This article is by a weight lifting coach (aka strength and conditioning coach), an activity which is comparable to archery because we do reps of applying forces to moving objects, too. It is also important because our performances vary from day to day and there are differences between males and females regarding this level of consistency. Give it a read, if you are so inclined, and tell me what you think.
This is a BowJunky video that shows the apertures of top compound archers while shooting during competition. Whether you coach compound or recurve primarily, this is well worth watching.
Even top flight compound people show aperture movement while aiming. Do realize that compound bows are easier to hold steady than recurve bows due to their greater mass. [ More mass means more inertia, which equates to harder to move.” The simplest example is how much harder it is to move a boulder than a pebble. They are both made of rock and their size is not an issue … their mass is the issue.] Conclusion: recurve apertures move, too … probably more so than compound apertures.
You are steady when the movement is minimal, not when it stops. What “minimal” is must be learned … and improved upon if possible.
Through imagery provided by global satellites (in this case Google Earth) mysterious stone structures have been identified in a Saudi Arabia desert (see aerial photo). The purposes of these structures has been speculated upon but no definitive explanation has been produced. They may be as much as 9000 years old.
Clearly, the “old men” of the area were archers who shot off of the point. This “magic” allowed them to bring down much game, allowing them to survive and imbuing the magic with reverence. Of course, the silly scientists didn’t bother to ask a nearby archer if they recognized the images so made.
I follow a blog called “Exercises for Injuries” by injury treatment guru Rick Kaselj of Canada. You’ll have to find his blog yourself as I couldn’t find a handy link to it. (I bought one of his shoulder injury products and that’s how I got on his list.) I tend to trust this source because he supplies sources for the studies he mentions and the ones I have checked have checked out. Also, be warned that his web-based ads are of the ilk of those irritating ads that go on and on and on and just when you think it is done, you get “But wait, there’s more.” I assume this kind of marketing works because so many people use it; I just find it tedious in the extreme.
Here is an excerpt form a recent blog post that has very interesting information regarding tendonitis which I believe applies to archers. I suffered from “Tennis Elbow” and a shoulder “inflammation” problem, both of which may not have involved an inflammation at all, which would explain why the treatments didn’t work (including cortisone injection).
* * *
Here they are three surprising things you need to know about Tennis Elbow:
Many doctors and physical therapists still recommend icing and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for Tennis Elbow, in spite of the fact that the medical community has agreed that Tennis Elbow is not caused by inflammation.
This quote comes from a paper in the British Medical Journal: “Tendonitis such as that of the Achilles, lateral elbow [Tennis Elbow], and rotator cuff tendons is a common presentation to family practitioners and various medical specialists. Most currently practicing general practitioners were taught, and many still believe, that patients who present with overuse tendonitis have a largely inflammatory condition and will benefit from anti-inflammatory medication. Unfortunately, this dogma is deeply entrenched. Ten of 11 readily available sports medicine texts specifically recommend non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for treating painful conditions like Achilles and patellar tendonitis despite the lack of a biological rationale or clinical evidence for this approach.”
There was also a study conducted in 2006. It was a controlled clinical pilot trial to determine whether icing decreases pain and helps to heal Tennis Elbow. The study had two groups of people with Tennis Elbow. The control group did exercises only. The test group did the same exercises and iced. Both groups showed the same amount of improvement, showing that icing provided no real benefit for Tennis Elbow.
Many people (and health professionals) don’t realize it, but weak shoulder and scapular muscles can be a significant contributing factor to Tennis Elbow, because the elbows and wrists must be recruited to handle the more taxing, repetitive movements the shoulder and scapular muscles should be handling, but aren’t able to.
When we strengthen our shoulder and scapular muscles, it takes a lot of the load off of the elbows and wrists, thereby decreasing the strain and stress on them, which is what causes Tennis Elbow.
#3 Eccentric Contraction Exercises
There was a study done in 2005 that found that long-term, 71% of people using eccentric had completely recovered from Tennis Elbow as compared to only 39% that didn’t do eccentric and did only stretching (Martinez-Silvestrini 2005).
An eccentric contraction is when a muscle is lengthening while it is moving with resistance. Eccentric contractions produce collagen to help strengthen the muscles and tendons near your elbow, and this is what helps to heal your Tennis Elbow and prevent it from occurring again in the future.
I have mentioned a number of times that I think the “Three Pillars” of consistent accuracy in archery are two relaxed hands combined with good full-draw body positioning. I go a question regarding how relaxed the string hand should be (for finger releases).
Here’s the question:
I was recently reading your post (video review) about the importance of a relaxed draw hand. I’ve read elsewhere a suggestion that one can check this by *gently* touching the thumb and pinky together as a means of assuring the hand stays flat and relaxed (think Boy Scout sign). Can you think of any reason why touching thumb and pinky during the draw and anchor might be a bad idea?
Thanks in advance!
And here’s my answer:
* * *
As to the draw/string hand, we teach the “three-fingers under” string grip to beginners using … the Boy/Girl Scout salute! Touching the little finger nail with the pad of the thumb, puts both little finger and thumb into exact correct positions. We ask them to: make the salute, curl their fingers, then slide the curl up under the arrow (always touching the arrow … for safety, we also suggest a “deep hook” without getting too detailed, aka “stay off of your fingertips”). When they reach anchor, they are told to “drop” those fingers, that is relax them. This solves the problem of where to put the thumb on the string hand. It actually has to be slightly tucked under the jaw, so there is a minimal amount of muscle tension associated with putting it there. The three finger salute puts them in the proper position from which their subsequent relaxation gets them where we want them to be with regard to being relaxed. Getting the thumb out of the way is necessary to make a tight anchor, which is one that allows the archer to see the arrow point/sight aperture looking along the inside edge of the bowstring.
So, sounds as if you are good to go!
PS Do write in if you have follow-up questions. Don’t count on me being perfectly clear all of the time (or even some of the time!).
We get letters ♫ … I got an email recently regarding apertures from a compound archer. Some interesting points were raised. Here it is:
I’m working on a steadier hold. I switched to a dot from my aperture because the new (kinda) 80 cm target for compound @ 50m didn’t work with the aperture I’d been using for the 122cm target. That aperture also worked perfect in my garage at 28 feet as well as 18 m indoors. The dot seemed to be the same size at all distances. I was doing holding drills this week and tried both the dot and empty aperture, then noticed something interesting. When using the dot, it wanders out of the gold and you don’t want to take a shot when it does that but when using the aperture you always have some yellow in the circle made by the aperture even when the dot would be out. It’s an illusion, somewhat, you’re always in the yellow while you’re “out” with the dot even though it’s really the same position you’re holding on.
Here’s my response.
* * *
You were perceiving what is called relative steadiness. A bigger dot seems to move less than a smaller one (possibly because the extent of the motion is a fraction of the diameter of the larger dot, rather than a multiple of the diameter of the smaller one). Same is true for larger rings/apertures v. smaller rings/apertures. If you are using a central dot in your aperture, you want to have the dot be small enough it does completely cover the gold, nor does it leave the gold often. This is why I prefer a larger ring decal on my scope lens apertures. The gold floats inside of the ring and provides the information my brain needs to see that it is “centered” in that ring.
Imagine a dot so big it covers the gold. (Some have used old sight pins with beads glued on the tip to create such a thing for indoors compound archery.) In this situation one feels the urge to move it off to see if the gold is actually behind the dot. If you are in a situation like that, due to the distance to the target, it is better to “see” the dot as being inside, say, the blue ring, and looking to have it centered in that ring because the gold is not helping. On a target like the NFAA Hunter targets, you are SOL as there is only the small central dot on the face and no outer rings to help as with the parti-colored target faces.
Small dots make you feel more jittery, larger ones less so, but larger rings/apertures include the ability to see what is behind the aperture while keeping the sense of stillness.
We are never perfectly still. The fact that out hearts beat continuously, and each beat changes the location of our center of mass slightly, which means we can never be perfectly still. So apertures, scope lenses, dots will always be seen to be moving. Small objects moving a distance equal to their own size appear to be moving a lot. A large object moving the same distance appears to be moving very little. The empty ring aperture (recurve) and the ring decal applied to scope lenses (compound) provide the best of both.
Again, these are my opinions, my analyses. There ain’t no gospel here. If you are someone which an elevated innate sense of calmness, you made need no extra help like this. I am not one of those people and was born jittery, so I needed all of the help I could find. Steve
You may know I use golf coaching and golf training literature as templates for their archery equivalents. Golf and archery, field archery especially, have many commonalities. And the world of archery is far behind golf in its coaching literature and supports.
One of the coaching commonalities seems to be that we have dissected our motions into tiny little bits and then exposed those bits to the wrong audience. Dissecting an archery shot into tiny bits for analysis is perfectly suitable, in fact desirable, for coaches. It is a source of misery and confusion for archers. We can see this most clearly in golf.
I just saw an advertisement for a book entitled “The Release: Golf’s Moment of Truth” by Jim Hardy. In a golf swing the “release” refers to the practice of releasing the wrist cock created by the golfer on the back swing. At address a golfer’s club shaft is aligned with his/her arms. When the club is swung back overhead, the wrists “cock” the club so the club head is farther back than the golfer’s hands. Once the downswing has begun, the club head lags behind the golfer’s hands, substantially, and golfer’s are taught to preserve this “lag” until the last possible moment, because when this “lag” is released, a great whipping action is created, delivering more force to the golf ball, causing it to fly farther (if struck correctly). This releasing of the “lag” is called, most sensibly, “the release.”
All of this occurs in a small fraction of a second, of course, so this information is of no use to a golfer—coaches yes, golfers no. The authors have apparently created a system described by the acronyms LOP and RIT to help golfers break this tiny moment in time into even smaller units. LOP stands for “Left arm, Outward, Pull” while RIT stands for “Right arm, Inward, Throw” apparently a recipe for a good release of the lag in a swing.
All of this information may be good information for coaches, but in a golfer’s mind, they can only lead to confusion.
We do the same in archery. I have found USA Archery National Coach Kisik Lee’s two books fascinating (and am eagerly awaiting the promised third book on coaching) … but I never recommend them to archers. Why? They contain too much information they can do nothing about. I cringe when I hear archer’s talking about LAN2, scapulae, 60:40 weight distributions, and the distribution of finger pressures on the string. An archer is looking for subconscious competence. When he/she is shooting, there are no conscious thoughts attached to making the actual shot. They are consciously aware of shooting, but they are not thinking about shooting, certainly they cannot be thinking about the details of making the shot. That leads to “paralysis by analysis.” This term was invented around 1956 (I think) but shows up in works going back to Aesop’s fables. In general it refers to overthinking a problem.
A coaches job is to take concrete knowledge (and even hunches) and turn them into actionable things archers can do. Archers then judge those actions by how they feel and how they affect their results. Supplying the background information is usually a mistake. (Some archers, typical those described as being Type As, want their coaches to demonstrate this knowledge, but usually just to check to make sure the coach knows whereof he/she speaks, not because they need that information.)
In golf there are golfers tying themselves in knots trying to increase their smash factors, change their launch trajectories, decrease or increase their spin rates, and create more lag and a better release. If the golfer is a professional, literally steeped in golf for a living, this might be helpful. For an amateur, this is the road to paralysis by analysis. Same is true in archery.
I just wrote a piece with the possibly too cute title of “To Get Control Over Your Shot, You Have to Give Up Control, While Remaining in Control.” The point of the piece was all archers go through a phase in which they attempt to force the bow to shoot well. They grip their bows fiercely, they concentrate fiercely, and they distort their bodies trying to look down the arrow shaft to aim better, for example.
All archers need to learn that the idea of physically controlling their bow to get the outcome they desire is a road to poor performances. What is needed is physical control of ourselves, not the bow per se. We are trying to create a situation by which our actions can create a successful shot. The bow cannot draw itself and the arrow cannot select a true path to the target. These are things we must do and must control. What we must forgo is trying to control the outcome of the shot. You have to give up some control of your shot. Striving for complete physical control always interferes with the bow doing what we ask of it.
The attempt to hold the bow in the exact position needed always fails because, as I said in the piece I am working on “The bow and arrow are physical objects, made of quality materials and proper dimensions and organization. They will act the same way under the same conditions . . . if . . . if they are not interfered with. Holding onto the bow through the power stroke and arrow launch is a source of interference, simply because we are incapable to doing something twice in the exact same way, let alone many dozens of times in fairly quick succession.”
We need to learn to cradle the bow, not squeeze it, so that when the string is loosed, the bow acts as if it were merely hanging in space by itself. You have to give up some control over the bow (limiting yourself to drawing it, positioning it, and loosing the string) but you have to “remain in control” of your mind.
The main point of the article is that to be consistently accurate you need to shift those attempts at excessive control of the bow over into controlling your mind.
If you allow your subconscious actions with the bow to vary away from your normal shot sequence, aka your “plan to shoot shots,” you will be defeating yourself. Mentally, you have to require your subconscious self to stick to “the plan.” This is why we must be “present” and “aware” consciously while shooting, but not really thinking anything. We are watching, ready to blow the letdown whistle if any deviations to “the plan” are spotted. If you fail to monitor your shots and exert complete mental control over, well, yourself, as soon as you experience any disappointment, your subconscious mind will change the plan to make things “better.” Rather than make up something on the spot, it is more likely to pull something off of the shelf that had been practiced up “before.” If you have ever had an old “bad habit” pop up on you during a competition, now you know where it came from. (They never go away, they are merely sent to the bench.) Any deviation to your current “plan” is highly likely to be counterproductive as it hasn’t been practice or practice recently, not has it been vetted as something that works well for you.
Does this make any sense to you? If it does, does it affect how you teach your students?
I am once again plodding where angels fear to tread. The last time I reviewed some videos, I got flamed … oh, well, nothing ventured, nothing gained.
My main point in all of these “reviews” is to encourage you to view all archery videos (and magazine articles, and books, including my own) critically and not just accept them at face value. The videos I address here are from the Archery Winchester site (ArcheryWinchester.com) which I recommend to you highly because they take a science-based approach and use a lot of high speed and stop motion video in their explanations. I do not, however, find their videos to be perfect.
The Archer’s Hook
In this video, they cover a lot about a recurve archer’s finger hook. I will comment about one misstatement and one omission in this otherwise good presentation.
The misstatement, or at least what I hope was a misstatement, concerns the position of the bowstring on the fingers. The statement made was that the string needed to be “as far out on the fingers as possible.” The picture accompanying this statement is for some strange reason using a slack bowstring, with the string lying on the pads of the top and bottom fingers so how far out is “far out” is debatable. Maybe it is the phrase “as possible” as needing definition.
My recommendation is the more load there is on a finger, the less on a finger tip it should be. To show you what I mean, pick up a strung recurve and place the bowstring on the pads of all three drawing fingers. Pull slightly on the bow string and you will find that the back of your string hand will become arched and tense. This is because of a lack of leverage. The fingers have to be held in this awkward position because if they relaxed, the string would slide off of the pads. And if the entire hand is going to be tense, well tense is synonymous with “slow” and the fingers will not be easily pushed away by the bowstring when you want to loose … and action-reaction, the bowstring will be forced farther out of the plane we want it to be in and we get a highly variable loose. This is called a “tip hook” and it has been tried and rejected. (It is likely the cause of the early retirement from competition by one of the most famous archers in the western tradition, Horace A. Ford, through severe tendonitis.)
The best hook involves being able to relax the string hand completely (relaxed fingers are quick fingers). The muscles making the finger hook are in the upper forearm, so they do not make the hand tense per se.
With regard to the angle of the string on the fingers, that is determined by two things and neither involves fingers. One is the height of the draw elbow. The “ideal” height (according to biomechanics) is the one that has the string forearm in line with the center of pressure of the bow hand on the bow. This line is called the “primary force line” (PFL) and to pull exactly on the line requires either the forearm to be on that line or several other forces to be involved, created by muscles we really do not want tensed. But, for some reason, quite a number of archers have elbow up above that line. Moving the elbow up away from the PFL turns the fingers so the third finger is harder and harder to engage and the first finger is pressing down on the arrow. If the elbow is lower that that line (a worse sin according to many), the top finger is pulled off of the string and the middle finger is pressed up against arrow.
The other factor is the rotation of the hand along the PFL. Classic archery technique recommended the back of the hand be flat (indicating the hand is relaxed … it gets pulled flat) and that it be perpendicular with the ground. This means that the fingers are square (sideways) to the string. This position, however, is very close to the edge of our range of motion, so is stressful to maintain. USA Archery’s national Coach Kisik Lee recommends that the hand be rotated … slightly! … to relieve this stress. The net effect, though, is that the string is no longer square to the fingers and must be on a slant to the fingers with the string out on the finger pad of the bottom (third) finger and the top finger wrapped more around the string.
Since everything … and I do mean everything … in archery is a compromise, this one may make sense. You buy a little comfort in the rotation of the hand about the string forearm (which equates to relaxation) and you give a little with regard to optimal placement of the fingers on the string. have your archers try both positions to see which they prefer.
Archery Form -06- Release and Follow Through
In this video which seems a bit inconsistent to my eye (the same releases seem to be being used as examples of a good release and a bad release) is good but fails to mention an important aspect of this discussion.
In target archery, our goal is consistent accuracy. The equipment can be set to be accurate (sights, set up, tuning, etc.) so the archer is responsible for the consistency as the equipment doesn’t vary (unless something breaks or loosens). This means we are fighting “Bell curves” in space and time. A Bell curve is a Gaussian distribution with is a natural distribution of many things in nature. For the repeated shots of an archer, this manifests itself in target hole patterns. Most of the arrow holes are closer to the center and fewer are encountered as one moves away. This distribution shows up in all of our body positions. If we were to photograph our draw elbow from away for a long series of shots and then superimpose them, would you expect all of the photos to overlap perfectly? No, you would not. (The phrase is “we are not robots.”) Most of the elbow photos would be clustered around an “average” position, and the few that differ from that position differ very little, the more difference from the average, the less likely is that to occur.
In order for us to be consistent, those photos need to be tightly group together.
The Bell curves are in space, like the photos show, and also in time. If we take a stopwatch to the shots, you will see that some shots go off more quickly than others and some more slowly. We are trying to make these Bell curves in time less spread out like we want the Bell curves in space less spread out. we want to repeat our process as exactly as possible because that is what produces the best results.
This has consequences for our form.
For example, when a shot is made we are taught to keep our bow arms in position until the shot ends. (I say “The shot’s not over until the bow takes a bow.”) The arrow leaves the bow in under 20 milliseconds (that’s 2/100 of a second) so it seems unlikely it will have any effect on our shots if we do no not keep our bow arms up. Letting your bow arm drop upon release is a form flaw called “dropping your bow arm” and it will result in low arrows. The reason? Well, when your bow arm drops “immediately” upon release, “immediately” is actually a Bell curve distribution of when the bow begins to drop. Since there is no exact signal for when this is supposed to happen, it can happen quite early, so early that the arrow is still on the bowstring and letting the bow fall is taking the arrow with it, resulting in low shots.
So, we keep our bow arms “up” through the followthrough (see the poster below).
What this video doesn’t suggest and could have that archers need to keep their string arms “up” through the followthrough also. If we do that the range of motion, the funky motion that is an archery shot, is constrained so that the string hand can get back no farther than the ear. if the draw elbow is dropped, the range of motion becomes quite large and the number of possible movements also becomes quite large and subject to the archer’s desires (this is where fake followthroughs, like touching your shoulder at the end of the shot, come from).
Confusing something that just happens with something you are to do always creates problems for archers. If both arms are kept “up” until the bow takes a bow, everything else happens as a consequence of the forces in play at the loose of the string. This leads to a major benefit to the archer! If the forces on the bow are consistent from shot to shot, the movement of the bow during the followthrough will also be consistent (as it is behaving as a simple, mechanical object). Your followthrough thus becomes a consistency meter. If your followthrough is consistent, you are being consistent. if you had a weird followthrough, you did something different on that shot and you need to look into it.
Elite archers deliberately do things weird in their shots, trying to “help” an arrow into the ten that was on the edge of a nine when the clicker clicked, for example. So, you will see bows pushed out to the left or right, creating weird followthroughs. I haven’t seen any evidence that these attempts to “help” an arrow score better actually work, but I have talked with compound archers who say they do it often and it works for them. (Compound bows, being substantially more massive than recurve bows are a different beast. Since they are more massive, compound bows can be pushed harder and will move less, so more control is available.)
I think the conclusion as to whether this is helpful is still out, so I do not recommend this to any of my students.
A Strong Bow Arm is a Must
Note the position of the cuff of Ms. Han’s bow arm sleeve
as she progresses through her shot.
I got a very interesting question regarding shooting Recurve Barebow. I believe the rather large number of questions coming in on this style this reflects a basic paucity of information on Barebow in books and whatnot and while we are working on that, there are a few DVD sources worth exploring if you are interested, namely: “Modern Traditional” (highly recommended) and the “Masters of the Barebow” series (I have not seen all of these but the ones I have were informative).
In this more traditional style a decision must be made regarding when to loose the string as neither a mechanical release aid or clicker is employed. (If you didn’t know, the clicker was invented as a cure for target panic, not as I thought originally, as a draw stop.)
Here’s the question:
I hope this email finds you well! Here are some lines on what happened over the last weeks trying to apply various aiming techniques in order to improve my shooting.
I was of the opinion, that moving from instinctive shooting to applying some aiming technique will cure one annoying thing that I experienced in competitive shooting situations: loosing the arrow at the moment, erroneously feeling it must be the right time for release, but, at the same time, knowing it is not the right time, and thus not being able to simply finish the meanwhile frozen in movement and consequently … loose the arrow and … miss. It feels like a yes/no short circuit.
In order to improve my form and try the various ways of aiming off of the point, I just got a pair of 24# limbs and matching arrows. It is amazing how well such a light bow spits arrows! The danger of being overbowed is thus ruled out. However, I now have to admit and accept, I have this target panic thing. I feel insecure and pretty much like stopping to compete this winter and work on this yes/no short circuit to finally end up in an unfettered yes-mode.
And here is my answer:
* * *
Using a light weight bow is a good idea most times, especially when exploring new form elements, but in this case it may be misleading. When you aim off of the point, you must decide when to loose. When you are shooting a stout bow, there is considerable pressure to loose the string because the holding weight is so high. When you drop down, you feel like you can hold a long time … which makes the decision to loose more obvious to your mind and can exasperate your problem.
The “now … not now” problem has been experienced by many, many archers (including me). Here is something that can help. When you are making a shot, if everything is done right … and your arrow point is on your point of aim (POA), there is a sign you can use to signal, like a clicker clicking, that it is “time to loose the string.”
Take your 24# bow and with your target at home and do this experiment: get to full draw position in good form and observe the steadiness of the arrow point. Go a good long time and then let down. What most people see is that when they first get to their anchor point and “on point,” that is on their POA, the arrow point oscillates, then after 0.5 second to 1.5 seconds the arrow point oscillates less, then as time drags on, the oscillations get larger and larger (due to muscle strain). If you see this pattern (I think it is “normal”) then there is a natural way to build in a signal to loose the string. In any case, it is good to familiarize yourself with “holding your aim”! Too many archers feel like they can only hold on point for 0.000012 seconds and so must loose immediately when they “have it.”
If you see that pattern (it is there for sight shooters, too), the reduction in oscillation of the arrow point is a signal that you have become still and stillness is a requirement for accuracy. Stillness is never perfect but there is a decrease from the initial level of movement of the arrow point (or aperture) and a tiny bit later. That change in oscillation of the arrow point can be used as the signal that it is time to loose. You must see it and believe it (that it is a sign of stillness) to break the “now … not now” problem. The “now … not now” problem exists because there is no criterion for when to shoot, for what constitutes “now”. Your mind is debating over whether the current situation constitutes an acceptable time to loose, when you have given it no way to determine if that is true, hence the uncertainty fueling the “… not now”. If this makes any sense to you, it is worth trying, no?
* * *
There was a follow-up to this exchange. Here that is:
“The “now … not now” thing occurs usually at some point between anchoring and finalising expansion into full back tension. The motion freezes in, I cannot continue the expansion phase to the end and prematurely release. The motion simply stops in between, when I get the feel: stop, release now, it is fine! I can hold the bow in this frozen position. There is no twitching the shot. However, the arrow will leave the bow with different power compared to when everything is finalised properly. The funny thing is, that sometimes I really shoot tight groups that way and that burns as a success pattern into the neurons.
“I think, I tend to freeze the motion just when I subconsciously get the impression the right shooting symmetry is achieved to loose the arrow regardless of the level of back-tension. That is the case in tournaments. Maybe, it is not enough confidence in my back tension that augments in stressy situations and explains my 10% score difference. Well, that is why I seek remedy in applying some aiming off of something technique.”
And here is my response:
* * *
Re “The “now … not now” thing occurs usually at some point between anchoring and finalizing expansion into full back tension.” There is a tendency when archers are exploring new ways of shooting to talk oneself through the new steps. I hope you are not doing this as it detracts from what your conscious mind is supposed to be doing (watching, not giving orders).
“Finalizing full back tension” is a vague sort of feeling in one’s back and doesn’t form a good indicator of where one is in the cycle. Our subconscious minds are better than our conscious minds in making this assessment, but it is not a clean indicator of when to shoot. I suggest that you not worry about the state of your back tension as you work through this. Instead, once you get comfortable using the damping of the arrow point and loosing upon that signal, get someone to stand behind you to check your alignment at the point of loose (and that your elbow continues in it’s arc for a couple of inches (max) after loose). If both of those are good, you are good to go.
Re: “bringing it right up near the gold” When aiming off of the point, the best position for the point is to have the top of the arrow touch the bottom of the central scoring ring (or the central ring color) … precisely (not using a sight is not a license for sloppiness). This makes a “figure 8” to picture in your mind’s eye. There should be no conscious thoughts going on during this process. If there is, that is part of the problem. So, the arrow “touches” the gold and you are in good full-draw position and when the point (you have to be looking at the point anyway) settles to minimum movement, then that is the time to loose. We don’t have a clicker clicking to signal it is time to loose, so we use this more subtle technique. Again, none of this is occurring while there are conscious thoughts. If you hear things in your head … you are not in your right mind! (If I am allowed bad puns while discussing serious topics.)
Having these exact positions and exact movements provides exact “go-no go” signals to our subconscious minds. Vagueness encourages mental debates (… it’s good, no, it’s not … now it’s good! … argh!) that result in confusion and poor shots and can lead to target panic down that road.
Of course, none of this is 100% scientific knowledge. You are getting just my best estimate as to what is going on.