Not so much is one vs the other better, but why does one settle on one over the other?
What I mean is that I would assume both feel awkward to a new guy. And since I have always shot splitfinger, naturally 3 under feel far inferior. Same for someone growing up on 3 under I would assume.
Does each have their place? Or is there simply no difference whatsoever.
The whole point is to ask, is there ever a reason for a splitfinger guy to consider switching to 3 under (realizing that you would get worse before you get better)?
LOVE this site btw. Thanks all.
I think the basic answer is that where you place the fingers is an accommodation for your aiming style. Arrow nock higher or lower on your face will change perceived gaps and point on range.
As a coach, I submit that there is NO difference in the release itself or in form.
Arne
If people try both methods, they will generally feel like they shoot better either 3 under or split. Since archery is such a mental game, feeling better about something is worth something in itself.
Various coaches or archery instructors feel like there are advantages in one over the other. For example, Rick Welch teaches that 3 under is preferable to split, as he feels that it eliminates certain errors that are peculiar to split. For him it is a preference, not a really important component of his method. Other coaches, such as Arne, are neutral on the subject, while others, such as Fred Asbell, teach split.
If I teach beginners, kids and youths I start them on 3 under as I feel it lets them aim easier. From then on I show them both and they decide.
Is it possible to change styles depending on the bow? I shoot 3 under for the most part but split feels better on my Javaman Tanjavur.
People switch from one grip to the other all the time, and usually all I hear is how much better they like whatever they are switching to over whatever they switched from. I haven't heard of anyone who planned to switch back and forth; usually people switch with the intention of staying with the new grip. The only problem I can think of off hand is that it gives you one more thing to screw up. For example, I switched to 3 under a good six months before I hunted with it, and it felt pretty natural to me by then. But guess what, the first shot I had at a deer I shot right over its back because I grabbed the string split fingers without thinking about it.
Hey Dave,
How are you? Been meaning to get to the range but have been swamped at work.
Bill
Hi Bill, headed off to the Longbow Safari in Oregon next week. Give me a call any time after that and I'd enjoy meeting with you to shoot again.
Mcdave,
Are you completly 3U now or did you go back go split?
I switched to 3 under after my first lesson with Rick Welch 4-5 years ago, and have never gone back to split (other than the time I shot over the deer's back :) )
Since I switched to 3 under, I have gotten rid of a few bows that didn't tune well 3 under, and have accumulated a few more that were specifically tillered for 3 under, so it would be a pretty big (and expensive) deal for me to switch back at this point.
I believe it is a purely preference decision, and since traditional archery is so much based on feel and such a mental game it makes sense to me to do what feels best to the individual shooter. Byron ferguson and Fred Beat shot split and I like picturing them shooting when I'm hunting. Thats what works for me
I've tried both, and seem to like a high split finger anchor.
When I changed to trad-shooting instead of target (with sights and all that other extra stuff) I found with my target shooting grip, and anchor points I couldn't hit a thing. I changed to 3 under and a much higher anchor point and it made all the difference. I didn't find changing to 3u as weird as I thought it would. I'm sure they both work but 3U works for me. My 2 cents.