy to get the order wrong... as I think you have already discovered.
I need to slow down. Time seems to drag when I slow down. I do most things at high speed so slower seems like loitering to me.
I need to be on the gold sooner in the sequence otherwise I can be ready to go and the sight is still in the red.... back to the old TP again.
When I am ready to execute the shot, I need to know that what I think I am doing is actually happening. This is the point of deciding what type of release aid set up to use.
 


ArcheryFox

Member
Interesting, thanks for sharing the thoughts.

Personally I have an odd case in that I can execute the most beautiful shots in training or on a blank boss, but it's pressure situations that bring it up. What you describe with the diving board fight or flight rush is what I get when in competition and pressuring myself. It first appeared at 30m in a 1440 when I knew I was on track for my first MB score. I got it under control that evening and was fine for the rest of the summer. However, there was then a large resurgence indoors (shooting is more intense) in local competitions (I felt I had a reputation and pressured myself to win). I have been battling over this indoor season and have taken the time during the pandemic to try and reset with an enforced break from competition.

After a lot of blank boss work building up a good shot routine that feels solid I have moved back to paper where I found my routine slows down (more than expected for adding in aiming), so I am now working on trying to keep pulling/expanding through during the aiming process so things speed up and I don't feel like I get stuck and the form I have built up from the blank boss begins to collapse.
This sounds similar to the overaiming you describe.

Fortunately I came across from recurve with reeeeasonable technique, so didn't develop too many 'typical' compound faults, but in retrospect getting stuck at the clicker in competition was a problem I also had there.

I have been finding it useful to think about the conscious-subconcious control and transition in working on these things.
e.g. adding a conscious step to place the thumb on the trigger as I knew this was the breakdown point in my routine, or consciously thinking of expanding through the shot to remove my attention from overaiming.
It can be tricky though, the process of floating the thumb to the trigger as I anchor is deeply engrained in the subconscious and sometimes creeps back when I'm working on something else. Onwards and upwards anyway!

This also reminds me of interesting revelation I once had on the right amount of pressure (whilst we are on the topic of interesting things). When I designed target lists for events I would always put myself on a target with people I knew I could beat as I thought this would be good for my motivation. What I have since realised is that this can lead to me taking my foot off the gas however, and when with similar people a bit of healthy competition can make me perform better, as long as there isn't too much (see above). Finding the sweet spot is tricky, and very personal.
 


geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
What I learned when I came through my first TP was that I could concentrate better because I had to concentrate so hard on the replacement form I was trying to develop. I could do my routine in any situation because my new routine( though flawed, was so important to me. After over ten years of suffering on every shot, I used my new routine after 5 weeks in our club end of season indoor shoot. A Portsmouth, so 60 arrows. I did one dud sighter and one dud in the round. I had an average score but was delighted that things held up.
Over aiming is one of my pet subjects. It isn't the length of time spent on the aiming; it is the way it steals the concentration away from what is really more important.Sometimes we are unable to resist its "pull".
Running alongside this over aiming bug is another of my pet subjects "timing". It is too easy to get in a rut and feel that shots are finishing too soon or too late. There may be cases of top archers finishing shots in the same amount of time shot after shot. But they do about 20 times more work than we do. I am trying hard to be flexible in what to accept as a good length of time. TOO SOON is clearly going off before we are ready.
TOO LATE is less clear; apart from the feeling that things are starting to shake even more and the eyes start to blurr.
Blank boss has its uses but for aiming, it offers no practice. A good half way from blank boss to target face is to use a dot that is quite a bit larger than the sight ring appears to be when at full draw.. So a black square perhaps, on a blank boss and aim anywhere on the square so the sight is full of black. The size of the square allows some shakes but does not draw attention like going outside the ten right does. So, if the sight ring is full of black ignore the front and get on with finishing the shot.
I know the dangers of the thumb reaching the trigger without my knowing and then off it goes without my permission. Either that or I press like mad and it has suddenly stiffened itself without using any Allen key.
My latest work on that has been to move the trigger peg. It feels almost as strange as shooting left handed, but it does get me concentrating on the task in hand. My current trigger peg is way back into the place where the thumb meets the knuckle of the index finger.
The thought process is to draw and get to anchor. The thumb drops to the usual place but meets my curled index finger. It is gently resting on the peg as well, but requires a real effort to press it, with the finger in the way. SO no danger of triggering too soon. The real interesting part starts when I get to finishing the shot with the draw elbow moving round further into line. That creates a tendency to pull on the handle with the outer three fingers as the index finger is on the thumb. So, in my head, I don't press the peg into the hand or into the release body. I rotate the whole handle in towards the peg. You can see how this works if you stand the release aid on its edge with the index finger cut out resting on the table and the thumb peg resting on the table as well. The whole body of the release aid is standing up with the little finger piece uppermost and furthest from the table. Rotate the handle towards the table and the table presses the thumb trigger for you.
It is much the same action as a hinge release. The handle rotates round in the direction of the elbow moving into line.
If the mind thinks that is what is happening, that is what gets done. If you press your thumb and index finger together, you can choose how that feels. Pressing the finger or pressing with the thumb is your choice. When a thumb trigger gets messy sometimes a complete change works well. I don't mean change the release aid just change what you think you are doing to get it to release the string. Pulling with the fingers is already happening; nothing extra to think about if you use them to activate the trigger.
 


KidCurry

Well-known member
... I would always put myself on a target with people I knew I could beat as I thought this would be good for my motivation.
If you want to improve you want to shoot with the best of the best, in practice and on the tournament field.
 


ArcheryFox

Member
If you want to improve you want to shoot with the best of the best, in practice and on the tournament field.
Oh, I agree; my first ever field competition I was fortunate to be on with a national level barebow and recurver - I learnt so much.

Certainly there is a lot to be learnt from observing the best in competition.
What I was referring to more is the ideal immediate pressure level for each individual - some will perform best under zero pressure (the situation I was attempting to create) whilst others produce their best performances under extreme pressure and competition. And sometimes people need an intermediate level of pressure; not so much as to crumble, but enough to keep them focussed and prevent them 'taking the foot off the gas'. I personally fall into the latter category, and had been experiencing issues with excess pressure (as Geoff and I had been discussing above), but it took me some time to realise the right amount of pressure is better than none at all.
 


ArcheryFox

Member
Over aiming is one of my pet subjects. It isn't the length of time spent on the aiming; it is the way it steals the concentration away from what is really more important.Sometimes we are unable to resist its "pull".
I think you have it bang on.
What I have been trying recently is to anchor, align bubble and centre peep, place my thumb on the barrel, and at then put most of my conscious effort into expanding through to a clean execution.
I can make sure the sight stays pointing correctly, but the hopefully become less distracted by any float and don't get stuck from forgetting to execute

Running alongside this over aiming bug is another of my pet subjects "timing". It is too easy to get in a rut and feel that shots are finishing too soon or too late.
TOO LATE is less clear; apart from the feeling that things are starting to shake even more and the eyes start to blurr.
Agreed - I am perfectly happy to have some variation in shot timing, especially if it helps ensure a surprise (for sake of a better word) release.
This is sometimes necessary if moving between different lighting conditions etc.
However, knowing where to draw the line between 'this is taking too long' and coming down too often can be a tricky one.

My current trigger peg is way back into the place where the thumb meets the knuckle of the index finger.
The thumb drops to the usual place but meets my curled index finger.
It is gently resting on the peg as well, but requires a real effort to press it, with the finger in the way...
An interesting idea. Sounds very far back for my personal liking, but I do know people who try and touch thumb and index finger (even if only lightly) to get another reference and consistent position on the barrel.

The mechanism for activating the release sounds similar to that which is often employed with a hinge.
On a related note - I tried a hinge when the punching got bad, but found this method of 'change' did not particularly help as the psychological take over needing to fire asap would just lead to me radidly rotating the wrist at the same point I punch the trigger.

The only 'immediate' solution I can take mid-round is to use a resistance activated release.
This leads to a really strange series of events whereby my subconscious tries to 'punch' leading to a jerk off target, but then nothing happens, the moment passes, and I can re-aim and pull through. :ROFLMAO:
This isn't a long term fix though as I can't shoot the resistance as well as a trigger or hinge, as it doesn't suit my style. It is merely a 'bandaid' to finish the round and break the immediate habit.
 


geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
What you have said in that last post is the story of my last five years in archery; trying to get the release aid to work.
The biggest problem, I have with learning to use a release aid properly; is me.
My biggest problem with me is not understanding the process properly. I think I have got it understood and working, then it breaks down.
I see some of the best archers in the world, suffering the same issues. But they go pear shaped once a month and I do it most shots.
I have been shooting about 6 dozen every day since lock down. I tend to do two dozen in a session and repeat every couple of hours.
I have used resistance activated and I can't seem to judge the tension required to activate them. Some go too soon others are causing the heart rate to climb along with the blood pressure. It is almost certainly my fault; but I have never been able to find out what fault it is or how to improve it.
I have tried a hinge; They can go off at half draw and fly high and go far!!! Too far . But, despite the frights I have had, I also find the activation is so sweet and so simple that I have recently bought one with a safety to reduce the dangers of early releases.
The long travel of the hinge means you know it is on the way to activating. That is very reassuring. With a thumb trigger I can feel as if I am doing the same thing as last time, but nothing happens. The thumb peg way back in the hand does mimic a hinge type and is easier to get right, I find.
Underneath all that talk about getting the release to go off; is the gold wanting my attention. I am going to try aiming at a disc just bigger than the view through my aperture, so I can see the sight is inside the disc; instead of a small gold inside the sight.
 


ArcheryFox

Member
I have used resistance activated and I can't seem to judge the tension required to activate them. Some go too soon others are causing the heart rate to climb along with the blood pressure.
I totally get you here.
As someone who likes to be more 'relaxed' at full draw and then pull through, I struggle with timing on a resistance.
The people I know who really like them are those who tend to be 'ripping the bow apart' at full draw, so I think it is very dependant on your style of shooting - this is not disparaging those with that technique, I have seen them shoot fantastically well; it's just not for me.
As I say, I only ever use it to break the punching habit, but my shooting is never as good as I am pulling harder than I'd like.
As for technique and why it won't work, see below for my comment regarding maintaining a strong push/resistance in the bow arm.

I have tried a hinge [...] I also find the activation is so sweet and so simple. [...] I have recently bought one with a safety to reduce the dangers of early releases
Yeah, the hinge I have used is the sweet spot pro which has a safety.
The first time I shot it was amazing, it was as if I couldn't go wrong and every shot went off perfectly.
Perhaps this was me concentrating on the release and being less concerned with aiming however...🤔
Sadly it didn't quite last, and I still find my trigger nicest to shoot.

Underneath all that talk about getting the release to go off; is the gold wanting my attention. I am going to try aiming at a disc just bigger than the view through my aperture, so I can see the sight is inside the disc; instead of a small gold inside the sight.
Yeah...
I quite like this idea and might give it a go myself this week to see what happens.
I often find I can get good shots when aiming at a tiny dot. It's when the gold is much larger than the spot/fibre to the point that it becomes difficult to centre that I become more aware of the floating and get hung up. Shooting a large gold at close range might be a way to help this.

My biggest problem with me is not understanding the process properly. I think I have got it understood and working, then it breaks down.
One approach I have heard is to view each style of release aid as training a specific part of release technique.
The resistance helps you maintain the expanding through the shot, and requires you to have a balanced push and pull to execute properly - the 'push' or 'resistance' in the bow side is often neglected.
The hinge promotes proper movement and rotation to the rear with the shoulder blade drawing in and down, the elbow coming back and down, and the release rotating to slip off the sears.
The trigger is the most reliable and controllable (as long as you don't exert excess control... 😉). I think there was something else it was beneficial for, but I don't recall right now.


As a final disclaimer, one of my big bugbears is the use of words to describe how things feel in archery.
Just because I describe something feeling like my 'shoulder blade coming down', it doesn't mean that when you try and move according to this phrase you will get the same movement.
This caused me no end of trouble when I started shooting because what I thought of as 'squeezing the shoulderblades' did not give the same motion that those who coined this phrase imagined.
What really needs to happen is for people to experiment and be watched/manipulated into the correct position, and then when they are making the right movements they should be told so, and then settle on their own phrase that best describes what it feels like to them!
Apologies for the tangential rant, but this is something I feel is underappreciated/considered when there is so much coaching advice taken from books/videos/online forums, and always needs bearing in mind. Perhaps I should start a thread just to discuss opinions/thoughts on this point...
 


geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Tangential rant is more than welcome! We tend to end up discussing what we really want to discuss. No bad thing, right?
In almost every thread I have joined, there will be tangential ranting. In a large percentage, it is more interesting than the OP.
So often it leads us into openings we never knew existed... great!!
I like your comments about words not travelling to others with the same meanings as we put into them. I frequently say something and follow that with, " or in other words,....." That gives me two chances of something getting across properly.heehee.
How about, " Children make tasty snacks.?" Is that cannibalism?
So, sort of back to an earlier topic. Current release aid thinking seems to be about a surprise release. No matter white style of release it is considered to be the surprise that we want!! But, it seems, from looking further back in time, that the surprise is not really the primary objective. It is a means of preventing an anticipated release. So, in a way I could say there are two main release options; an anticipated one; and one that is free from anticipation. That holds true for recurve and trad bows, barebow styles and sighted styles.
 


ArcheryFox

Member
So, sort of back to an earlier topic. Current release aid thinking seems to be about a surprise release. [...] But, it seems, from looking further back in time, that the surprise is not really the primary objective. It is a means of preventing an anticipated release. So, in a way I could say there are two main release options; an anticipated one; and one that is free from anticipation.
You say back to an earlier topic, but I think this is a good example of what words mean when said vs. how they are interpreted by others!
Indeed, if the release went off mid-draw that would be a 'surprise', but if we are pulling and pulling at anchor trying to force the shot to break for ages one might argue that, when it eventually does go, this is not really a 'surprise'!

I like your description of it as 'unanticipated' rather than a 'surprise'.
I think I'll be using this in future, thank you.

In my opinion you want the release to trigger with a somewhat (see above discussions) consistent timing and minimal effort.
This indicates a consistent technique and repeatable action central to the sport.
The 'surprise' comes from the fact that it goes off without me having to think about making it go off or actively concentrating on it.

Naturally, this all goes out the window on those damn 30 degree uphill bunnies at my local field course! :ROFLMAO:

And yes, I think the same is true of finger releases where the action of the release is a subconscious response to being prepared and on target, expanding, or a clicker going off (don't @ me!!). The smooth release with relaxed fingers that the string 'passes through' and nice follow through won't come from anticipating and actively opening the fingers. Though a disclaimer I shoot a compound a lot better than a recurve, and both better than barebow (longbow I'm yet to try properly)!
 


geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Thanks for that reply. Helpful to have more than just my own ideas running round my head.
I agree with your comments about what the release should be like. What I am getting at is that "surprise" is becoming a word to use and like any overworked word, it loses its meaning as it gets passed on by some who had it passed on to them via a chain of perhaps twenty different people. The Chinese whispers at work; except in this case the words remain true to the original but the meaning can be lost.
I am reminded of the way "archers' paradox" is used these days. Those two words have remained since the days it was first introduced.( can't remember by whom)
But many today use the words to mean the bending of the arrow that we don't see. They are connected, yet not the same.
"Surprise" when put in front of "release", describes the feeling very well indeed, when you first use a resistance activated release. The same can be said when releasing your first ever arrow shot with a mechanical release that was not anticipated. As we get used to the feeling, the surprise seems to disappear. The archer shows no signs of a surprise; yet the first time they usually have a very strong reaction and shout about it,too!!
Then they hold their chest and wonder when their heart will return to normal. "Phew! that was scary!"
 


Top