Pinching the magnet!
You could look at this statement as being the beginning of the whole crux of the problem of Dartitis and the yips. although the two maladies are assumed to be different, they are in reality one and the same obstacle to your enjoyment and the correct execution of an act.
It’s all down to the way that we look at or understand things. Pinching or squeezing can fundamentally be achieved in two ways, one is obvious and is easily achieved with applied pressure, but the other one, although just as easily attained, employs a very ambiguous, to the point of inconspicuousness to induce, it needs no pressure but uses the application of the correct angles. Perhaps this could enlighten the vast majority as to why trainees on a rifle range are told to squeeze and not to pull the trigger, this is a platitude as although all instructors cite it, very few know just what they’re talking about or what they or you do to employ it. It’s nothing more than a glib response!
Let’s just concentrate on the grip for a while. There are lots of publications, no matter which sport is being discussed that advise on the grip.
The problem here is not which type of grp or how you achieve or apply it. The problem here is the word grip and what people envisage as to its meaning. It is fairly certain that most will assume that to control something you have to grip it, and gripping means or infers applying pressure.
This is where the first part of the problem arises. I have been ridiculed by many people when I’ve stated on countless occasions that you don’t grip the dart but by definition, positioning your fingers in such a manner as to get the dart to grip you. This is undeniably true there cannot be any sense in having to free a grip to achieve an action.
I call what is done a Grippe or Griffe, an anti grip or reverse grip. You have to be able to manipulate a darts velocity and direction without impeding its release and therefore its flight! so, therefore, you can’t grip it, you must not even try to grip it. any and all restraint on the dart must be released to power the dart forward. under control and without any restriction!
The closest (still available word) that I can use to describe this controlling of the dart is “dandle”!
Any hindrance on the dart will cause it to veer off and lose velocity. Losing velocity is the first thing that a new sufferer notices, but it wasn’t the first warning of impending disaster; that was quite inconsequential and didn’t appear to matter at the time as the target is usually attained and it was put down to a glitch or gremlin and soon forgotten about. In hindsight, this is where the problem should have been addressed. Because as sure as eggs are eggs, it’s coming back and it’s going to destroy everything.
Only one thing I have read in any book about dart throwing has even made any sense was written by a certain Keith Turner.
DARTS,
The complete book of the game.
Published in 1980.
Printed in Newton Abbot.
The relevant information is in the second paragraph on page 95.
This is the only time I will credit someone for relating the truth!
Most everything written about darts is a lie, in most cases silly unproven assumptions, however, there are quite a few of the malevolent infantile lies of the gentility. Chivalry and the chivalrous  ones offerings is a case in question, an issue of whether an elite group of these renowned valiants actually existed and if so, in what numbers?  The word chivalry conjures up glaring aspects of heroic gallantry, depicting knights in glistening armour protecting the put upon maiden, or defending the downtrodden; or perhaps you picture two gallant knights crossing lances in the lists at Ashby-de-la-zouch, entertaining the hierarchy and demonstrating their prowess whilst wearing their ladies favour.
They obviously had to swear an oath to their lord in exchange for land and property, nowhere in this so called act of fealty was there any mention of responsibility, genteelness or conduct. It was basically a bribed deference . It read as follows,
“I promise on my faith that I will in the future be faithful to my lord, never cause him harm and will observe my homage to him completely against all persons in good faith and without deceit.”
Very reminiscent to an oath taken in 1935 which read,
“I swear to God this holy oath
that I shall render unconditional obedience
to the Leader of the German Reich and people,
Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces,
and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared
to give my life for this oath.”
The second oath is more democratic as it does mention the people.
Neither mentions the female and neither records any limits on the pledger!
As stated you have always read about the gallant Knight thundering down upon a hapless adversary astride his trusty charger, the outcome was pre-ordained and inevitable. Unfortunately there was no way that even a fully armoured knight would even contemplate chasing down an archer. He couldn’t take the chance that this lone archer was a mere pull and release bowyer, he could just as likely be a very dexterous journeyman archer. If so? the knight was an ex-knight.