Good athletes have naturally fine hand-eye coordination, so for sure they have the inherent ability to shoot well. This is most evident with a bow—a good athlete can pick up a Hoyt and shoot it pretty darn well after 2 or 3 arrows. He or she would naturally shoot a rifle or shotgun well too.

Good athletes have good physiology and movements. A guy or gal who can glide through the woods and climb hills and trees with confidence and ease will hunt just fine.

Good athletes have “field vision” and instincts. They scan the playing field and anticipate the competition’s next move. It stands to reason that an athletic hunter will see and read the woods, anticipate where and when a buck will show and have the wherewithal to kill the deer when the time is right.

So yes, I think that natural athletes make good natural hunters. But, unlike baseball or golf, hunting is one sport where a non-athletic type can, with practice and hard work, can become as good or better a hunter than the sporty guy.

I sometimes hunt with a short, stocky, slow-moving guy who, until he had Lasik surgery, wore bottle glasses. One look and you’d peg this guy as anything but an athlete. He admits it: “I suck at baseball and golf.”

But man, this guy can shoot a bow…he can find and kill a bit deer as well as anyone I know. He lives and breathes deer hunting; he practices, works at it, and practices some more. He is one best big-buck hunters I know. Better than I am, and I consider myself an above average athlete, though not superior.

How do you stack up and what do you think?