For quite a long time I have been trying to develop accuracy at 25 yards. I am okay at 20 yards, but can't seem to hold a proper group at 25. I recently realized that at 20 yards, I can still pick out and hold on a specific spot. At around 25 yards, these old eyes don't seem so sharp. I think I am picking a specific spot at 20 yards but only am able to pick an area at 25. Could this be a likely reason for not being able to shoot acceptably well at the longer distance?

Many if not most of the historically famous archers were reported to have above average eyesight.   You're most likely correct in your observation.

It may be that you have to have above average eyesight to be a champion archer.  However, I'm not sure that's true about being a "good" archer at 25 yards.  Assuming you have good enough eyesight to identify the target at 25 yards, but it's a little fuzzy, you should be able to pick a spot in the middle of the fuzz that you want to hit.

We all have a cone of accuracy, which means that if we are shooting the best we can, the best we can do is to hit somewhere inside a circle that grows with distance.  My cone of accuracy is about a 3" circle at 10 yards, which grows to a 6" circle at 20 yards, which grows to about a 10" circle at 30 yards.  Then a funny thing happens: my cone of accuracy stays at about 10" from 40-50 yards, since my point-on distance is about 45 yards, and I'm more accurate close to my point-on distance.  Then it begins to grow again past 50 yards. 

I like to practice out to 80 yards, because I enjoy shooting the long shots, but I really can't see well enough to shoot at those distances.  But I still hit pretty well!  Sometimes, a friend will tell me, "Wow, that was a great shot, Dave, you're either in or just outside the bullseye," when I can't even see where the arrow is in the target.  Confidence and good form goes a long way.

So keep trying.  You may surprise yourself one of these days.

Sam, I feel your pain!  I'm developing cataracts and in the last few months it's gotten worse. I have the same trouble being able to focus on a specific spot.  I have the same trouble even trying trying to shoot groups at the rifle range. 

My shooting is still decent at my hunting distance ,15-18yds, but beyond that it goes downhill quickly.  I shot better a year ago for sure.

Dr. said they aren't ripe enough for surgery.  I have an appointment coming up next week and he and I are going to serious discussion.

Zeebob, in 2021, I had cataracts in both eyes fixed. Unfortunately, it didn't make any real difference. The only archery benefit has been that colors are much more vivid. I'll still practice at 25 yards, but I don't think it will ever become an effective hunting distance.

Sam, Sorry to hear that! Ive heard mixed reviews on cataract surgery.  I hope mine helps, and I need it ...I'm tired of looking at everything fuzzy..

Pine, I'm going to try that bottle cap trick..sure couldn't hurt..

Z

Mt cataract surgery was the best thing I've done.  I can see better than I have in I don't know how many years.  I wore glasses for about 47 years. I had mine done in 2013 and I'm very happy with no glasses and good eyesight.

Try some eye vitamins "areds". I have macular degeneration and my eye doctor got me on the ared vitamins. The vitamins have helped me with the disease and has improved my sight to a certain level.

Caught, I already take the "areds". When the doc followed up after cataract surgery, it was discovered that I have macular degeneration in my left eye. So now, about every 6 weeks, I take a shot in my left eyeball. Thank God I don't have to foot the bill, because every shot costs around $4,200.00. It really helps a lot. I don't think it plays into my shooting, because the left is not my dominant eye. So, unless, it disrupts my binocular vision, it should not be a factor.

You know your old when you know what AREDS are lol. It could be an eye issue or it could be the further the target it the wider the backdrop is and harder to focus

Cone of accuracy and age, plus if you think of distance in 5 yard increments it's kind of like thinking of having sights on your bow. I truly do understand what you are going through, but I  try for myself to eliminate the thought process of thinking of the distance and try to replace that with complete focus, remove the idea of distance. I know that sounds crazy but, if you think about this. Look at the distance a compound has between the separation of the archers sights, it's nuts less than an inch between twenty and sixty yards depending on the bow. That's crazy but it goes to show you the difference of point of aim is very small. Just for a simple experiment, try shooting without thinking of distance at all, shoot in an area you are not familiar with and completely let your brain do the calculations without thinking of how far the target is. You may be pleasantly surprised
I am 58 and also have lost more of my sight than I care to admit, what I have done is use the gap method the older I get. Some archers claim every archer uses the gap method if you are not using sights.

Sam, I believe you are correct.  It seems that about 20 yards (depends on time of day and vision quality but 20 seems close to the average max) one's ability to focus on a 'tiny spot' (like 1", not 3 or 4") is ALOT harder, especially on a bland-colored target (deer, bear, turkey, lots of the 3D targets).  Once you lose or can't find that tiny spot in your vision, the alternative then becomes 'zone shooting'....and that's not a good fit for instinctive shooting.  One could put a spot (thumbprint) of bright paint or tape where they want hit a target, but real critters don't usually allow that so it's not the best for hunting practice.  Still, picking a SMALL spot, of any color or shape, definately is the prime directive especially for instinctive shooting...a critical part of being consistent from shot to shot.  I guess an easier/simpler alternative (and probably better for hunting practice) is to use 2O yards as a max shooting distance.

BTW, since many shooters of the older ilk (and some younger ones that can't shoot with their glasses on) tend not to have great eyesight (at least not good enough to see the minimal rings on a used or even new 3D target at 20+ yards) it would be nice if competitive trad shoot organizers would consider putting a mark of some sort (dime-sized sticker, paint spot, etc.) on the centers of the animal target ten rings, to avoid the need for shooters to guess where 'the spot' is.  Requiring them to zone shoot because they can't see the 'real' spot presents a built-in disadvantage and after all, competition is designed to determine who is most accurate, not who has the best eyesight  . It's darn hard to hit what you can't clearly see.

P.S.  And, I rather have a clearly marked spot to shoot at rather than resort to using binoculars (if they are even legal...often they are not).  The latter just adds a whole 'nuther layer of eternal 'stare-wait-stare-fall asleep' interruption to an otherwise enjoyable day on the 3D course.

This seems to be a never ending argument at our club.  A few years ago, we stopped using 3D targets that have an obvious orange dot for the X ring.  Now we use targets where it is difficult or impossible to see the outline of the kill zone or the X ring until you're within a few feet of the target.  I and a number of other members prefer it this way, because we want the experience to resemble shooting at wild animals, that don't have orange dots, as much as possible.  Others disagree, STRONGLY disagree, to the point that some have left the club and some non-members who used to come to the shoot don't come anymore.  We aren't worried about total attendance at our shoot, because people come and people go for all sorts of reasons.  But we would like for everyone to have the best experience possible.  To that end, the range manager printed up color photos of each target with the kill zones and X rings clearly indicated on them.  Each shooter can choose to take the photos along on the shoot or not.  I suppose this puts the ones who carry the photos at an advantage score wise, but so far those of us who favor no visible lines or orange dots haven't complained about that, and let's hope it stays that way.

McDave, I understand that many shooters intend to use 3D targets for hunting practice and there's certainly nothing wrong with that (I do it myself). If the day is just for hunting practice or simply for an enjoyable time with friends on the range, then I agree that no 'spots' are needed on the target. But, consider that when the occasion is for competition (i.e., the goal is to be accurate enough to score the highest # of points) the main objective isn't really possible to attain if the shooters don't know where the 'highest points' location' is on the targets! One shouldn't be expected to have researched and memorized all of the various target brands and their ten ring locations, and although having a clear picture of the scoring rings at each target does help alot with this issue, the fact is that most ranges do not provide them. Honestly, many 3D targets have their ten rings in areas that would not be good shots on a live animal (and thus not good hunting practice shots), especially on angled targets.  As with paper target shooting, knowing what you're supposed to hit should be a key consideration of 3D competitions. To me, it makes no sense to NOT know where the 'bullseye' is in any type of target shooting competition.  Other than that I agree, having the 'spots'  need not be a necessity, or even a consideration, for general shooting of plastic targets for fun and pleasure.