Greg Poole's formula for forgiveness



# Thread: Greg Poole's formula for forgiveness

1. ## Greg Poole's formula for forgiveness

Mr. Poole, what are the chances that you read this thread and can expound on your findings???? Am I right in assuming the lower the final number, the more forgiving a bow is???? Very interesting stuff sir, I just wish you would have kept rockin' the Hawaiian shirts for the video...

Thank you,
Isaac

2.

3. twice in one day I've heard this name..I am a Has-Been''but thought I've kept up..so I a google and see he is

4.

5. Join Date
Jan 2008
Location
Doinkerville in the Nation of Hoyt
Posts
21,465
Really did not say anything except how to figure your ratio and what has been told on here before. That a short BH bow can be forgiving and a good shooter. Did not say how to apply the ratio and so on. That would have been interesting

6.

7. I found the formula very interesting....I wish he would have elaborated more on what the final #s mean

8. Join Date
Sep 2005
Location
West Virginia
Posts
5,826
Can someone run Levi and Samantha's numbers and figure this out? I have no idea what their DL is versus the A2A of their respective bows are. Or is it just a formula that applies to the bow's power stroke compared to the DL minus the BH?

9. I wonder if he's looking to get the original DL number as close to the final number in the formula as possible. Perhaps the closer these two numbers are, the more forgiving the bow would be for that individual. For example, I ran my Contender Elite with a 27.375" DL and came out with a final number of 27.185" leaving a difference of 0.190", so my numbers are fairly close to canceling each other out. I'm assuming (and I might be wrong) that this bow, while not a 0, would be a pretty forgiving platform for shooting for me overall. If this assumption is correct, the higher the number above my DL on the plus side would indicate too much bow, and conversely, numbers that fall below my DL would indicate bows that would not be as forgiving...

Interestingly, My Ultra Elite with a lower BH and shorter A to A came out with a difference of 0.195"..So the CE might be a smidge more forgiving for me...

Greg, am I on the right track with this???

10. Interesting

11. Originally Posted by montigre
I wonder if he's looking to get the original DL number as close to the final number in the formula as possible. Perhaps the closer these two numbers are, the more forgiving the bow would be for that individual. For example, I ran my Contender Elite with a 27.375" DL and came out with a final number of 27.185" leaving a difference of 0.190", so my numbers are fairly close to canceling each other out. I'm assuming (and I might be wrong) that this bow, while not a 0, would be a pretty forgiving platform for shooting for me overall. If this assumption is correct, the higher the number above my DL on the plus side would indicate too much bow, and conversely, numbers that fall below my DL would indicate bows that would not be as forgiving...

Interestingly, My Ultra Elite with a lower BH and shorter A to A came out with a difference of 0.195"..So the CE might be a smidge more forgiving for me...

Greg, am I on the right track with this???
I thought he said his calculation was like this ATA/(DL-BH)

12. Originally Posted by -bowfreak-
I thought he said his calculation was like this ATA/(DL-BH)
No, I believe he said (DL-BH)/ATA, thus the 0.19" and 0.195" final results I'm getting. The other way does not yield a ratio...

13. Originally Posted by montigre
No, I believe he said (DL-BH)/ATA, thus the 0.19" and 0.195" final results I'm getting. The other way does not yield a ratio...
He said "divided into ATA".....maybe he meant divided by ATA? I agree that what I posted doesn't create a ratio but I was just going off of what he said.

14. Originally Posted by -bowfreak-
He said "divided into ATA".....maybe he meant divided by ATA? I agree that what I posted doesn't create a ratio but I was just going off of what he said.
You're right, he did say that....oops.... Since he was speaking ratios, I automatically made the change.... Hope he reads this and clears all these things up...haha

15. He did say DL - BH divided into AtA. It would be nice to know what value is good for that ratio however. But going off of his example, 32" DL (WOW, wouldn't it be nice to have a power stroke like that?) and a 7.5" BH, 40" AtA bow, his ratio turns out to be 1.63....

16. where is Big GP when you need him?

17. If Levi Morgan has a DL of 30" (according to Google) then his ratio with the Apex 8 is 1.92...

18. Finally! Someone with some respect in the archery community lays waste to the idea that a bow "must be 40+ inch a-to-a with an 8+ inch brace" to be a shooter! I've been saying this since I started seriously into target archery. Being as I have a 26" draw listening to the old school guys explain why a bow had to be "x" inches with a minimum "y" brace made NO sense. People were repeating what they heard without understanding or explaining how they "knew" bows had to have certain specs to be shooters. The explanation that "x and y" is what all the best archers shot or shoot doesn't make it a requirement. I shot my very best spot scores with a 36" a-to-a, 6" brace bow with "hard" cams.

I did quite a bit of research trying to find the basis to some accepted facts about "target" bows back in 2007. I realized right quick that "short brace" bows can't be target bows was purely theoretical largely based on what bows had been winning. At one time it may have been fact that bows generally had to be longer with larger brace heights. It most likely was due to how bows were made, the quality control, limb design and other issues that aren't a problem with modern bow building. Limbs on compound bows have come a long way since 1980!

I think the biggest advantage to a longer a-to-a bow is the balance. The longer bows theoretically may counter the tendency for the archer to cant the bow. But a proper grip, bubble levels and stabilizers will take care of bow cant.

More old school erroneous facts:
- You must use a hinge release to be accurate.
- A target bow must have a big soft valley? That was "fact" for a long time. It's obvious to me that this came from stick bow shooters move to compounds. A nice "valley" is what they needed to feel comfortable with how they shot and the gear they used or rather didn't use. Most likely it also had to do with the design of materials used to build the bow.
- When using back tension nothing moves the release. That is close to ridiculous. You may not think about it but you have to do something so the hinge can pivot. I can pull the bow in half but if I don't change something from drawing the bow the release isn't going to pivot.

********** Any and all that I have said and believe about archery at this time is subject to change without a moments notice. In fact it's very possible I've changed my mind on some things already. I reserve the right to learn more or realize I was wrong and to apply or ignore such knowledge as I deem fit. I may realize I'm wrong about something but continue to argue with you if you act like a jerk and I find it amusing. ************

19. I hope Greg comes on and tells us what ratios he thinks work the best.

Mine is 2.01 with my Supra.

Kent is right about the things that are common wisdom in one era, become wrong in another. New isn't always better, but it often is.

A few years ago, JAVI came up with an optimum string angle of about 44 degrees from vertical. I wonder how Greg's ratio works with JAVI's angle?

Allen

20. Did I miss it. what is the ratio numbers we are lookting for?

21. Good interview Thanks Greg for giving your time.
DB

22. I would also like to hear some further explanation...

23. In for the hopeful explanation

24. Join Date
Feb 2003
Location
tarrytown new york
Posts
6,719
Thank to all the pros for all the great info on archery talk

25. I just message'd with Greg and he said he will reply to this thread when he gets back to his home base Stay tuned!

26. Great info...Thanks

27. I think the ratio is personal. The same ratio doesnt work for everyone.

I would assume that Greg Poole has shot so many bows in so many configurations that he knows what he likes and has figured out what ratio works for him. Just because his ratio might be "x" doesnt mean that your personal bow (that you personally really like) will match his ratio "x".

If he came on here and stated that ratio "x" is perfect for everyone, some people on this site would go try it, not like it, and start bashing him and his findings. Sound familiar?

Its this simple people! No single person on this site has the answer that works for everyone - whether it be bow selection, string selection, release method, form, sights, stabilizers or rests.

28. Basically, he just said an average sized guys needs a 37-39 inch bow with 7-7.5 inches of brace. I already knew that since I'm of average DL.

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•