Scapula Notation

[kgk]

I posted this on another board too, but find the question so interesting that I wish to ask my brothers in AUS.

I'm really thinking about a recurve:

Pretend that the target is to the left of this page, and we'll look at the scapula motion AT THE MOMENT that the clicker fires.

If "." means "fixed," and "<" means "goes to the left," and ">" means "goes to the right," then I can draw pictures like this (where the pair of characters represents the left and right scapula, respectively):

.. a dead release (no good)
.< front arm is fixed, rear elbow swings around CW ("puller?")
.> front arm is fixed, rear elbow pulls away (lats & serratus?)
<. reaching for target, rear is fixed ("pusher?")
<< reaching for target, rear elbow swings around CW (classical?)
<> Kyudo? (Stretch out torso.)
>. garbage?!
>< classical "back tension"?
>> garbage?!

So what do I want my scapulas to be doing while the shot breaks?

kgk

[MerlinApexDylan]

J A Morin explains the shot being on a piece of paper. Or a flat plain. If you bend the piece of paper it's going to cause rotation in the shot. Rotation is moving away from the plain or path of the arrow, so it will affect the arrow in a manner that is not conducive to it's natural path.

If everything is kept on that single piece of paper and you stretch that piece of paper hard on both sides, there is no rotation and more power following the path of the arrow. So sight settings change due to higher groups.

Does that make any sense?

[kgk]

Hello Dylan,

Then I think that you're saying that they go <>, i.e., both scapulas are moving away from each other at the moment where the clicker fires?

I thing that most rotation of elbows involves the scapulas moving in, i.e., looks like ><.

So is this the right sequence?

At a moment in the middle of the draw: ><

(as the elbows are rotating in the horizontal plane to draw the bow).

At the moment when you're set up on the clicker: ..

(as your elbows stop their rotation).

At the moment when the clicker goes off: <>

(as your elbows are moving away from each other).

Is this right?

kgk

[Marcus]

Watching Mr Lee's explanation of it, my understanding is that the right scapula moves underneith the left on release. The left scapula should barely move because you should have a solid shooting platform and not be pushing with the left arm.

[James Park]

Interesting question.
I think we need to think about just what forces are on the archer's body prior to release. Then, assuming that the muscular forces remain as they were prior to release we can look to see what should happen following release.
This assumes that (for a compounder) we have a surprise operation of the release device, or (for a recurver) that following the operation of the clicker the only muscles that relax are those holding the string - which is correct technique. That is: the followthrough should correctly reflect the forces on the archer prior to release.
The following diagram shows the location of the archers bones and joints (in this case for me - a picture from "Mastering Compound Bows" in fact).
For kgk's question, the interesting aspect is the shoulder joint areas. Note, in particular, that the connection between the upper arm bones is through the front of the archer's body, not through the back. The Humerus connects to the Scapula, the Scapula to the Clavicle, and the Clavicle to the Sternum. The Spine only comes into play as the anchoring point for the large back muscles connecting to the Scapula and Humerus.
http://www.dva.asn.au/images/images/Bonestructure.JPG
For the string arm shoulder: The draw force of the bow pulling on the archer's string arm want to pull the string hand towards the bow. To hold it back, we need the large back muscles to pull the Scapula towards the Spine. Hence, following release, those muscles should still be pulling, and the Scapula move towards the Spine. In kgk's notation this would be "<".
For the bowarm shoulder: The draw force of the bow is pushing the archer's bowarm back towards the archer's body. Because of the angle between the Humerus and the Clavicle, this is trying to push the Humerus-Scapula joint out away from the arrow. Hence, at full draw the archer must use muscular force to hold that joint in place. This is primarily obtained from the muscles connecting the Humerus to the Scapula. Note that one advantage of getting your left shoulder in close to the arrow is that by doing so we reduce the required muscular forces in this area. Hence, following release, the Humerus-Scapula joint should move a little in towards the arrow. Hence, in kgk's notation this would be "."
Hence, I think it is ".<".

kgk,
I think this is superb coaching stuff, and fundamental to understanding how we ensure an archer has the correct technique. It needs to be soundly based on mechanics and anatomical structure, and with that in place we can be quite confident that we are promoting good technique. Hence, these things are of key importance.

[James Park]

my understanding is that the right scapula moves underneath the left on release.
That would of course imply that the left Clavicle was not firmly down on top of the ribs or that the archer had a bend in his Spine! Interesting point of debate.

[Marcus]

Sorry here is what I mean
http://www.dva.asn.au/images/images/scapula.gif

They don't overlap, but the right scapula sits lower that the left which helps get your back shoulder down. Because they are not sitting even you don't get the build up of muscle between the blades that often prevents an archer from drawing back further than their anchor point.
That is why the AIS guys start their draw low and move up their face.
My understanding on this is not the greatest, and may have no gearing on this discussion.
I would agree it is ".<" movement.

[James Park]

the right scapula sits lower that the left which helps get your back shoulder down.
Yes, that is what I understood you meant. It definitely implies that either the left Clavicle is not fully down on the ribs or that the spine is bent. No other way you can do it when you look at the bone structure.
The key point to note is that (given a straight Spine, when viewed fron the back) the height of the Scapula directly relates to the height of the shoulder joint (the Humerus connects directly to the Scapula). Hence, if the Scapula is up then the shoulder joint is up.
Similarly, if the Scapula is down then the shoulder is down, but it can only go down until the Clavicle bumps into the ribs. So, if the right Scapula lower than the left, it very definitely means that the left shoulder joint is "up" and the Clavicle not down on the ribs (presuming the Spine is straight).

[andy]

When an archer is at full draw and holding the weight on there back you can see a dark patch (shadow) under their scapula (has to be without a shirt on). When you release the string the shadow should move towards the bow arm. If you lose back tension the shadow will just dissapear.

Well that's what I was shown/told at Lilleshall National Sports Centre in England by an ex Olympic coach.

[The One]

As good as the new AIS shooting form must be, I ain't trying it cos it looks so painful and constipated :lol: ! But I suppose the theory is still there! I agree with Marcus - for a right-handed shooter, you don't need much motion for the left scapula so it should remain quite solid. The right scapula, however, should be sliding round towards the other scapula (or under it as per the AIS technique) ever so slightly.

[kgk]

Vittorio seems to indicate that it's not .<, per

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43441&highlight=vittorio

I didn't fully understand his quote at the time, but I think that he's saying that one goes (?) >< (draw) to .. (setup on clicker) to <> (move through the clicker). Here is what he said:


In the Italian Federation level 3 Coach courses, the lesson about how to manage the clicker and how to teach to manage it takes around 2 hours, plus some introductorial movie. So, can't be summarized in one post.
Anyhow, Michele Frangilli is definitely a pusher because his BOW moves forward to get the cliker to clik, while the arrow point remains steady. But, of course, the string arm and shoulder increases its work while the the bow shoulder is moving forward, othervise he should .... fall in the dirction of the arrow
In the modern way of explaining it, the bow shoulder and the draw shoulder are compressed to the vertebral coloum and then the cenetr of the back is expanded to get the clicker clicking. It means that the bow shoulder moves forward, while the other moves backword, both motions without altering the relative position of the sight (in the gold) and the anchor point (on the face) as well of the relative head alignement.
To have the cliker cliking, you need a motion of someting less than a mm from the bow, the arrow or both. And something in your back should take care of it.
With small variations, the majority of the top korean men shooters as well as of the women are shooting like this. Movement of the bow is not pereciveble as the distance from the clicker at the end is close to a pure fraction of millimiter, only.
Michele's tecnique was partially originated by the observation of the one of Allan Rasor in 1990. Allan then stopped to use it, while Michele just started to develop it properly since then.
One additional thing to comment, is that you don't need such a big force to do it, just a proper training. I have boys and girls of any age in my club shooting (with good results) like that way.

[James Park]

The notation needs another symbol: "*" for "not talking about that one", so that we can talk about just one shoulder as in "*<".
I can understand "<*", which is basically straightening out the left Humerus-Scapula alignment which will lengthen the draw to operate the clicker .
However, "*>" does not seem to me to be correct as it is allowing the right Humerus-Scapula joint to rotate counterclockwise (as seen from above) and shortening the draw.
Hence: happy with ".*" or "<*", and with "*<", but not happy with ">*" and "*>".
Hence, no problem with either "<<" or ".<".

To deal with vertical position of the Scapula (as noted in Marcus' post), we could use "_" for fully down, and "^" for up. Then, you could have "<^,<_" for example to describe the alignment drawn by Marcus.

[MerlinApexDylan]

Yes, and this would make me go out of my mind. I would much rather Mr Lee or Park Hyung Rae to help me understand the biomechanics. Even you James. But not the notation.. LOL

[Marcus]

Spent some time watching DVA's developing recurve team last night (we had 4 women recurvers all shooting last night) and the method used to the best success by the archers was certainly

*_<_

In other words low shoulders with only right scapula moving. I am taking a step back on this and waiting for more information before coming up with a steadfast conclusion on the best scapula method. I am suspecting that what the AIS is trying to do is fix a common problem of archers using the high trapazoid (Is that right?) muscles when they should be using low. Dropping both shoulders down as Jim suggests should do this as well and get better bone alignment.

Having played with the pushing method it's not one I would put a lot of faith in. Little like shooting with a bent arm compound. Can work very well, however when things go wrong it goes very bad.

[kgk]

Spent some time watching DVA's developing recurve team last night (we had 4 women recurvers all shooting last night) and the method used to the best success by the archers was certainly

*_<_

In other words low shoulders with only right scapula moving.

Was this what was happening at the moment that the clicker went off?

I'm wondering if there are two distinct motions in the shot, i.e., (1) setting up the clicker, (2) going through the clicker.

It might be the case that (1) == (2), but I'm not so sure.

The other thing worthy of note is that if somebody sets up with 2mm on the clicker, and it takes 2 seconds to go through the clicker, the motion is so slow---at 1mm/s---that one can hardly see it without instruments.

kgk

[kgk]

Yes, and this would make me go out of my mind. I would much rather Mr Lee or Park Hyung Rae to help me understand the biomechanics. Even you James. But not the notation.. LOL

There is a reason everybody in the physical sciences, mathematics and engineering love good notation: It becomes possible to talk about things very compactly. Also manipulating notation can lead one to asking questions that turn out to be very interesting....

Always a slave to good notation,

kgk

[recurve boy]

I am suspecting that what the AIS is trying to do is fix a common problem of archers using the high trapazoid (Is that right?) muscles when they should be using low.

From my understanding, a lower right scapula is what happens when you are drawing correctly. I.E. its not a fix for a problem. Mr Lee showed us a whole bunch of pictures of Korean archers with that scapula alignment.

[kgk]

[quote=Marcus]From my understanding, a lower right scapula is what happens when you are drawing correctly. I.E. its not a fix for a problem. Mr Lee showed us a whole bunch of pictures of Korean archers with that scapula alignment.

So why isn't the front scapula down all the way? (So it has room to push the bow forward?)

Is the lowered rear scapula moving at all?

So is going through the clicker really "< _." to use Jim's notation, where the string scapula is down/locked, and the bow scapula is a bit higher so it still has room to go down as it pushes the bow out?

kgk

[James Park]

I am strongly of the opinion that if the bowarm Scapula is higher than the string arm Scapula then either:
- the bowarm shoulder joint is not down as low as it could be (which is contrary to what has been regarded as good technique for many years); or
- the archer is leaning away from the target (spine tilted from the vertical)
There is simply no other way you can get the Scapulas into that position.
Note that I am not saying that what they are wanting is wrong, just noting the anatomical implications. So: which is it? And why do it (whichever it is)?

[kgk]

I am strongly of the opinion that if the bowarm Scapula is higher than the string arm Scapula then either:
- the bowarm shoulder joint is not down as low as it could be (which is contrary to what has been regarded as good technique for many years);

I have been experimenting with pushing, and I have concluded that I cannot really do so if the bow scapula is pulled down hard... in fact, it is the process of "pulling it down" that also "pushes it out," from what I can tell, at least to first order, from my experiments.

So it could be that the string scapula is down/locked and not moving, while the bow scapula has to be up a little bit just so it can be driven forward, to go that 2mm through the clicker? Perhaps the start of the clicker motion is "< _." and the end of the shot is "._ _."?

Anyway, you ask some excellent questions in this most interesting area.

kgk

[James Park]

kgk,
Just an historical (or hysterical?) note: in 1978 I finished 2nd in the Australian National Target (the gold medal went to a New Zealander, which annoyed me a lot), and 2nd in the field (I shot one through the clicker and missed). At the time, I quite deliberately chose to try that technique and was widely rubbished by coaches of the day (until I shot at the Nationals that year, and also shot well over 1200).
For that event I used "<^,<_". That is: I pushed through the clicker. However, for my highest recurve FITA of 1324 in 1997 I used "._<_", That is, both shoulders down and pulling through the clicker.

[recurve boy]

which is it? And why do it ?

OK my current idea is:

The scapula aren't as low as they could be. They could be lower if you pulled with the correct muscles. Which is what happens to the right scapula. We don't pull down on the left scapula because that would cause bad alignment. I think it would pull the shoulder slightly out after all our hard work trying to get it close to the string.

[kgk]

which is it? And why do it ?The scapula aren't as low as they could be. They could be lower if you pulled with the correct muscles. Which is what happens to the right scapula. We don't pull down on the left scapula because that would cause bad alignment. I think it would pull the shoulder slightly out after all our hard work trying to get it close to the string.

So how do you go through the clicker? At the moment that it clicks, is your bow being pushed to the target, or is the string being pulled back away from the target?

kgk

[recurve boy]

So how do you go through the clicker? At the moment that it clicks, is your bow being pushed to the target, or is the string being pulled back away from the target?

I have no idea. Once I'm at anchor all I do is concentrate on keeping my bow arm stable and keeping my back tension. and trying to expand through the clicker.

[clever_guy]

I sense scared nits all over Oz due to picking activities....

;)

Sometimes worrying about "optimal" form pulls you away from practical realities. Or put in another way, how many forms and varients are used by how many top archers...the answer - quite a few.

Some of the top FITA and indoor compound archers seem to swear by:

"._>" Which is enough force without pushing on the bow arm side, just compression against the bow side shoulder/back. And proper back tension on the drawing arm side of the back. This makes sense as it reduces tension in the bowarm, and eliminates over-pushing.

Other top FITA and indoor compound archers seem to swear by:

"<^_>" Which is to say, slight push to even out left-side/right-side back tension, and proper back tension on the drawing arm side of the back. This makes sense if you were once a FITA recurve archer, you just have to have a fine control over your slight push, so you don't over push.

FITA recurve?

"<^_>" Pretty standard. Higher holding weights neccesitate the "push/pull", as the "elastic band" pressure looks to deform you. If you work on low, horozontally parrallel shoulders, you get a push/pull stretch at anchor. The push during execution is pretty slight, because you have the same over-push potential problems. (As a side note a push-only to get through the clicker would be the hard way to do it, can't see great consistancy).

High/Low Scapula - what is your stance, body type, push/pull tension balance, and muscular development like - it all play a part.

Scapula rotation - mechanically it's pretty much the same for everyone in an archers stance. I think those who are less muscularly developed/trained have the most problems in understanding the movement/feel, they use too many mucles to compensate, or their arm can "float" along a greater axis of movement - so it isn't the same path everytime.

Here is my thought in general about this - if you are an advanced shooter the mechanics are interesting, but you know it intuitively by feel what works and why - because of the hundreds of thousands of arrows you have shot have lead you there. Better yet you had a coach to guide you towards a general good form, and you avoid pitfalls. If you are a more novice shooter reading this don't get caught up in the details of what muscles do what where - understanding something intellectually doesn't mean you understand it physically, and can often be counter productive. Archers often try to get ahead of the process of developing an optimal form, by intellectually identifying an immediately unattainable optimal form. The process of moving from one form to another by adjustment is more important that the "optimal" form that results - because ultimately every archer is always changing something - even subconciously. So you better understand form changes that brought you to a certain point, rather than just the current form. The same problems develop when trying to tackle a training program that is too advanced - if you are a 30 arrow a day shooter, changing immediately into a 300 arrow a day schedule will most likely do you more harm than good.

More basic instructions like "relax your drawing arm as much as possible, and feel the tension of the bow like a string to the elbow of the drawing arm with the majority of the tension on the back", and try to feel even tension in your back when you push/pull, but don't over push" - is often more meaningful than a technical discussion and understanding of how the muscles interplay. When you are developed enough (progressed enough) to feel them, the technical discussion becomes more of a reinforcement "Yep, that's what I feel".

As an analogy it reminds me of newbies in a hardcore gym, the often enough want to lecture you about anatomy and kinesiology, and how to properly do this and that - but they can't lift 100lbs without falling over. The immediately skip to some advanced program make no gains and manage only creative excuses - they then go to the biggest guys they see or the strongest and ask what exactly that person did - to which (if the guy isn't using gear) they get the answer - "started small got big over years". It was a long process which didn't go from advanced to more advanced, it went from beginner to intermediate to advanced.

Not many shortcuts in strength-training or archery, and reading a book in kinesiology won't help you deadlift 400lbs, just like discussing the optimal way a scapula theoretically rotate, won't get you a 1,250...

;)

Just my thoughts...

-CG