Training at competition distances gives a specific advantage at those distances

The summary today

The most direct study, from 2016, had ten Polish international archers shoot thirty arrows from each of twenty distances and eight national team women from each of eighteen, including distances they never train at. Score falls with distance almost linearly, about 1.34 points per metre in men and 0.60 in women, and at competition distances it sits no higher above the line than expected, with one exception: 70 metres in men (p = 0.001). In women, at 50 metres, the actual score even falls below the expected one, although the difference does not survive the correction for multiple comparisons. The training studies do not help settle the question: two Indonesian experiments from the same university, with the same design and the test at 30 metres, give opposite answers, one with the varied-distance group doing better than the fixed-distance group (up 27.3 points against 15.5), the other with the group always at 30 metres doing better (up 24.7 against 14.5). Neither measures the untrained distances, so neither can say whether the advantage is specific.

Also phrased as: "training at competition distance"; "distance specificity in archery"; "especial skill at 70 metres"; "always shooting the same distance"; "training at varied distances"

Evidence

• 1966
  Context Archers Published later

  58 university beginners in three classes starting at 10, 25 and 40 yards: at the 40-yard test the class that had learned exactly there scores 50.65 points, less than those that started at 10 and 25 yards, 58.80 and 62.00. The classes had taken 6, 10 and 11 lessons, though, and the differences are not significant: the comparison is confounded by the amount of practice.

  Transfer Effects and Ultimate Success in Archery due to Degree of Difficulty of the Initial Learning · Robert N. Singer

• 2016
  For Archers Published later

  10 Polish international recurve archers, 30 arrows from each of 20 distances between 22 and 98 metres: at 70 metres, the Olympic distance, the actual score exceeds the one predicted by the line built on the never-trained distances (t(9) = 4.50, p = 0.001, d = 0.50). It is the only case in which a specific advantage appears.

  Specificity vs. Generalizability: Emergence of Especial Skills in Classical Archery · Stanisław H. Czyż, Sarah J. Moss

• 2016
  Against Archers Published later

  In the same study, the other competition distances: in men 30 metres p = 0.047, 50 metres p = 0.47, 90 metres p = 0.21, with the threshold corrected for multiple comparisons at 0.012; in the 8 national team women 30, 60 and 70 metres between p = 0.08 and 0.31, and at 50 metres the actual score falls below the expected one (t(7) = -2.97, p = 0.01), but above the threshold corrected for multiple comparisons. The lack-of-fit test does not depart from the line in either group.

  Specificity vs. Generalizability: Emergence of Especial Skills in Classical Archery · Stanisław H. Czyż, Sarah J. Moss

• 2016
  Against Archers Published later

  In the same study, the archers with the most accumulated training hours, 7,488 and 7,280 among the men, 15,600 and 19,448 among the women: their curves stay almost linear, and sometimes the expected score exceeds the actual one. Thousands of hours at competition distances produce no visible peak at those distances.

  Specificity vs. Generalizability: Emergence of Especial Skills in Classical Archery · Stanisław H. Czyż, Sarah J. Moss

• 2016
  Context Archers Published later

  In the same study, the shape of the curve: in men, from 22 to 98 metres, the score over 30 arrows follows y = -1.3397x + 312.86 with R² = 0.90, about 1.34 points fewer per metre; in women, from 22 to 75 metres, y = -0.6018x + 294.55 with R² = 0.91, about 0.60 points per metre. In women, the line computed for all participants explains 94 per cent of the variability in the data.

  Specificity vs. Generalizability: Emergence of Especial Skills in Classical Archery · Stanisław H. Czyż, Sarah J. Moss

• 2022
  Context Archers Published later

  20 Indonesian archers drawn from 58, split into two groups matched on the pretest, test of 36 arrows at 30 metres: the fixed-distance group goes from 275.70 to 291.20 points, the varied-distance group from 274.70 to 302.00, and the difference between groups is significant (t = 5.723, p below 0.001). The paper does not say what distance the fixed group trained at or how long the programme lasted, and the journal has doubtful editorial standards.

  The Effect of Fixed and Changing Distance Drilling Exercise Methods on Archery Accuracy Questionable venue · Muhammad Wahyu D. Saing, Suharjana, Ahmad Nasrulloh, Betrix Teofa Perkasa Wibafied Billy Yachsie, Afeb Chesa Arianto

• 2024
  For Archers Published later

  20 Indonesian male archers aged 15 to 20, two groups matched on the pretest, 18 sessions over six weeks, test of 36 arrows at 30 metres: the group always at 30 metres goes from 278.9 to 303.6 points (up 24.7, all ten improved, by 21 to 33 points), more than the group alternating distances (up 14.5), with a significant difference between groups (p below 0.001). The test is at the same distance the fixed group trained at.

  Distancia de perforación fija versus cambiante: ¿qué ejercicio es mejor para el tiro con arco de precisión? (Drilling distance fixed vs changing: which exercise is better for accuracy archery?) · Betrix Teofa Perkasa Wibafied Billy Yachsie, Doni Pranata, Yudik Prasetyo, Siis Suhasto, Putri Famelia, Amri Hartanto

• 2024
  Context Archers Published later

  In the same study, the group alternating 10, 20 and 30 metres improves too: from 272.4 to 286.9 points, all ten of them, by 13 to 19 points (p below 0.001). Part of the fixed group's gain is therefore plain practice, and there is no group that changed nothing.

  Distancia de perforación fija versus cambiante: ¿qué ejercicio es mejor para el tiro con arco de precisión? (Drilling distance fixed vs changing: which exercise is better for accuracy archery?) · Betrix Teofa Perkasa Wibafied Billy Yachsie, Doni Pranata, Yudik Prasetyo, Siis Suhasto, Putri Famelia, Amri Hartanto

Status history

1. 1966 Not studied The oldest attempt at an answer is a comparison between three classes of university beginners starting at 10, 25 and 40 yards, and it does not succeed: at the 40-yard test the class that had learned exactly there scores 50.65 points, less than the other two at 58.80 and 62.00, but it had taken six lessons against ten and eleven, and the differences do not survive the test. The amount of practice confounds the comparison, and the question is left without an answer.
2. 2016 Contested Ten Polish international archers and eight national team women shoot thirty arrows from twenty and eighteen distances, including ones they never train at, and the actual score is compared with the one predicted by the line through the untrained distances. Score falls almost linearly with distance, and at competition distances it does not sit above the line, not even in those with the most accumulated hours, with one exception: 70 metres in men, where actual exceeds expected (p = 0.001, d = 0.50). In women, at 50 metres, it even goes the other way, although after the correction for multiple comparisons the difference is no longer significant. The same study points in both directions: contested.
3. 2022 Contested The first training experiment arrives: twenty Indonesian archers in two groups matched on starting score, one at a fixed distance and one at varied distances, with the test at 30 metres. The varied-distance group improves by 27.3 points out of 360, the fixed-distance group by 15.5, and the difference is significant. The paper does not say what distance the fixed group trained at, though, or for how long, and the journal has doubtful editorial standards: it cannot answer the question, and the status remains contested.
4. 2024 Contested The same university repeats the design with the opposite result: twenty archers aged 15 to 20, six weeks, one group always at 30 metres and one alternating 10, 20 and 30, test at 30 metres. The fixed group gains 24.7 points, the alternating one 14.5, and all twenty improve. It points the way the claim says, but it measures only the trained distance and cannot say whether the advantage is specific: with the 2016 study still split, contested.

Related

Related articles

• Why do your groups open up with distance?Double the distance and the group doubles, or a little more: what geometry and competition scores say, and how to use two distances to find what opens your group.
• What distance to train at: starting close, staying at competition distances or varying themStarting close, staying at competition distances, varying distance or shooting long: what studies on archers have measured, and how firmly.
• Indoor vs outdoor archery: key differences and seasonal adaptationsIndoor vs outdoor archery: what changes between 18 and 70 metres, what the only study of the shot at both distances found, and what research says about moving between distances.

Research lines

• 102 studiesFrom the total on the scorecard to the arrow's coordinates
• 35 studiesTeaching and learning archery: sixty years of instructional trials

Other claims in this domain

• CorroboratedBetween one and a half and two tenths of a second pass between the clicker sounding and the arrow leaving7 studies · 94 archers measuredStatus since 1990
• ReportedA camera diagonally behind the archer measures the vertical sway of the aim well, but not the horizontal1 study · 3 archers measuredStatus since 2010
• ReportedA continuous final pull through the clicker leads to better shots9 studies · 56 archers measuredStatus since 1993
• ReportedA sound or light cue about the angle of the bow arm tightens beginners' groups2 studies · 1 archers measuredStatus since 2012
• ReportedA thumb grip on the string is less tiring than a finger grip3 studies · 9 archers measuredStatus since 1990

See all claims on technique and biomechanics