[RecordKeeper]

On one hand we are told to relax, and replace muscle with bone to bone contact... and then relax some more. Then we are told that many of the top archers train with much higher pounds to build strength?

If archery is mostly technique, why should we need to build all that extra muscle?

I am certain you meant contradiction rather than oxymoron!

But I have wondered this myself as well. Then again, we recurve shooters aren't going to pull (oops, I mean expand) through the clicker using bone alignment!

 

[Leighton]

So that your body is used to pulling back 55# hundreds of times, so that when you shoot 40# a couple hundred times, it will be like a walk in the park and you won't even break a sweat.

 

[Marcus]

Cause your bones don't pull the bow back now do they

The relaxation aspect is getting you to make sure you ONLY use the muscles required to pull the bow back and not tense up others that are not required. The majority of archers, especially recurvers, use far too much arm muscle in their shot routine when they should be using none whatsoever.

 

[Jim C]

Cause your bones don't pull the bow back now do they

The relaxation aspect is getting you to make sure you ONLY use the muscles required to pull the bow back and not tense up others that are not required. The majority of archers, especially recurvers, use far too much arm muscle in their shot routine when they should be using none whatsoever.

I don't know if its possible to completely remove all arm muscle activity from the shot but this is generally accurate. Did you ever hear the story about Pace and the machine that measured muscle activity in the arm?

 

[Marcus]

We do some training with our shooters that removes the arm use totally and isotales the shot process in the traps. Becomes very clear who is doing it and right and who doesn't. After an hour of this training the shooters get far better releases and better back tension use.
The training makes it impossible to draw the bow with your arms. Very neat.

No have not heard about that study, keen to hear more.

 

[Hank]

We do some training with our shooters that removes the arm use totally and isotales the shot process in the traps. Becomes very clear who is doing it and right and who doesn't. After an hour of this training the shooters get far better releases and better back tension use.
The training makes it impossible to draw the bow with your arms. Very neat

I would be keen to hear more about this training

Hank

 

[RecordKeeper]

I don't know if its possible to completely remove all arm muscle activity from the shot but this is generally accurate. Did you ever hear the story about Pace and the machine that measured muscle activity in the arm?

I'd love to hear more about the Pace story!:thumbs_up

 

[EPLC]

I started this thread with hopes to prompt some discussion in this area... cuz this topic can seem very contradictory to many... As for myself, I know I tend to use too much shoulder muscle and not enough back during my shot routine. This is easy to do while shooting a compound and not even notice it. I discovered this about a month or two before coming out here to WA State. I was making some real headway, I had changed my alignment to be closer to a recurve and was really feeling the back working. Then the trip from east coast to west and starting a new job and I didn't shoot for over a month. As a result I lost all of my progress completely... it was like I never learned anything, and because of my schedule I wasn't getting in enough shooting to get back on track.

This is where the recurve came in... and it's working out fairly well. The difference between good back tension and using the shoulders is like night and day. Unlike the compound, I can really feel the difference between a good shot and a bad one. If I replace back tension with shoulder tension I can not hold hardly at all, let alone hit anything. But when I get the proper alignment and use the back to draw and hold things smooth out fairly well (for a newbee). The difference is quite dramatic... and I can "feel" the difference...

 

[EPLC]

I am certain you meant contradiction rather than oxymoron!

But I have wondered this myself as well. Then again, we recurve shooters aren't going to pull (oops, I mean expand) through the clicker using bone alignment!

Admittedly, Oxymoron is a stretch... but not too much of one like build muscles to relax...

NOUN:
pl. ox·y·mo·ra (-môr, -mr) KEY or ox·y·mo·rons
A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist.

 

[Marcus]

I would be keen to hear more about this training

Hank

Sorry can't say more. We have to keep our edge.
Move to Melbourne and join DVA and I'll let you know.


Certainly a contradiction rather than an oxymoron.

 

[EPLC]

Certainly a contradiction rather than an oxymoron.

Oxymoron "is" a contradiction... which (according to Webster) has been used in the broader sense of the term (see below). Perhaps Paradox would have been a better example, for discussions of archery techniques certainly contain many...

OXYMORON
Pronunciation: "äk-sE-'mor-"än
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ox·y·mo·ra /-'mor-&/
Etymology: Late Greek oxymOron, from neuter of oxymOros pointedly foolish, from Greek oxys sharp, keen + mOros foolish
: a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel kindness); broadly : something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements
- ox·y·mo·ron·ic /-m&-'rä-nik, -mo-/ adjective
- ox·y·mo·ron·i·cal·ly /-ni-k(&-)lE/ adverb

PARADOX
Pronunciation: 'par-&-"däks
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin paradoxum, from Greek paradoxon, from neuter of paradoxos contrary to expectation, from para- + dokein to think, seem -- more at DECENT
1 : a tenet contrary to received opinion
2 a: a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true b : a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true c : an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises
3 : one that possesses seemingly contradictory qualities or phases

 

[c3hammer]

One thing is for certain, the shoulders are not supported by any bone structure per se. There are over 20 muscles that control the movement and location of the scapulae about the rib cage. The only bone contact is between the scapula and the clavicle. This is in any case outside the line of force we are talking about, again requiring muscle to do all the work.

Obviously a muscle can be contracted just enough to do it's job. Any further work by that muscle requires counteracting muscles to be contracted simultaneously. This is the contradiction, oxymoron or paradox that we are trying to eliminate when it is said "to relax".

Cheers,
Pete

 

[baldmountain]

If archery is mostly technique, why should we need to build all that extra muscle?

So that muscles are less of a factor in the shot sequence. The technique of recurve archery is to try and remove the effect muscles have on the shot as much as possible.

The top archers train with high weights so that they don't get tired after shooting a full FITA. The first arrow is as clean as the first.

But they also shoot with higher weights. Not because the arrow goes faster, but so the bow snatches the string from their relaxing hand during release faster. This makes for a cleaner release.

 

[EPLC]

Obviously a muscle can be contracted just enough to do it's job. Any further work by that muscle requires counteracting muscles to be contracted simultaneously. This is the contradiction, oxymoron or paradox that we are trying to eliminate when it is said "to relax".

Cheers,
Pete

It is obvious that many muscles can be, and are, used to execute the archery shot, some hurt stability and some help. Improper use of the muscle groups has long been a problem of mine because I didn't learn properly to begin with. I had hoped to, and am finding with the RC, is that proper use/tension of certain back muscles allows for better relaxation of arms/shoulders... and this is a more stable foundation.

Even though I am new to this, I can actually "feel" the difference between the two groups.

 

[Hank]

Marcus -- I belong to the DVA, seriously. The Davenport Valley Archers (the range is in Long Grove, Iowa) We must be your sister club

Since I belong to the DVA, you can PM me the technique

Hank

 

[wmt3rd]

Isn't it obvious why we need all the extra muscle??? We need it to carry all the STUFF that we need to fling a stick to punch a hole is a piece of paper. Geeze guys....

 

[Marcus]

An Oxymoron is when 2 terms are used together but are contradictory things.
Such as
open secret
larger half
clearly confused
act naturally
alone together
Hell's Angels
found missing
liquid gas
civil engineer
deafening silence
seriously funny
living dead
Microsoft Works
military intelligence
jumbo shrimp
Advanced BASIC
tragic comedy
unbiased opinion
virtual reality
definite maybe
original copies
pretty ugly
same difference
plastic glasses
almost exactly
constant variable
even odds
minor crisis
extinct life
genuine imitation
exact estimate
only choice
freezer burn
free love
working holiday
rolling stop

However just because an oxymoron contains a contradiction does not mean all contradictions are oxymorons.


Nice try Hank. :lol:

 

[Leighton]

Except that his dictionary does say that a broader definition of oxymoron includes contradictory phrases or whatnot. But I agree with Marcus in that the proper use of oxymoron is as stated above.

 

[EPLC]

Except that his dictionary does say that a broader definition of oxymoron includes contradictory phrases or whatnot. But I agree with Marcus in that the proper use of oxymoron is as stated above.

Agreed...

broadly : something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements