# Level 1 and 2 instructor classes hurting archery



## shamlin (Aug 18, 2007)

I know I am gonna get flamed for this, but this level 1&2 instructor classes are hurting the future of archery. In the last 2 weeks there have been 2 different classes certifying around 30 plus so called instructors! I personally know some of them and they are new archers themselves that have no business teaching anyone archery. But they have paid their dues and sat through 2 days of classes and they get a certificate that tells a prospective student/parent that they are qualified to teach; unbelievable! This is, in the near future, going to damage the credibility of this program as well as hurt the long term talent and future of archers. For example a few of the class attendees stayed after to shoot their own equipment and the shear lack of talent and proficiency with archery was very evident! And these very "archers" are going to coach! I was actually considering getting my certification but after hearing the stories from some colleagues of which are accomplished archers, I will not associate myself with this type of program. Someone, especially USA Archery needs to re evaluate this program before it gets out of control. I guess this adds credence to the term, those who can't ........ Coach.


----------



## traditionalrj (Jun 8, 2011)

Just like personal training. I'm one of the best there is in my area and I see people training folks in way and delivering information in formats that make me pray they never train anyone else. Same situation different sport. All because of an online exam or week long class. Been at it 13 years in march and train trainers who have bachelor's and masters degrees how to be trainers...I agree 100% with your statement for that reason alone. A classroom can never replace experience.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Have to agree with shamlin. I live in Hawaii now but I saw this in the Miami area where I grew up. I once ran an indoor range in Key West several years ago. I did not instruct but had many of these overnight sensations showing others what to do. It was a tough to watch. None could shoot a bow to any degree. They just repeated to "students", I thought of them as victims, what had been taught to them a month earlier. 

I watched parents paying these instructors to teach their kids. I was really hard to watch.

I don't know anything about USA Archery. Is it a profit-making venture? I'm pretty cynical about everything. Maybe the desire to take fees to turn out instructors is motivating this sloppy trend.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

FYI They are NOT coaches. They are "instructors" and we all need to be reminded of this. Coach designation comes at L3.

L1 instructors are very Basic instructors and if properly taught, can be very affective instructors. They fill a huge hole in the process that allows camps and other organizations that might get kids for a week during the summer, safely run an archery program.. They don't need to be proficient accomplished archers to teach safely, a child to follow rules, and shoot a 122cm target from 10 yards. (most summer camps and scout camps I've seen and I've seen plenty)

L2's are still basic instructors. They are expected to be able to teach a L1 course, VERY BASIC, and understand some of the logistics of running a program. They are not expected to "train" anyone or "coach" anyone. Just give basic instruction and keep the range safe. Nothing more..

Again NOT COACH, Just teach basic skills. Do your homework if you are seeking coaching, and I would hope everyone does this but to say that a L1 BASIC instructor is going to be the downfall of archery is just incorrect.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

The downfall of the L1 L2 instructors is more a problem with the people or companies that hire them to teach and tout them as coaches or upper level instructors. 

Now if you see them doing things that are unsafe, that's a problem and needs to be addressed. If you have a problem with their teaching methods, then fix it and stop complaining about it. 
If they are being called "coaches" and they don't know how to "coach" then that's also a problem and should be fixed. But the way to fix it is not complain here. Most of the dedicated coaches and instructors here know there is a problem. You need to address your concerns to USA Archery and NFAA, or get yourself certified and maybe you can do better.

DC


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

dchan, good post. I didn't know what was expected of the instructors I witnessed. What bothered me was the over-the-top approach I saw these people practice. It went way beyond keeping the range safe. That's what I did, I was the owner of the place. The instructors I saw were manipulating every single elbow, hand, head position and foot stance. Giving advice on arrow tuning that was so incorrect it was embarrassing to listen to. I didn't feel it my place to step in so I remained silent as little kids shot 400 spined arrows from 18 pound bows. Teacher telling them if left long they were perfect. Stuff like that.

I guess if instruction, even bad instruction, gets kids shooting it's a good thing. Later they can have their bad habits and gear corrected. I was not impressed with what I saw from USA Archery. Or maybe it was just the personalities of the instructors they turned out. In any case, it was not good in my opinion. Those children I saw didn't look to be having fun for all the interference by well-meaning adults who knew next to nothing about archery. A baby sitter would have done less damage as I watched the line for safety.


----------



## traditionalrj (Jun 8, 2011)

The most annoying thing about all of this is...I've been competing in archery my entire adult life and if I have one more person tell me they are an instructor and what they think j should be doing like anchoring under my chin instead of on my face for trad...I'm going to squash someone.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

One of the things I really try to teach my L1's and L2's is the importance of Safety. The next part I REALLY try to impart is "less is more". Teach them basics (stance, nock, set, setup, draw, anchor, release and follow through) so they can start to shoot and then WALK AWAY. Especially teaching kids. They can usually figure it out.. Basic shooting steps, Proper equipment handling and movement around the range is all the L1's and L2's really need to know to be effective. Advanced archers that are L2's might take it a little further but really need more coaching training before they start to impart more than that in my opinion. 

That doesn't mean there are not some real good archers that would not make great coaches or instructors. But L1's are just that. BASIC instructors. Don't blame the organization for poor instructors.

DC


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

The most annoying thing I witness at archery ranges is the unsolicited instruction of others. Complete strangers approaching others to show them what they are doing wrong. This was the USA Archery guys I saw. None could shoot, yet they bothered about everyone with advice that was questionable. It's human nature and not USA Archery's fault. I just hate seeing it.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

traditionalrj said:


> The most annoying thing about all of this is...I've been competing in archery my entire adult life and if I have one more person tell me they are an instructor and what they think j should be doing like anchoring under my chin instead of on my face for trad...I'm going to squash someone.


This I have to agree with.. If you don't want instruction, a basic instructor, should not be coming up to you just because "they are an instructor" and telling you how to shoot.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Stone Bridge said:


> The most annoying thing I witness at archery ranges is the unsolicited instruction of others. Complete strangers approaching others to show them what they are doing wrong. This was the USA Archery guys I saw. None could shoot, yet they bothered about everyone with advice that was questionable. It's human nature and not USA Archery's fault. I just hate seeing it.


YUP... Even with safety issues I always tread lightly.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah


----------



## JimB1 (Feb 18, 2013)

As I understand it level 1 and 2 are basics instructors not coaches. They teach the rules of the range and basics of how to shoot. The only difference between them is the types of groups. Level 1 being informal classes like Boy Scout merit badge programs and level 2 being beginning JOAD and Archery in the School type programs. I'd think of both those levels sort of like range safety officers that can give advice on the basics to beginners and assist with helping beginners with the basics like what type of shooting to pursue, equipment choices, basics of form training, etc. I am primarily self taught though I took lessons last year for 6 months from a level 3 coach and have taken beginner and intermediate archery courses locally in the last 2 years. I wish there were people around when I was a kid to show me the basics, it would have saved me a lot of experimentation and repair of poor form issues. 
I don't think it's a bad thing to have a lot of people around who can assist new and young archers with that sort of thing. I am thinking about taking one of the classes myself just to get all the official training on that stuff... I think I am decent enough to be able to pass along safety and new archer orientation info to a group of Boy Scouts or new shooters. 
I think a lot of it comes to knowing your limits. I still consider myself a new shooter in the Olympic style but I have been shooting longbow since I was 16 so I have a decent amount of experience with a bow. (So over 20 years off and on). I would definitely not be able to teach nuanced form training or competition technique since I am still learning myself but I would be able to point people to a level 3 or higher coach as needed. 
Just my take on it for what it is worth...
-Jim


----------



## JimB1 (Feb 18, 2013)

Also, I like the idea that you have to be an instructor level 2 for at least a year and show that you have been active in archery before you can get into a level 3 class. That alone will weed out some paper coaches that just took a level 3 class to say they are coaches. 
-Jim


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

I was involved in a different sport for many years and I'm still involved today. Namely outrigger canoe and surfski racing. There is no certification system in teaching these events and yet proper paddling is every bit as technical as shooting a bow. Most recreational paddlers do not realize this. My point is, paddling sports have gone along very well for years without a structured coaching system of levels. Make no mistake, without a good coach, you'll never achieve at the top levels of boat racing. So I support the idea of a coach for any form sensitive sport.

I was only wondering why is formal target archery so centered on this approach of levels for coaches? The best archery instructors I've seen are on the web. No joke. I had a man named Bart Hauthaway coach me in kayak racing he, was a former Olympic sprint and slalom kayak coach and he had no certification but experience and teaching ability. Bart coached world champions in his day from the ground up. He taught himself.

So why the rigid hierarchy we see in archery? It's not even so bad in golf - a full equal to archery in form and mental approach.

Have always puzzled over the US approach to our teaching system for this one sport. No other game is so controlling of its coaches. I think this is all wrong.


----------



## jaredjms (Oct 24, 2007)

dchan said:


> FYI They are NOT coaches. They are "instructors" and we all need to be reminded of this. Coach designation comes at L3.
> 
> L1 instructors are very Basic instructors and if properly taught, can be very affective instructors. They fill a huge hole in the process that allows camps and other organizations that might get kids for a week during the summer, safely run an archery program.. They don't need to be proficient accomplished archers to teach safely, a child to follow rules, and shoot a 122cm target from 10 yards. (most summer camps and scout camps I've seen and I've seen plenty)
> 
> ...


Great way to put it dchan, I agree completely. INSTRUCTORS teaching the BASICS of archery and SAFETY-- not coaches.


----------



## shamlin (Aug 18, 2007)

Stone bridge you are exactly right. It mostly boils down to dollars and cents and also the fact that archery is so "en vogue" at the current time thanks to Hollywood. Although I agree with everything dchahn is saying, it just isn't reality. Every so closed level 2 instructor I have seen is coaching a JOAD team and giving plenty of instructing/coaching (two words that are basically the same lol). At 150 bucks for level 1&2 certification it ends up being a moneymaker. And I hear it all the time, " I should get my certification and do something about it"; ha this sport is more politically controlled then our current Congress. It would be easier to create a competing organization that re-writes the rules and does it right. I would never go through this entire process as I have been a competitive shooter my entire life, worked in numerous pro shops, and currently work on and tune many bows for local fellow shooters. A few of my woman and kid shooters that I have coached are currently shooting at a high level. They didn't need me to have certification to help them in achieving their goals. Bottom line, this is a broken system that is not properly motivated for the betterment of the sport, that desperately needs to be re-vamped!


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

Stone Bridge said:


> So why the rigid hierarchy we see in archery? It's not even so bad in golf - a full equal to archery in form and mental approach.
> 
> Have always puzzled over the US approach to our teaching system for this one sport. No other game is so controlling of its coaches. I think this is all wrong.


It's really just on the USAA side, even then mostly on the oly recurve side. I would assume it's due to the standardized method that USAA has implemented (NTS). It's a fairly complex shot process governed by the national coach. I've heard that even those that reach lvl 4 are still confused by some of the info contained within the method.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

kshet26, I fully understand what you are saying about NTS. Have read everything about it. But you know what I think? 90% of NTS is basic archery to begin with wrapped in shiny new paper. I'm not disagreeing with you, but good archery is not very complex at all in my view. It's just damn hard to do well. That's the hang up. LOL

Too many have tried to make proper form something mystic. It's not. The basics can be engrained in a new shooter fairly quickly - like how to draw the bow, hold the string, etc. After that it's all on the student to see if he or she has the athletic ability and desire to be good at it. It's really that simple but many want to make it into something very complicated and deserving of a level of study more suited to astrophysics.

The best shooters I've ever come across were naturally good athletes and didn't overthink what they were doing. They were just good. Same with kayak racing or golf. Archery is no different. Except for golf, no sport is more overthought than archery by the players. Over coaching is much of the problem. Every shot that goes bad must be a form problem. That's the thinking. Nobody ever understands the more obvious truth - maybe they are no good at such a tough game. It's why only one person can win in the end. The guy who makes the fewest mistakes.


----------



## williamskg6 (Dec 21, 2008)

I know this should have been put here sooner, but here's the official descriptions, copied and pasted from the USA Archery site:

*Level 1 Instructor (formerly Basic)* A Level 1 Instructor is most closely associated with a "grassroots" program that is short-term in scope and focused on introducing basic archery skills to beginners. Such programs would include: camps, Scouting, 4-H, and Parks and Recreation.

Course content: Range safety, range set-up, basic equipment setup and repair, and how to teach the basic steps of shooting.
Length of Course: 4-12 hours
Prerequisites**: Minimum age: 15
Course Cost: Varies depending on instructor
Certification period: Three years
Any Level 1 Instructor who wants individual insurance coverage will need to apply for a Range Pass (see Range Pass prerequisites above). 
Level 1 Course is not required to attend the Level 2 Course

*Level 2 Instructor (formerly Intermediate)* A Level 2 Instructor works with a more established archery program such as J.O.A.D., A.S.A.P., college clubs and local clubs with a strong beginner component. Level 2 Instructors are also certified to teach Level 1 courses. Current Level 2 Instructors with a successful background screen are eligible for insurance benefits. Click here for information on background screening.

Course Content: Basic shooting steps, introduce intermediate shooting steps, safety, range set-up; equipment setup and repair, fitting equipment to an archer, how to teach archery and how to teach a Level 1Instructor Course.
Length of Course: 12-20 hours
Prerequisites: Minimum age: 18, USA Archery or NFAA membership (See Membership Benefits), Successful background screen, successful completion of SafeSport training
Course Cost: Varies depending on instructor
Certification period: Three years.
Please note: No certification will be processed without membership and a successful background screen. 


As you can see, you need to be a level 2 instructor to work with JOAD but USA Archery is careful in their wording (instructor versus coach). Where Level 2 is required for working with a JOAD team, that at least implies some sort of coaching though. 


-Kent W.


----------



## shamlin (Aug 18, 2007)

Stone bridge is right one. I get a kick out of all these instructors that try and make the shot process overly complicated. For example the technicalities in a good golf swing are far more complex than an archery shot process! The problem I have with the NTS method is they want all shooters to carbon copy their form regardless of physical stature, body mechanics etc. I let new shooters draw and shoot so I can study their tendencies and body mechanics which makes it naturally comfortable. Thrn I build techniques around that. This makes archery comfortable and lends itself to success and longevity in the sport. Look at some of the top shooters or golfers for that matter. Would you teach the Reo Wilde form (severe leaning), or Gary Player (horrible baseball type swing); heck no. But it is what they have found is repeatable, which is more than half of what needs to be accomplished in a good shot or swing. Shot repeatability and managing the 6" between the ears makes up 90% percent of this game.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yup. I've seen it since I first joined the NAA. Even before the switch to BEST and then return to Level ... and NTS add-on, we had paper coaches who had never figured out how to shoot, but they were charging $$ for lessons. 

I have no idea how in good conscience anyone can do this. But that doesn't seem to stop them.

I think many of them suffer from "they don't know how much they don't know" and they figure hey, I've got the cert from USArchery, so I must know what I'm doing, right? 

For many others, they fully realize how little they know, but frankly don't care.

I could tell you stories of so many archers that have come to me over the years after their "aha!" moment with their former coach. I feel bad for them that it took so long and in many cases, so much money, before they figured it out.

As for the levels, USArchery is in a bit of a box on this. There is a huge need for certifications out there in the "real world" (outside of USArchery) for camps all over that need/want archery coaches. So they need lots of L1 instructors out there. And to meet that need, they need lots of L2 and L3 instructors out there to produce them. It's a real assembly-line just to keep up. I'd love to see the stat's on how many L1 coaches never go on to get their L2, or who never renew. I'm sure it's a large %. 

I could go into other reasons USArchery is willing to certify so many "coaches" but I won't here. Those days have passed.

John


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

williamskg6 said:


> As you can see, you need to be a level 2 instructor to work with JOAD but USA Archery is careful in their wording (instructor versus coach). Where Level 2 is required for working with a JOAD team, that at least implies some sort of coaching though.
> 
> 
> -Kent W.


A L1 can work with JOAD, they would just be under the direction of a L2 or higher and would need to get a background check and range pass. Our club has several L1's working with us.


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

Oh I'm in agreement! I think NTS' complexity lies with the presentation. The strict adherence to the method does almost no one any good (even Lee says it's just a foundation and elements should be altered when needed). But the complexity and the 'why' of the method seems to require formal teaching. I think what the naturals (and what I'm finding now) can do is identify the strongest, easiest on the body, and most repeatable shot for them. That's something that can't be taught in a classroom setting.


----------



## JimB1 (Feb 18, 2013)

Stone Bridge said:


> kshet26, I fully understand what you are saying about NTS. Have read everything about it. But you know what I think? 90% of NTS is basic archery to begin with wrapped in shiny new paper. I'm not disagreeing with you, but good archery is not very complex at all in my view. It's just damn hard to do well. That's the hang up. LOL
> 
> Too many have tried to make proper form something mystic. It's not. The basics can be engrained in a new shooter fairly quickly - like how to draw the bow, hold the string, etc. After that it's all on the student to see if he or she has the athletic ability and desire to be good at it. It's really that simple but many want to make it into something very complicated and deserving of a level of study more suited to astrophysics.
> 
> The best shooters I've ever come across were naturally good athletes and didn't overthink what they were doing. They were just good. Same with kayak racing or golf. Archery is no different. Except for golf, no sport is more overthought than archery by the players. Over coaching is much of the problem. Every shot that goes bad must be a form problem. That's the thinking. Nobody ever understands the more obvious truth - maybe they are no good at such a tough game. It's why only one person can win in the end. The guy who makes the fewest mistakes.


Not sure I entirely agree with everything you posted. I was horrible at team sports in school. Still hate most sports. Probably the only person to fail gym in high school. The only sports I liked were archery and martial arts because they were somewhat solitary ( or could be) and neither of those counted as sports where the school was concerned. I took martial arts instruction for many years. Archery was different, there wasn't any instruction available and learning from books was difficult and I ended up doing what worked but now that I am learning archery as a Olympic game, what worked is actually holding me back from getting my game right. 

So yes, using a bow is not rocket science, it's one of the first tools man learned how to build but learning the Olympic style and learning the tricks of competition is different. Someone has to show you the game of archery so you can build the specific set of skills required to play it well. That is a science that does require study and training to get right. 
If you are like I was and just want to shoot and have fun, then no coaching is needed but if you want to play the game well, a coach has value. You may be able to do without and still play the game. Now the Internet brings all sorts of info to your home but I still learn better from people then videos and books.
JMHO
-Jim


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

I agree with much of the criticism here that much of the arena is messy and noisy (but what isn't, right?).

I would add that consumers (the archery students or 'those contemplating to be students') have some responsibility to take a rational approach to choosing a coach (they should do their due diligence). I love it when a prospective student (or the parent) asks if they can watch me 'shoot a few arrows' when they come by to check out the facility and me (it's a job interview). I wouldn't choose for my kid a trigonometry coach/mentor/tutor who couldn't actually 'do' trig, and I wouldn't choose for my kid a baseball hitting instructor who didn't have a background of hitting baseballs with some skill ... why would I choose an archery instructor who's never shown an ability to hit the broadside of a barn? If I have a choice of instructors/coaches, why would I choose the guy/girl who's never shot competitive scores (nor done/lived the kind of hands-on shooting analysis/practice volume/regimen that made those scores possible), over the other instructor/coach who _has_ walked that walk? 

Maybe a coaching cert should require a shooting competency component ... or the shooting competency component could qualify the coach for an additional badge on their cert.


----------



## shamlin (Aug 18, 2007)

Agree lksseven, There needs to be a demonstrated level of competency in actually shooting archery, even for level one. The problem lies in the Certification one carries from a reputable organization; why would a prospective student or parent question it? For example, thousands of companies hire college grads based off their diploma when in reality they couldn't manage a lemonade stand properly! The root cause issue is in the certification process and the lack of competency of so called instructors. Then these so called instructors go and charge for lessons when they have no business doing so. Like Limbwalker said, I don't know how in good conscience anyone can do this. Put money and ego into the equation and there you have your answer.


----------



## GBUSA (Jun 6, 2013)

I plan to take a level 1 course this spring just so I can legitimately help out at an archery program I've been unofficially instructing at for a few years now.
Only difference will be in the paper legitimacy if you want to call it that.

I won't be coaching anyone. It will be the same old : One foot over the shooting line please, or walk please, don't run to the targets.
It can be getting slightly longer arrows for those who are a bit close to overdrawing the ones they were given, or explaining nock pinch, so they know why the arrow kept falling off the rest.
From finger placement, to helping folks find an anchor that isn't 2 inches out from the side of their face.
I'm not trying to teach nts shot sequence, but some basics of form instruction go a long way in an archer who will be shooting for a week, or maybe two that summer.
I certainly don't feel I'm hurting the sport and quite the opposite. With just a few quick pointers the archers see an immediate improvement and their enthusiasm for the sport increases. The smiles are the reward.

GB


----------



## scolist (Sep 16, 2014)

I think that Safety Officer, should be used instead of Instructor. Certainly in L1, and even maybe L2. And I also think that Proficiency in Archery needs to be included in both levels.

L2 Certification is given way too much freedom in what they're allowed to do. I can go get my L2 when I don't even 100 arrows off my bow. Should I be trying to teach Archery? With a resounding HELL NO! But I'd be certified to do so.

I'm the only Olympic Recurve shooter in my club, everyone else is shooting compounds. Coaching is slim, and Viper1 is 3 hours away. So I read and study constantly, so I don't look like a total fool by the time I get to Vegas in Feb.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Wow. Where to begin.

Starting off - blame a good chunk of this on the need for instant gratification. And this instant gratification side of the world hits both sides of the fence - both the student side and the instructor side. Even instructors who want to be coaches will sometime try and shortcut their way into the Level 3 side of the world.

And, admittedly, even within the coaching ranks (L3/4 side of the world), you have some coaches that aren't suited for being a coach, but more so being an instructor. 

With that being said, the whole intent of a Level 1 or Level 2 instructor is the fact that they are there to teach in a group setting, and they are there to teach the group safely. The purpose of a Level 3 coach is to learn HOW to coach a student one on one, and not only learn the mental side, but the physical side of the world as well. A Level 4/5 coach's purpose is to eventually take students to a high end national or international level. 

Now, I will totally disagree with the statement that a coach needs to have some sort of skillset in shooting archery. Look at Coach Charlie Weis at Kansas and Bobby Hauck at UNLV. Those are two coaches who never played Football at any competitive level, and they have been pretty decent as coaches, and decent enough that boosters aren't asking the University to fire them. In archery - At a certain point in time, 95% of what you're trying to coach is not form, but it's the mental game.

Now, I'm going to hit on the comment about creating a new organization. My reply back to you on that will be the following:

1) Good Luck
2) Archery is a far larger world than what we see here in the United States. Until Archery here in the United States gets out of having Easton/Hoyt/Mathews/PSE continually paying the lions share of the bills, Archery will remain a very insular, inbred sport. Succeed in getting sponsors outside of your typical archery sponsors, and you may be onto something. Until then, see #1.

So, this brings up changes. How would the people involved in this thread change the certification process? One poster says they have some female and youth archers at the top of their game. Okay - what prevents you from being sued if they get injured and you're their coach? There's a local archery "coach" here in the Phoenix area who has some students - within a few months - are seeking medical care. All because of poor form and being overbowed. Frankly, if you want to change the certification tracks, you have to also get it approved and passed by USA Archery, the NFAA, and other organizations. See #1 and #2.

Which segues into the National Training System. NTS is a bit different, and there's some minor but marked differences between the Recurve version of the National Training System versus the Compound version. However, in both the recurve and the compound side of the NTS, the purpose is to perform the shot cycle of archery in a consistent and ergonomically safe manner. 

Herein lies the problem with the NTS. Coach Lee looks at things from a pure science and ergonomics manner. If you can justify things in an ergonomic and biomechanically efficient way, he will accept it, even if it's deviating slightly from his methods. However, there aren't a lot of people who can handle the pure science side of the world, and that causes conflict in the Level 4 class with potential students. When I took my Level 4 class, nearly half of my time was spent helping others understand the methods by translating it in a way that they understand. 

However, you don't have to teach the NTS. Getting your L1/2/3 is akin to getting your continuing education. You do it because you should do it, not because you like it. It's a piece of paper that shows that you've been trained to a certain guideline. The paper holder doesn't necessarily have to follow that guideline.

Finally - I've hinted at the ultimate reason why the certification tracks exist the way they do now. The majority of it is for group safety and lawsuit protection. Nothing more, nothing less. Certification or a Range Pass, along with the background check and SafeSport, are the minimum needed to interact with kids. Don't have that? You shouldn't work with kids. Sorry - I feel very strongly about the fact that anyone interacting with kids should have a background check done. 

There has to be some level of due diligence performed by parents. If you're a parent that is merely looking at getting your kid off the couch and fling arrows, a simple Level 2 instructor in a group setting is perfectly fine. If you're a parent that wants their kid to be the next National, World Champion or Olympic Champion - you find the coach with the necessary credentials and track record. 

The other thing that we all have to be aware of is that the Level 1/2 classes are supposed to be somewhat cookie cutter. If you were taught a Level 1/2 class here in the Phoenix area, you would be exposed to far more than what's merely in the book. In other areas - your mileage may vary.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

With the NTS system so difficult to teach correctly, it is puzzling how they certify so many in a few hours to go and teach the masses. 

I agree there should be a competency qualifying score needed for each level. To have Level 1 and Level 2 instructors that dont shoot, or can barely shoot is troublesome at best. 

Fortunately the level 1 and 2 instructors at our range all shoot archery competently. 

personally every time i see a bunch of kids at a recurve NTS dream team camp, i cringe. That wont make me any friends in the USAA power ranks, but its the truth. 


I have a level 2 certification because i wanted the insurance and the safe sport part. I do not teach the NTS method. 


Chris


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

dchan said:


> One of the things I really try to teach my L1's and L2's is the importance of Safety. The next part I REALLY try to impart is "less is more". Teach them basics (stance, nock, set, setup, draw, anchor, release and follow through) so they can start to shoot and then WALK AWAY. Especially teaching kids. They can usually figure it out.. Basic shooting steps, Proper equipment handling and movement around the range is all the L1's and L2's really need to know to be effective. Advanced archers that are L2's might take it a little further but really need more coaching training before they start to impart more than that in my opinion.
> 
> That doesn't mean there are not some real good archers that would not make great coaches or instructors. But L1's are just that. BASIC instructors. Don't blame the organization for poor instructors.
> 
> DC


I agree with this. A L1 instructor is supposed to be able to get someone from "never been on an archery range" to safely shooting. That is about it. A L2 slightly more but as the certification says, they are instructors not coaches.

To build on what DC has said, I teach my L1 & L2 classes what I put in my Archery Focus article years back. There are three S's to teaching archery (and most other things)
Safety (self explanatory)
Self Esteem - You want to make those you are teaching feel good about themselves and the skill they are learning
Satisfaction - Different people want different things from the instructor. Some people are happy just flailing arrows. Others want to learn the skill and get better at it. If you push the former group to be the latter group they will not decide that on their own because that is not what gives them satisfaction (at the moment) if they watch others improving that may change things or maybe they will just decide to be more serious. Maybe they won't. You don't want to try to sell a washing machine to someone looking for a refrigerator.

I think that the specific complaint that the original poster has is simply that when you give some people a bit of knowledge it becomes a dangerous thing and they go about 
wielding it like the sword of truth trying to conquer everyone's ignorance whether real or just perceived by them.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

chrstphr said:


> With the NTS system so difficult to teach correctly, it is puzzling how they certify so many in a few hours to go and teach the masses.
> 
> I agree there should be a competency qualifying score needed for each level. To have Level 1 and Level 2 instructors that dont shoot, or can barely shoot is troublesome at best.
> 
> ...


Ahh..that's the trick. NTS is NOT taught at the Level 1, 2, or 3. 

With regards to a competency score - the Level 4 class does require the students to shoot and demonstrate competency in the NTS. 

On the subject of Dream Team camps and students - it is a common issue where a student will have a conflict between the JDT coach and their personal coach. Eventually, the student and the student's parents needs to decide which method is the one they will go with. Those that are extremely successful transitioning between the JDT coach and their personal coach are the ones that have complete transparent communication between the coaches (JDT and personal), the parents, and the student. Otherwise, the student is doomed to fail eventually.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

For the most part NTS has been taken out of the l2 course. IIRC it has never been part of the L1. I think it's mentioned but never really taught.

While there are simple equipment selection items in L1 and L2, maybe some basic repair tips and sections, equipment tuning other than stringing a bow, etc is also NOT part of a L1 or L2 instructors course.

So again. The goal of L1 and L2 instructor training, teach proper safety, general equipment handling and selection and BASIC shooting. 
That's IT.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

when we had our Level 1 and 2 class, the instructor taught the basic root form and draw and it was NTS. 

1. bow arm offset to target 
2. angular draw out to outside 
3. Bring string sideways to side of face 
4. release. 

Perhaps it is a little different now. 

Chris


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Beastmaster said:


> On the subject of Dream Team camps and students - it is a common issue where a student will have a conflict between the JDT coach and their personal coach. Eventually, the student and the student's parents needs to decide which method is the one they will go with. Those that are extremely successful transitioning between the JDT coach and their personal coach are the ones that have complete transparent communication between the coaches (JDT and personal), the parents, and the student. Otherwise, the student is doomed to fail eventually.


Yes i completely agree. I make sure to give the parents and the kids shooting both information if they want to progress past me. OTC ( NTS and its methods) and the Korean way ( HSS academy in Irvine). I make sure they understand both are different masters and i that while i start them with the basic Korean draw system, it is not the only method available. 

I also have a JOAD kid who is coached by a Philippine National coach. I follow that coach's program for that student since it is a different method and we both dont want to mess up the kid with two different approaches. 

So far a have more parents and kids interested in the HSS Academy. Partly because she is a 1984 olympic gold medalist who set 2 world records and she shoots the Korean system that i start them on. 


Chris


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

Beastmaster, while I agree with most of what you said, from the USA Archery website

Level 3-NTS Coach (formerly Community) The Level 3 course moves away from group instruction and into individual athlete development. Level 3 Coaches are certified to teach Level 1 and Level 2 courses. Current Level 3 coaches with a background screen qualify for insurance benefits.

Course content: Introduce coaching philosophy, training cycles/plans, competition preparation, mental skills, equipment tuning, National Training System (NTS).
Length of Course: 20-24 hours
Prerequisites: Minimum age: 18; Must have been a Level 2 Instructor for one year - or pass an exam to ‘test out' of the Intermediate level and verify three years experience in an archery instructor capacity; successful background screen; successful completion of SafeSport training; and USA Archery or NFAA Membership (See Membership Benefits)
Course Cost: Varies depending on instructor
Certification period: Three years
Please note: No certification will be processed without membership and a successful background screen



Beastmaster said:


> Ahh..that's the trick. NTS is NOT taught at the Level 1, 2, or 3.
> 
> With regards to a competency score - the Level 4 class does require the students to shoot and demonstrate competency in the NTS.
> 
> On the subject of Dream Team camps and students - it is a common issue where a student will have a conflict between the JDT coach and their personal coach. Eventually, the student and the student's parents needs to decide which method is the one they will go with. Those that are extremely successful transitioning between the JDT coach and their personal coach are the ones that have complete transparent communication between the coaches (JDT and personal), the parents, and the student. Otherwise, the student is doomed to fail eventually.


----------



## kjwhfsd (Sep 10, 2005)

Most posting on here don't actually know what the NST actually is


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

kjwhfsd said:


> Most posting on here don't actually know what the *NST* actually is


But what about the NTS :wink:


----------



## tunedlow (Nov 7, 2012)

sadly, not all level 3 designation are created equally either. i've seen examples of L3 certified "coaches" who shouldn't have been designated that, possess seriously deficient knowledge in archery theory and can't hit a 122cm target to save their life. the problem gets worse at L1-L2


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

bobnikon said:


> Beastmaster, while I agree with most of what you said, from the USA Archery website
> 
> Level 3-NTS Coach (formerly Community) The Level 3 course moves away from group instruction and into individual athlete development. Level 3 Coaches are certified to teach Level 1 and Level 2 courses. Current Level 3 coaches with a background screen qualify for insurance benefits.
> 
> ...


Yes, I know what the description says. The actual class still can and will vary depending on the person teaching it.


----------



## agillator (Sep 11, 2011)

IMO, more damaging though less numerous are L3 and L4 instructors who have primarily compound experience, and then, because they are certified, believe they can coach recurve. These are the guys teaching the L1's and L2's. 

I think it is also likely that USAA is heavily influenced by the desires of manufacturers who want as many people as possible buying archery equipment, preferably compound, thereby motivating liberal dispensing of certs.

I became an L2 for two reasons: (1) because the higher level coaches in my area were either inaccessible (by virtue of schedule, travel-time, or price) or they clearly didn't understand recurve despite authoritative claims to the contrary. (2) The insurance was necessary to start our small JOAD.

By the way, this emphasis on level is, I think, misdirected. If you want to verify the quality of a coach you need to look at their students' shooting achievements, their persistence in the sport, and their history (if any) of injury. This is not to say that there couldn't be a talented coach/instructor on the rise who has simply not had students long enough to demonstrate their talent.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

kjwhfsd said:


> Most posting on here don't actually know what the {NTS} actually is


I'm not sure that is true here in the FITA forum. However, to the extent you are right, I'd say part of the problem is communication by USAA, which doesn't do a good job of defining what the system is to outsiders, nor in comparing and contrasting it to other systems. They seem to say "this is the only right way." (Maybe they do a better kob of this at the OTC, I don't know, I'm just saying how it seems to me from the outside...)


----------



## MJAnderson68 (Nov 15, 2013)

Anytime you certify anything you are going to have variations in how people use that --- think good doctors versus bad or good drivers versus bad. All you can certify is a certain level of knowledge, not acumen. Our Joad club has several lvl 1 and 2 coaches who walk the line and help people out in the beginner area. They are also *available* if anyone else in the clubs wants them. Given the level of expertise of the people in the beginner area I think they are only being an asset to the sport. For the more experienced shooters, I hear most of the coaching comments to be about consistency or things along the lines of "have you looked at your nocking point because your getting some arrow flight". 

I get more random shooters at public ranges telling me what I'm doing wrong than I get coaches.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Interspersed...

-Steve


agillator said:


> IMO, more damaging though less numerous are L3 and L4 instructors who have primarily compound experience, and then, because they are certified, believe they can coach recurve. These are the guys teaching the L1's and L2's.


On the Level 3 side - I agree. On the Level 4 side, I wholeheartedly disagree. It becomes plainly obvious to the staff teaching the Level 4 class as to which potential Level 4's have taught recurve, and which potential Level 4's have not. The learning curve for the potential Level 4 who is predominantly compound is extremely rough. One Level 4 in my class went through the class twice. Even those who teach predominantly recurve students still have a bit of difficulty passing the Level 4 class.



> I think it is also likely that USAA is heavily influenced by the desires of manufacturers who want as many people as possible buying archery equipment, preferably compound, thereby motivating liberal dispensing of certs.


USA Archery (in my view) has a double edged sword here. There is a huge amount of need for L1/L2's to do basic classes.

Let's look at it in this way. USA Archery is a business who's job is to win medals. You saturate the populace with instructors to start finding the diamonds in the rough. The L3's/L4's/L5's are there to take things from there and get the archer into a high performance program, whether it's a USA Archery based one, or one that's is home grown (like GRIV's at the Archery Learning Center).

(snip)



> By the way, this emphasis on level is, I think, misdirected. If you want to verify the quality of a coach you need to look at their students' shooting achievements, their persistence in the sport, and their history (if any) of injury. This is not to say that there couldn't be a talented coach/instructor on the rise who has simply not had students long enough to demonstrate their talent.


I agree with you there.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

kjwhfsd said:


> Most posting on here don't actually know what the NST actually is


perhaps i dont, 

for recurve 

open stance, twisted center core, bow arm offset target and angular ( circular) draw to side of face, anchor and back tension to get elbow behind string (Lan 2 position). 

back tension, back tension, back tension, release. 

Miranda Leek, Jake Kaminski and Brady Ellison perfect examples of the form. 

Am i close?

Chris


----------



## williamskg6 (Dec 21, 2008)

chrstphr said:


> for recurve
> 
> open stance, twisted center core, bow arm offset target and angular ( circular) draw to side of face, anchor and back tension to get elbow behind string (Lan 2 position).
> 
> back tension, back tension, back tension, release.


Chris, you make it sound so easy!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Beastmaster said:


> Interspersed...
> 
> -Steve
> 
> ...


You make my argument for seperate USArchery/NAA org's beautifully Steve.


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

Funny thing about L1,2...or even 3. The numbers don't really mean much. When I went for my cert it was simply so that I could help with some JOAD classes and some were asking for me to coach them. Due to my experience there was nothing really gained from the class...kind of disappointing to me. Then I stepped back and looked at what the intent of the programs were...to get someone started in coaching. Kind of like the assistant coach for baseball, football etc.


Instead of complaining, why not do something about it? Those who are complaining are actually they willing to step up to the plate? This issue has been brought up many times yet no one wants to take on the responsibility of actually attempting to make a change.

Who here who has a problem with the current system is going to donate all the necessary time to make a change to turn out actual coaches?


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Fury90flier said:


> Instead of complaining, why not do something about it? Those who are complaining are actually they willing to step up to the plate? This issue has been brought up many times yet no one wants to take on the responsibility of actually attempting to make a change.
> 
> Who here who has a problem with the current system is going to donate all the necessary time to make a change to turn out actual coaches?


well, at my range, the level 1 and 2 instructors teach the Korean method i teach, as they found it easier than the form learned in our certification. Our first priority is to turn out kids who are respectful, safe, with good sportsmanship, who love archery and want to shoot to the best of their ability and help reach their goals while having FUN. 

Hopefully after that some will want to coach or teach. I also answer quite a few questions from other JOAD coaches volunteers etc online and through email. I dont really try to make a change per se, the National system is what it is. But i try to add to the Archery community and to our kids as best i can to further the sport, and the kids goals. 

I am also the Nevada state JOAD coordinator and do answer parents questions on JOAD and tournaments and such. I volunteer with our JOAD program, and our JOAD competition team. I setup and run all our Outdoor mail in JOAD tournaments. I do what i can. Hopefully i make a difference.

Chris


----------



## shamlin (Aug 18, 2007)

Fury90flier said:


> Funny thing about L1,2...or even 3. The numbers don't really mean much. When I went for my cert it was simply so that I could help with some JOAD classes and some were asking for me to coach them. Due to my experience there was nothing really gained from the class...kind of disappointing to me. Then I stepped back and looked at what the intent of the programs were...to get someone started in coaching. Kind of like the assistant coach for baseball, football
> Instead of complaining, why not do something about it? Those who are complaining are actually they willing to step up to the plate? This issue has been brought up many times yet no one wants to take on the responsibility of actually attempting to make a change.
> 
> Who here who has a problem with the current system is going to donate all the necessary time to make a change to turn out actual coaches?


For the very reason Beastmaster pointed out, it would be impossible! 

[_Now, I will totally disagree with the statement that a coach needs to have some sort of skillset in shooting archery. Look at Coach Charlie Weis at Kansas and Bobby Hauck at UNLV. Those are two coaches who never played Football at any competitive level, and they have been pretty decent as coaches, and decent enough that boosters aren't asking the University to fire them. In archery - At a certain point in time, 95% of what you're trying to coach is not form, but it's the mental game_]
This is an absolutely horrible example, neither of these 2 coaches enjoyed any success as head coaches. As a matter of fact Weiss was fired by his last employers. In addition they are the LARGE minority out of all coaches. However I do agree with the last sentence. 
[_One poster says they have some female and youth archers at the top of their game. Okay - what prevents you from being sued if they get injured and you're their coach? There's a local archery "coach" here in the Phoenix area who has some students - within a few months - are seeking medical care. All because of poor form and being overbowed. _]
That was me, and I do this as service to some excellent archers as a volunteer. I don't market, tag myself as a "coach", rather a peer who has been at this game long enough to pass on my intellectual Capitol. The coach in Phoenix is obviously one of the very individuals I started this thread about. Anyone that is a competitive archer with years on his side wouldn't over bow an individual to the point of injury. That's ridiculous! 

[_The other thing that we all have to be aware of is that the Level 1/2 classes are supposed to be somewhat cookie cutter. If you were taught a Level 1/2 class here in the Phoenix area, you would be exposed to far more than what's merely in the book. In other areas - your mileage may vary_.]
Here you made my point for me; Level 1/2 instructors coaching! How do you think your Phoenix area students leave these classes feeling? How about full of knowledge, and empowered with all this new information to go out and start training new archers. It's great for the sport and I commend the willingness to participate, but if they do not have a demonstrated ability to practice what they preach, I do not believe they have any business instructing at any level! 
While I appreciate your support of this program, it is deeply flawed and in need of an overhaul. I only bring it up to attract a dialogue for all to participate in, as the information on some attendees here in local classes this past weekend was disturbing at best. And now, after much consideration I have decided to not get my Certification as I do not want to be lumped in with the paper instructors that are being turned out.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

shamlin said:


> For the very reason Beastmaster pointed out, it would be impossible!
> 
> [_Now, I will totally disagree with the statement that a coach needs to have some sort of skillset in shooting archery. Look at Coach Charlie Weis at Kansas and Bobby Hauck at UNLV. Those are two coaches who never played Football at any competitive level, and they have been pretty decent as coaches, and decent enough that boosters aren't asking the University to fire them. In archery - At a certain point in time, 95% of what you're trying to coach is not form, but it's the mental game_]
> This is an absolutely horrible example, neither of these 2 coaches enjoyed any success as head coaches. As a matter of fact Weiss was fired by his last employers. In addition they are the LARGE minority out of all coaches. However I do agree with the last sentence.
> ...


I have a question.

Do you teach in a program that has any sort of relations with the NFAA or USA Archery?


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

Fury90flier said:


> Funny thing about L1,2...or even 3. The numbers don't really mean much. When I went for my cert it was simply so that I could help with some JOAD classes and some were asking for me to coach them. Due to my experience there was nothing really gained from the class...kind of disappointing to me. Then I stepped back and looked at what the intent of the programs were...to get someone started in coaching. Kind of like the assistant coach for baseball, football etc.
> 
> 
> Instead of complaining, why not do something about it? Those who are complaining are actually they willing to step up to the plate? This issue has been brought up many times yet no one wants to take on the responsibility of actually attempting to make a change.
> ...


I agree with Fury, When I had my Level 2 I felt I was missing something and was left to "figure it out" myself. So, I went searching, found some coaches to mentor me and let me work with them. Read a lot of articles on the web, I was determined to fill in the blanks. 

This summer I took my L3 class with Larry Wise and Doug Ludwig. I listened to everything they said, worked with them hands on with the techniques. Asked a lot of questions and left the class feeling pretty confident in my abilities as a coach. 

I feel that if I cannot effectively teach the NTS system I am doing my students an injustice. After all, this is the standard USA Archery head coaches want us to teach. We had 2 shooters make the Compound Jr. Dream team this year, so I guess we're on the right track. But, I never stop learning and asking questions. 

As for the comments of the OP.... I am careful to never step on the toes of another coach or instructor. I feel that any instructor who is safely getting new shooters into the sport, is an asset to the sport. 

Some instructors only want the title or piece of paper "granted" but, it's really not your place to say they are ruining the sport. Unless someone has the credentials and can effectively say they are being unsafe or teaching unsafe habits. 

I too am curious what credentials the OP has to base his information on.


----------



## shamlin (Aug 18, 2007)

This is the very problem with this format, a couple of you are hung up on the credentials, how many have qualified for Olympic Dream team etc. Some of the very best "coaches" out there are current competitive archers that want nothing to do with the NTS approach. You all that have to hang your hat on the paper, and taking what students where, how many students etc. This in of itself does not make one a "great coach". Most of my teachings are in the Indoor and 3D worlds of archery. Some are just now beginning to shoot FITA events with much success. But the purpose of this thread was not to pound my chest bigger than yours; some of you are not getting it, but trying to take the conversation in that direction by demanding credentials. I will say it again, the reason this thread was started was I was privy to numerous archers, most beginners, that have taken the classes and are now on the path to coaching/instructing students. These very "instructors" are not even where they shoot competently in their own rights. This bothers me and it is something that should be addressed. In our area alone here in South Texas, over 30 plus new level 2 instructors in the last 2 weeks. Heck we don't even have 30 plus highly competitive shooters here in our area. Us shooters all know who we are and it disturbs us where these instructors are coming from! I just opened the dialogue to gain understanding not to pound my chest over my credentials vs yours. If you don't think that this current trend will damage the sport in the long run, you are sorely mistaken.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Maybe L1 and L2 course should have a archers advice section where the instructor teach the following:

Archers, as you practice, others will come to you and offer “unsolicited advice” that can be more damaging than beneficial. 
Veteran archers offer this advice…Politely listen to the uninvited advice and then voice the following…“Thank you, my coach and I have a training plan, please feel free to contact my coach with any comments you have.” Then resume practice…

We can’t control what people do, however we can teach “accident avoidance”.


----------



## kjwhfsd (Sep 10, 2005)

chrstphr said:


> perhaps i dont,
> 
> for recurve
> 
> ...


No your not. And those you named are shooting a modified version.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Then it appears that the NTS system is even more of a black art, since the 3 top shooters in that program arent even shooting it correctly. 

Who is shooting this NTS correctly that i may see it ? If Brady Ellison is not the poster archer for the NTS system, then who is?



Chris


----------



## kjwhfsd (Sep 10, 2005)

chrstphr said:


> perhaps i dont,
> 
> for recurve
> 
> ...


Lan 2 is not a position it's a transfer of tension


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

shamlin said:


> This is the very problem with this format, a couple of you are hung up on the credentials, how many have qualified for Olympic Dream team etc. Some of the very best "coaches" out there are current competitive archers that want nothing to do with the NTS approach. You all that have to hang your hat on the paper, and taking what students where, how many students etc. This in of itself does not make one a "great coach". Most of my teachings are in the Indoor and 3D worlds of archery. Some are just now beginning to shoot FITA events with much success. But the purpose of this thread was not to pound my chest bigger than yours; some of you are not getting it, but trying to take the conversation in that direction by demanding credentials. I will say it again, the reason this thread was started was I was privy to numerous archers, most beginners, that have taken the classes and are now on the path to coaching/instructing students. These very "instructors" are not even where they shoot competently in their own rights. This bothers me and it is something that should be addressed. In our area alone here in South Texas, over 30 plus new level 2 instructors in the last 2 weeks. Heck we don't even have 30 plus highly competitive shooters here in our area. Us shooters all know who we are and it disturbs us where these instructors are coming from! I just opened the dialogue to gain understanding not to pound my chest over my credentials vs yours. If you don't think that this current trend will damage the sport in the long run, you are sorely mistaken.


I get a lot of unsolicited advise for my shooters and these well meaning individuals are not helping but rather confusing my shooters. 
If I'm not there to do damage control, I often have to "un do" this bad advise. (Some kids will listen to these people because they were taught to respect adults)
By not having the training or credentials to teach in the manner I am teaching my students, these people are only wasting my time and theirs.
If USA Archery wants their future champions to all be on the same program, then that's what I teach.

I'm not pounding my chest, just stating facts that some of my students have had great success.
They don't do 3D, they have goals to be on the USA Archery team someday. And the NTS is what they need to learn to be part of the team.

I stand by my comment that as long as an instructor is getting people to shoot archery and doing it safely, that can never be bad for the sport.

I don't know why it bothers you if a coach or instructor is not a great shooter. I have very good friends who can no longer shoot due to age or health issues but are excellent coaches.
I love it when my students can out shoot me, and I'm no slouch with a bow.


----------



## Steve N (Apr 27, 2004)

"A man's got to know his limitations" Harry Callahan

I'm an L2, have been for about 6 years or so now. I "instruct" at a local JOAD club, plus give some private and small group instruction on my own (and I get paid for what I do on my own). I've spent my time listening to and observing other archers who are a lot better than I am. I take what I learn and try to pass it on to those I instruct. However, I'm not a top flight archer, have never been to Vegas, or won an Olympic medal, or a national championship. But I am one hell of a lot better than some COACHES I've seen. I know coaches how don't have the people skills to convey information without causing the student to get discouraged. I know how to break down training into steps and convey the information in easy to understand formats. I know that the way I instruct is not the only to shoot a bow and arrow. I know not to interfere with other coaches or instructor's students. I know that once someone I am instructing reaches a level where I can no longer help them, I pass them off to someone who can.

I think my L2 class was not very instructional. All I got from it was a piece of paper and LIABILITY INSURANCE. The techniques I learned by working with other instructors and coaches. I have know idea where I got the skills to convey complex information. Having an L2 certification does not make you an instructor. It just gives you a place to start. (I know, too many I's).


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

shamlin said:


> For the very reason Beastmaster pointed out, it would be impossible!
> 
> .



Not impossible at all. What is needed are the complainers to simply get a little more education. It seems that they don't understand what the intent of L1,L2 is. In addition they need to look at the individual and not the actual cert level. Just like a college degree...often it doesn't mean much. 

As mentioned, if there are instructors giving bad advice/guidance be it form or safety, correct it and move on.



XForce Girl said:


> I get a lot of unsolicited advise for my shooters and these well meaning individuals are not helping but rather confusing my shooters.
> If I'm not there to do damage control, I often have to "un do" this bad advise. (Some kids will listen to these people because they were taught to respect adults)
> By not having the training or credentials to teach in the manner I am teaching my students, these people are only wasting my time and theirs.
> If USA Archery wants their future champions to all be on the same program, then that's what I teach.
> ...


Can you be specific as to what type of advice you've had to undo?


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

Fury90flier said:


> Not impossible at all. What is needed are the complainers to simply get a little more education. It seems that they don't understand what the intent of L1,L2 is. In addition they need to look at the individual and not the actual cert level. Just like a college degree...often it doesn't mean much.
> 
> As mentioned, if there are instructors giving bad advice/guidance be it form or safety, correct it and move on.
> 
> ...


Well,
I had a student practicing at a range while out of town and she basically got surrounded by the local pros, trying to help. She was practicing with her new BT release, they showed her how to cheat it by turning her hand at an angle and using her pinky finger to make it go off. This was easy for her to make the release "work" so she started using this new "technique" she was an intermediate shooter at the time.
Another occasion a person told one of my shooters to open their stance toward the target to get their arm out of the way. (/the shooter did not have a problem with arm slap)

Then there's the famous, "put your thumb behind your neck for a solid anchor" 
I could go on but you get the idea. That's why I have a private range for my JOAD kids to practice on. Keeps the riffraff away.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

kjwhfsd said:


> Lan 2 is not a position it's a transfer of tension



you said i wasnt close. now you say i missed one point? 

You say none of the three top archers i listed shoot the form as its supposed to be. But a modified version of it. I asked who is then shooting it correctly so i may see it. 

??

Otherwise NTS is back to a system no one can explain, very few can teach, and even fewer can do it correctly. 

Is Simon Fairweather or Tim Cuddihy an example of the form done correctly as its supposed to be done? 

Chris


----------



## shamlin (Aug 18, 2007)

Of the 3 examples you gave about unsolicited advise; these cannot be too level local pro shooters! Of the group of shooters that travel with me to Regional and National events, not one would ever give this type of advise. As a matter of fact we never offer advise, rather let our shooting draw the attention and then if we are asked we will oblige the proper answer. Good shooters and teachers like to sit back and listen to the water cooler pros give out needless advise on this and that, it's hilarious. So in that we have some common ground. If I were you I would not be happy with that either.

So a question, you have to go through specific archery training techniques the NTS way to make an Olympic team? If that's the case, if compound archery ever makes it as an Olympic sport, I don't know how some of the top level compound shooters will make the team.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

shamlin said:


> So a question, you have to go through specific archery training techniques the NTS way to make an Olympic team? If that's the case, if compound archery ever makes it as an Olympic sport, I don't know how some of the top level compound shooters will make the team.


NTS or any Archery form has nothing to do with making the Olympic team. Other than it giving you a form to shoot a high enough score. 

However if you wish to train at the OTC at their camps, then you agree to learn NTS.that is in every disclaimer they put out for the camps. 

I am not sure its required to be a Resident Athlete, but i think its probable. 


Chris


----------



## RickBac (Sep 18, 2011)

I am a coach at heart and always have been. I have instructed/coached many sports. While we sit here and discuss the pluses and minus of the USA Archery Instructor/Coaching system, it is at least something.

If you coach Little League, Youth Soccer, Pop Warner, etc. etc., there is far less guidance that what we have in place. To be a coach in any of those, all it you have to do is circle of box on your kids registration and Ta Da you are a coach. You are expected to coach not just instruct. What little guidance there is in those sports is a joke. I have coached in Little League, Soccer and Football. No help in Soccer and Football, little league had a clinic put on by the local high school coach. Only in Little League was there a background check.

We as an archery community are speck in the sand compared to the number of kids and adults that play in the other sports.

We are bashing something I feel is on the right track. Is it perfect, heck no. But we are getting better each year little by little.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

A couple of things. Understanding what you are able to do is important. It is up to each individual who chooses to coach to keep raising their game. It is up to those who possess knowledge to pass it along. The growth of our sport has been phenomenal and with that growth, things can get a bit chaotic. It is unrealistic to think a large base of expert coaches will exist before an expanding customer base exists to support it.


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

midwayarcherywi said:


> A couple of things. Understanding what you are able to do is important. It is up to each individual who chooses to coach to keep raising their game. It is up to those who possess knowledge to pass it along. The growth of our sport has been phenomenal and with that growth, things can get a bit chaotic. It is unrealistic to think a large base of expert coaches will exist before an expanding customer base exists to support it.


Excellent points.
Archery coaching is constant learning. 
Nobody comes out of a coaching class as an expert coach. 
It takes time to developed.


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

I think the USAA curriculum is a great thing. Even an L1 contains a good deal of material. Sure, there are some who squeak by, don't really learn, misrepresent their skills, or get an unscrupulous teacher to give them the certificate without passing, but that is true in all disciplines. Even medical professionals show such hubris and overestimation of their own skills. It does not mean the certification or degree is bad, it's the person holding it.

Bear in mind that anybody can claim to be a coach or instructor. With a defined curriculum and a certification, at least you know what they are supposed to know. I would much rather have that than some person who just claims to be an expert with no measurable test to back it up. Winning tournaments does not make expert coaches or instructors either. Teaching and coaching others is a different skill.

I think the L1 has merit for what it is intended - safety, basic equipment, basic technique and shot cycle. My L2 was about 50% hands-on teaching. Come to think of it, my L1 had teaching practice too, just covering the basics.

I agree about the unsolicited advice, though - it is rude. I don't say anything unless asked or teaching. I only make observations for very close friends or family, and even then very sparingly and for something really worth noting.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I'm kinda enjoying following this thread... 



kjwhfsd said:


> Lan 2 is not a position it's a transfer of tension


This one has me rolling.  Sorry.



> Politely listen to the uninvited advice and then voice the following…“Thank you, my coach and I have a training plan, please feel free to contact my coach with any comments you have.” Then resume practice…


Yup. Good advice. I remember saying this on the training field in Athens to a coach that everyone here knows, in fact.


----------



## _JR_ (Mar 30, 2014)

shamlin said:


> I know I am gonna get flamed for this, but this level 1&2 instructor classes are hurting the future of archery. In the last 2 weeks there have been 2 different classes certifying around 30 plus so called instructors! I personally know some of them and they are new archers themselves that have no business teaching anyone archery. ...
> ... I guess this adds credence to the term, those who can't ........ Coach.


Not gonna flame you, but I think you're looking at it the wrong way. I don't think any sport (heck, *any* voluntary activity for that matter) has room for the "If you can't do it right, don't even try" mindset, or even any other less extreme variants of that mantra. Some people just want to learn to fling arrows safely and they might not necessarily be planning to go the Rio 2016 / Tokyo 2020 route. 
Also not sure why you felt like you had to say "those who can't, coach" That's disparaging to all coaches everywhere and not at all constructive. Maybe you had some bad experiences or something? Maybe something else? I don't know. 

But anyway, I advise and "instruct" (Level 2, so I guess I don't "coach") a small university club and team. Having the USAA certification process makes it a lot easier to get things done through our university, and it gives some of the more experienced collegiate athletes something to work toward (Level 1 or 2 certification, for example). All of those things make it easier to grow the sport and contribute positively in the aggregate. If when we were founding the club a few years ago we would have thought "_wait, we need an experienced, accomplished, and highly skilled and awesome archer who can shoot super well in all disciplines to lead our team_" there quite simply would have been no team and that would have been the end of that. Instead, we now have a couple dozen club members and 8 team members. 

Here's a challenge - if you (or anyone, for that matter) want to constructively help grow the sport of archery, our small, self-funded team needs arrows (we do field archery once a month and you know what happens to arrows there), intermediate-level equipment (our club president competed at outdoor nationals last year with his grandfather's 65#, 50-year-old hunting bow), or funds to travel to tournaments and repair target butts (tax-deductible). PM me if you think you might want to help grow archery in the USA by that means.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

_JR_ said:


> Here's a challenge - if you (or anyone, for that matter) want to constructively help grow the sport of archery, our small, self-funded team needs arrows (we do field archery once a month and you know what happens to arrows there), intermediate-level equipment (our club president competed at outdoor nationals last year with his grandfather's 65#, 50-year-old hunting bow), or funds to travel to tournaments and repair target butts (tax-deductible). PM me if you think you might want to help grow archery in the USA by that means.


I sent you a PM. perhaps i have an old aerotec your club president can shoot at his next nationals. 

Chris


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: should coaches be expected to have some (or have had in the past) some proficiency with actually shooting a bow? By way of the visual example, I don't want this guy to be the pitching coach on my Little League or Major League team ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c_onhzgvcY

How can a 'never-have-competed' theoretician prepare an archer for competition nearly as well as can an experienced, competitive (or former competitive) archer who knows the hundred nuanced details necessary for competitive shooting and can communicate/contribute that intimate knowledge to the archer's education?

That's not to say that instructors can't and don't make important contributions, because of course they do. 

And, imo, "competitive" doesn't have to mean "national caliber" shooter, but should, imo, mean at least someone who has some experience shooting and competing on some level. Obviously there are exceptions, as in all things.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Amused I am

Yoda


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

QUOTE=kjwhfsd;1071867603]Lan 2 is not a position it's a transfer of tension[/QUOTE]

Your clarification confused me, unless you were going for sarcasm, in which case I still dont get it, but at least you arent trying to correct someone when you dont have the answer

These muscles used in combination with the correct bone alignment give you the strength to shoot comfortably and consistently.
An important term in learning the correct shot cycle is LAN 2, a half dollar–sized area on the outside of the upper arm, halfway between the shoulder and elbow which you can see in figure 3.2.


----------



## wa-prez (Sep 9, 2006)

When seeing this influx of raw newbies into the Level 1 Instructor courses, you'll help to know some background.

USA Archery has but some strict requirements on who can have access to the tournament field during events.

Even parents who want to be able to support their own children - keep them hydrated, give them emotional support (or etiquette pointers) must have a "Range Pass" and must be Level I certified to get range pass (plus a background check). So some of these people might not even be planning to instruct, let alone coach, but are just trying to get the box checked off. So don't get alarmed!

There probably was a better way to implement this control of field access, but this is how USAA chose to do it.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

I cant help wondering what possible success a boxer and hammer thrower could hope to have coaching womens gymnastics. 



Can you imagine Béla Károlyi in a unitard on the balance beam or uneven bars...


----------



## shamlin (Aug 18, 2007)

_JR_ said:


> Not gonna flame you, but I think you're looking at it the wrong way. I don't think any sport (heck, *any* voluntary activity for that matter) has room for the "If you can't do it right, don't even try" mindset, or even any other less extreme variants of that mantra. Some people just want to learn to fling arrows safely and they might not necessarily be planning to go the Rio 2016 / Tokyo 2020 route.
> Also not sure why you felt like you had to say "those who can't, coach" That's disparaging to all coaches everywhere and not at all constructive. Maybe you had some bad experiences or something? Maybe something else? I don't know.
> 
> But anyway, I advise and "instruct" (Level 2, so I guess I don't "coach") a small university club and team. Having the USAA certification process makes it a lot easier to get things done through our university, and it gives some of the more experienced collegiate athletes something to work toward (Level 1 or 2 certification, for example). All of those things make it easier to grow the sport and contribute positively in the aggregate. If when we were founding the club a few years ago we would have thought "_wait, we need an experienced, accomplished, and highly skilled and awesome archer who can shoot super well in all disciplines to lead our team_" there quite simply would have been no team and that would have been the end of that. Instead, we now have a couple dozen club members and 8 team members.
> ...


Sorry but the phrase is fairly truthful. Most compertitive archers are so busy working on their own craft, there is no time for instructing/coaching. Competing and maintaining at a high level takes tons of practice both on and off the target range. For the select few, like Limbwalker that shoots competitively, coaches, and maintains constant activity through event organizations, etc they are the workhorse anamoly of this sport. Those who may attempt to compete, not do well, turn to coaching. I personally know a fairly high number of these individuals today. I am not knocking any of them. They have taken their craft to a competitive level and for whatever reason it wasnt for them, so now they coach. I take issue with an archer or non-archer that has been in the sport for 3 months, likes flinging arrows at the local indoor range a couple time a week, pays $130 bucks, takes a class, gets a certificate, and turns around and starts instructing archery and sometimes at a fee! 
Regarding your challenge, sorry I cannot help you with that. All of my equipment and extra time goes to local shooters that I help through donating my equipment and especially my time in my home shop making strings and tuning bows. So essentially I am doing everything I can to help grow the sport in the small way that I can, while maintianing a fairly rigerous tournament/hunting schedule throughout the year.


----------



## _JR_ (Mar 30, 2014)

chrstphr said:


> I sent you a PM. perhaps i have an old aerotec your club president can shoot at his next nationals.
> 
> Chris


Chris,
Got your PM. You are AWESOME. This is exactly the sort of kindness and generosity that really helps draw people to the sport, and also that keeps people engaged. I think he will be very happy to have 21st century equipment!


----------



## GBUSA (Jun 6, 2013)

shamlin said:


> I take issue with an archer or non-archer that has been in the sport for 3 months, likes flinging arrows at the local indoor range a couple time a week, pays $130 bucks, takes a class, gets a certificate, and turns around and starts instructing archery and sometimes at a fee!



Sorry you don't like it and sure it sucks, but it's a free market after all, so buyer beware.
Can't really hold it against a person who pays an organization their asking price for a license to sell the goods, and then does.
If the governing body was at all concerned with folks making a buck after they paid for the right to make that buck, then perhaps they need to rethink the costs to the investor in the first place.

Love how this thread has morphed 👍
It wasn't about level 3 & 4 coaches, or how only past pros can coach future pros. The op was pissing on level 1 & 2 instructors that were somehow ruining archery for the world.
The kids our level 1's instruct at our YMCA just need someone to show them how and where to nock the arrow on the string and explain cock feather orientation. But these instructors are some how destroying archery as we know it 💩 that's a broad brush to paint with.


----------



## ThomVis (Feb 21, 2012)

GBUSA said:


> The op was pissing on level 1 & 2 instructors that were somehow ruining archery for the world.


I don't think the Koreans will be bothered much by L1 instructors ruining archery for the US :wink:.

In the Netherlands the certification of archery instructors follows the qualification profiles set down by the NOC*NSF (Dutch Olympic Committee), just like most sporting committees connected to the NOC*NSF. For the level 2 course you must teach a group of archers and are accompanied by a senior trainer who writes a report on how you're doing, which is included in the judgement to fail or pass the course.
Since last year we have something like the NTS (called "basisschot") and all Level 2 and Level 3 trainers are instructed or updated on this concept.


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

GBUSA said:


> The kids our level 1's instruct at our YMCA just need someone to show them how and where to nock the arrow on the string and explain cock feather orientation. But these instructors are some how destroying archery as we know it 💩 that's a broad brush to paint with.


Agree..
When I started out as a l2 I introduced lots of kids to the sport.
Some of them loved it so much they wanted to continue.
They are the reason I learned more and finally got my L3 so I could continue to help them grow in the sport.
If we didn't have the L1 and L2 out there getting these folks started in the sport and planting the seed, that would truly mean the end of our sport.


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

The original assertion that L1 & L2 instructors are undoing the work of coaches could be rectified by simply addressing the
subject of providing unsolicited advice during those courses. 5-10 minutes. In all honesty the fact that a person has or does
not have any level of certification does not determine whether or not they will bumble about forcing information on unsuspecting kids (or adults).

With respect to a coach needing to be an elite archer to be able to provide useful information I simply say "poppycock". If that sort of thinking was
actually true then athletes who set records would all be coached by a record holder in their sport. Let's get real here: Does that mean that you
can't be a really good high school or college level physics instructor unless you have received a Nobel prize?

I run a camp archery program. I do a L1 course each summer for my staff and allow a few campers who are old enough to attend. That is how
I figure out who would be a good candidate for staff in the future. The extra work pays off because when you have 2 staff members watching over
a dozen or so campers you can't get much instruction time in a 1 hour class. The older campers who have done the L1 course will invariably step to
the plate and it is gratifying to see them offering up advice to other campers just as they were instructed. It doesn't take Rick McKinney (no slight to Rick intended)
to help a kid stop hitting his or her bow arm and get back to enjoying archery safely.

I would also add that a L1 or L2 course is a springboard for someone who has the aptitude and patience to teach to get their feet wet and
give them confidence to learn more about coaching archery. Kind of like student teaching perhaps. Anyone who thinks that just because they
took a course on how to teach a beginning archery class gives them the skill set to teach more advanced archers is simply deluding themself
and that is not the fault of the L1 or L2 programs.


----------



## GBUSA (Jun 6, 2013)

ThomVis said:


> I don't think the Koreans will be bothered much by L1 instructors ruining archery for the US :wink:.


The Koreans don't seem all that worried about what our level 3&4 coaches are doing either😉 😄


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

rkumetz said:


> The original assertion that L1 & L2 instructors are undoing the work of coaches could be rectified by simply addressing the
> subject of providing unsolicited advice during those courses. 5-10 minutes. In all honesty the fact that a person has or does
> not have any level of certification does not determine whether or not they will bumble about forcing information on unsuspecting kids (or adults).
> 
> ...


You must have meant to respond to a different thread - I looked back through this one and found zero posts contending that coaches should necessarily be former "elite" archers or record holders. 

And while a Nobel Prize certainly isn't necessary to teach high school physics classes, I would think an actual demonstrated ability to 'do physics' would be necessary. Most accreditation programs agree ....

https://www.google.com/search?q=educational+progression+to+physics&rlz=1C1LENP_enUS517US517&oq=educational+progression+to+physics&aqs=chrome..69i57.7421j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=requirements+to+teach+physics

One example: 
How to Become a Physics Teacher
The science of physics addresses the interaction of matter and energy and is the cornerstone that sciences such as astronomy, geology, acoustics, and optics rest upon, as well as the biological and chemical sciences. Physics teachers provide this foundation to future scientists, engineers, and technicians, so they can subsequently further their studies in college and beyond, while helping other students understand how the world around them works. If you are genuinely fascinated by science and motivated to build that fascination in others, you may want to become a physics teacher. If so, the steps below tell you how to go about it.
Ad 


Steps
Become a Physics Teacher Step 1.jpg

1Take all the math and science you can while in high school. In addition to physics, you should take classes in chemistry and biology. The math classes you should take include geometry, algebra, pre-calculus algebra, and calculus, and if available, trigonometry and analytical geometry.
Some school districts begin with biology, then move on to chemistry and physics in successive years, while others offer physics first, and then move to the other sciences. Some high schools also offer advanced as well as introductory physics classes.
You should also take as many English classes as you can in high school to improve your written and verbal communications skills; you may also want to consider a foreign language.
Ad 


Become a Physics Teacher Step 2.jpg

2Decide at what level you want to teach physics. The level at which you plan to teach physics will determine what credentials you need. If you plan to teach at the middle and high school level, you will likely need only a bachelor's degree initially, while if you plan to teach at the community college level, you will most likely need to obtain a master's degree as well.
Become a Physics Teacher Step 3.jpg

3 Obtain your bachelor's degree. Depending on which college you attend, you may major in physics and minor in education, major in education and minor in physics, or go for a double major. Your physics classes will include classes in electromagnetic theory, optics, quantum physics, and thermodynamics, and may also include classes in astronomy and geology. Your education coursework will include classes in general education theory and practical courses in teaching physics, concluding with either a single semester or 2 semesters of student teaching during your senior year. Most bachelor's degree programs take 4 years to complete.
Some programs are structured so you take your physics classes first and then your education classes, while others are structured so you take your physics and education classes at the same time.
College classes in either technical writing or scientific writing may also be helpful to build on the English classes you took in high school.


----------



## shamlin (Aug 18, 2007)

This is awesome where this thread has morphed. Can't help but notice all the responses and their corresponding marketing of their "Level 2 or Level 3" signature lines. I wouldn't expect anything less! But I can tell you, there are many more great coaches out there that don't give 2 flips about the NTS and their certification system. I personally know about 4 of them here in my area.

To clarify AGAIN, I only take issue with instructors getting paid that do. It have the skill set to teach at hers, but because of the certification they feel empowered to do so. Call it capitalism or whatever, it's not good for the sport. I mean nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

bobnikon said:


> I cant help wondering what possible success a boxer and hammer thrower could hope to have coaching womens gymnastics.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine Béla Károlyi in a unitard on the balance beam or uneven bars...


Bob, your example is leaking all over the floor ... 

Yes, Bela is a phenomenal HEAD coach, with lots of assistant coaches who are the ones actually hands-on teaching the gymnasts the various intricate techniques. Or are you suggesting that there are no instructors/teachers/assistants in the Olympic Gymnastic Training program with any actual gymnastics experience in their background? 

If we went to visit a hundred local gymnastics schools/clubs around the country, how many do you think we'd find where the instructors/coaches had no actual gymnastics training/participation/competition in their background? My money is on very few, if any. 

PS - I'd love to see some video of Bela on the uneven bars - now there's a video sure to go viral.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

My example, as you point out, holds about as much water as the original assertion. However, I was never implying that there arent teams of coaches, I was more saying that what one sees on the surface doesnt tell the whole of the story. Not a popular coach, or even one I would want coaching my kid from what I have read of him. But no denying his sucess, nor that he couldnt do a back flip into splits on the balance beam to save his life... okay maybe once... At the end of the day, the roles of instructors vs coaches and even parents is very muddied at times in this thread, and in real life. If a parent drops their kid off with someone they found in the classifieds or even the coach locator, with no research, picks them up two hours later, and figures their part of the triad is satisfied with that level of effort, they get what they deserve for their money, unfortunately it is the kid who may suffer. I feel it behoves the parent to play an active role in the process, and with being there observing and a little research, they will figure out pretty quickly what the score is. Do I think the system is perfect, not a chance, do I think it is better than the adhoc approach some other sports have, absolutely. Personally I like the idea of coaches being competent archers, I dont think instructors need to be. As for unslicited "help" as it was said above, if a person, no matter who it is, is getting into your bubble unwanted, thank them and tell them your are doing fine. If you have a coach, or instructor, refer the person to them.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

lksseven said:


> Bob, your example is leaking all over the floor ...
> 
> Yes, Bela is a phenomenal HEAD coach, with lots of assistant coaches who are the ones actually hands-on teaching the gymnasts the various intricate techniques. *Or are you suggesting that there are no instructors/teachers/assistants in the Olympic Gymnastic Training program with any actual gymnastics experience in their background?*
> 
> ...


By the way, that is a hell of a leap from what I posted... not quite sure how you got there, must have been a professional long jump coach...:wink:


----------



## williamskg6 (Dec 21, 2008)

I seem to remember a discussion like this a few years ago. While a valid discussion, finger pointing, flaming, and reading things into others' comments (implied or otherwise) is common. 

I think it's time for some Megamind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxVV60f9uuw

What I've learned: 1. There are some people out there with L1/L2 certifications that aren't very knowledgeable or experienced, some of which are willfully ignorant and don't mind charging for their "knowledge". 2. Many people have opinions on this. 3. It's difficult to get everyone to agree on what should be different or how any problems would be fixed. 

Hours can be spent debating possible solutions and problems. Personally, I'm just going to work on being better myself (which will probably include some additional certifications) and making my local archery community a better place. I figure that's the most productive thing I can do. That, and watch Megamind!

-Kent W.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

bobnikon said:


> My example, as you point out, holds about as much water as the original assertion. However, I was never implying that there arent teams of coaches, I was more saying that what one sees on the surface doesnt tell the whole of the story. Not a popular coach, or even one I would want coaching my kid from what I have read of him. But no denying his sucess, nor that he couldnt do a back flip into splits on the balance beam to save his life... okay maybe once... At the end of the day, the roles of instructors vs coaches and even parents is very muddied at times in this thread, and in real life. If a parent drops their kid off with someone they found in the classifieds or even the coach locator, with no research, picks them up two hours later, and figures their part of the triad is satisfied with that level of effort, they get what they deserve for their money, unfortunately it is the kid who may suffer. I feel it behoves the parent to play an active role in the process, and with being there observing and a little research, they will figure out pretty quickly what the score is. Do I think the system is perfect, not a chance, do I think it is better than the adhoc approach some other sports have, absolutely. Personally I like the idea of coaches being competent archers, I dont think instructors need to be. As for unslicited "help" as it was said above, if a person, no matter who it is, is getting into your bubble unwanted, thank them and tell them your are doing fine. If you have a coach, or instructor, refer the person to them.


Agree.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

williamskg6 said:


> I seem to remember a discussion like this a few years ago. While a valid discussion, finger pointing, flaming, and reading things into others' comments (implied or otherwise) is common.
> 
> I think it's time for some Megamind:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxVV60f9uuw
> ...


++1


----------



## dannynguyen88 (May 6, 2014)

True that!! I've seen people who just want to come to the range, relax, and let loose some arrows.. Then people are offering all sorts of advice, getting all up in the archer's space LOL
Like damn.. just let them shoot X.X



dchan said:


> This I have to agree with.. If you don't want instruction, a basic instructor, should not be coming up to you just because "they are an instructor" and telling you how to shoot.


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

dchan said:


> This I have to agree with.. If you don't want instruction, a basic instructor, should not be coming up to you just because "they are an instructor" and telling you how to shoot.


I agree but will take this one step further. Usually the most qualified people to give advice will stand back and wait until
someone asks for their opinion. They also listen a lot more than they talk.


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

lksseven said:


> You must have meant to respond to a different thread - I looked back through this one and found zero posts contending that coaches should necessarily be former "elite" archers or record holders.


Perhaps I did not make my point clearly and for that I apologize. The point that I was trying to make is that a coach is a teacher who must understand the subject matter and most importantly be able to communicate and teach it to the student effectively. When I was in college I had a number of math classes taught by Phuds who were very smart people and in one case head of the department but unfortunately they could not teach for their lives. The best in the department was a lowly visiting lecturer from eastern Europe who had only a reasonable mastery of the English language but who busted his butt to make sure that everyone left his class with a mastery of the material.

Sure, a coach needs to have mastery of the sport however we all get old, our eyesight fails and we are not exactly prime athletic material at some point but that doesn't mean that someone can't be a great coach because they have an understanding of what you need to do and can help an archery master that technique. 

If you are "coach shopping" a more important indicator than the scores that coach shot is how much progress their students make and how well liked they are by their students.

Unrelated to your reply. I think we can all agree that any coach at any level in any sport needs to push him or herself to do the best by and for their students. That includes understanding your limits and doing the right thing by passing off students when they are at a point where their needs exceed your skills.


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

High level coaches (those coaching accomplished athletes) do not neccassarily need a strong competency in the sport because the athletes they are coaching already posess high-level skills. Most things at a professional level are mental and tactical; the physical skill sets are already fully ingrained. This is why an NFL coach doesn't need to come from a stellar, personal, athletic background. It's not up to him to transfer the basic, intermediate or even advanced skill sets. It's up to him to coach tactics and keep his players on the level. 
Competency in sport IS required in order to effectively instruct the basics.


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

ryan b. said:


> High level coaches (those coaching accomplished athletes) do not neccassarily need a strong competency in the sport because the athletes they are coaching already posess high-level skills. Most things at a professional level are mental and tactical; the physical skill sets are already fully ingrained. This is why an NFL coach doesn't need to come from a stellar, personal, athletic background. It's not up to him to transfer the basic, intermediate or even advanced skill sets. It's up to him to coach tactics and keep his players on the level.
> Competency in sport IS required in order to effectively instruct the basics.


I don't think anyone is arguing that a coach does not have to be competent. I think the disagreement is over how you determine what defines being competent to effectively teach / coach an athlete.


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

rkumetz said:


> I don't think anyone is arguing that a coach does not have to be competent. I think the disagreement is over how you determine what defines being competent to effectively teach / coach an athlete.


A lot of people are using examples of unskilled coaches instructing high level athletes. 
This is clearly not the same as unskilled coaches coaching unskilled beginners. Don't confuse the two. 


ANY coach who does not understand the basics on a personal level is most likely hindering basic progress. Highschool or litte league coaches with no personal skill in the game at hand are feeding off of pre-existing skills or worse, hampering skills with BS they think they understand. I've personally seen archery coaches who could not break a 200 on a 300round at 20yds or basketball coaches giving lip service to the nuances of a free throw when they'd be lucky to accidentally sink 3 out of 20 shots.This is gross incompetency and you don't need a test to put the inadequacy on display. What is needed(and mentioned in others posts) is a setting aside of the coaches ego and a development of personal, basic, skills.


----------



## cc46 (Jan 22, 2005)

What year is it, 2014, seems I'm having a "deja vue" all over again. 

Seriously though a good thread. 

I can only add that about 45 years ago my first JOAD archery "instructor" was not an archer but lifeguard, filling in his shift between pool sessions. I only remember the fun, encouragement and the delight he portrayed at the smallest of achievements, and a lasting comment one day...."if your family strikes oil, ask your parents for a better bow and real arrows". I saved my lawn cutting money and my dad put in the rest of the cash. 


Carry on, I'm making popcorn....


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

I am not arguing in favor of coaches being in possession of high-level skill. I personally know many high level athletes who can't coach worth a crap. Of course I'd rather have a high level dude who can also coach well but we arent always that lucky

I think quite a few coaches with sub par skills could easily increase the effectiveness of their coaching by spending some time improving their own game instead of running their mouth, blowing a whistle, yelling louder ,or in the case of archery ,focusing on the nuances and pointing at their credentials. Basic skills are easier to pass along if you're in possession of the skills in the first place. 

Note: nasty old coaches with previous experience are exempt because they do have experience even if they can't currently display technique.


----------



## _JR_ (Mar 30, 2014)

cc46 said:


> I can only add that about 45 years ago my first JOAD archery "instructor" was not an archer but lifeguard, filling in his shift between pool sessions. I only remember the fun, encouragement and the delight he portrayed at the smallest of achievements, and a lasting comment one day...."if your family strikes oil, ask your parents for a better bow and real arrows". I saved my lawn cutting money and my dad put in the rest of the cash.


Yay! I think someone's finally hit it, way down at the bottom of page 4!

This thread is about "Level 1 and Level 2" (so, beginners) and "hurting archery" (so, not harming the sport, or better yet, promoting it).

And here is the first time we see what it takes to take people from zero experience through the beginner levels and then to lifelong learners - the athlete has to WANT to do it. Nasty old coaches or butt-inski coaches might have the skills to nail high scores or the credentials to display, but at the beginning levels, it's the people skills that matter most. Oh yeah, and safety.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

The trouble with these arguments is scope... Or lack of.

No, it doesn't take a former elite athlete to coach a beginner. It doesn't even take a former elite athlete to coach a journeyman archer. But at some point, every student that works hard and sticks with it will progress to the level of their coach's ability. Then what do they (student and coach) do? 

Time to find another coach to either take over, or help out.

Yes, it's preposterous to think one must have been an elite level athlete to coach the rank and file. But it's absolutely not preposterous to see that the higher an athlete climbs, the better coach they need. And a coach with no experience in high level competition is going to be little help to the athlete who is preparing for it.

There are some high level coaches who were not top archers. Sure. But look how long it took them to build their credentials. I'm not sure every young archer has that kind of time. 

I still don't see why there is so much resistance by so many supposed "high level" coaches to the notion of going out and competing to gain valuable first-hand experience as an athlete. Nobody is saying you have to win Nationals. Far from it. But I know coaches like Larry Skinner and Larry Seale and Gary Yamaguchi are SOOOO much better coaches for having been competitive athletes than those who never tried. 

What does it take? 2, 3, maybe 4 years of serious competition to get great competitive experience? That's all I'm saying. What's the problem? I know level 3 and 4 coaches who have never even taken 2 years to compete at national-level events, and they don't feel bad about that at all. 

I just don't understand that mindset. There is an opportunity for everyone to gain real-world competitive experience as AN ATHLETE in this sport, and yet so many fail to capitalize on it. I guess they figure they are "just that good" that they don't need it? 

John


----------



## jrmessina3 (Jun 25, 2014)

I'm looking to go straight to level 2 myself. I have been shooting for over 20 years and I'm all for promoting the sport of archery and help those(kids/adults) to build their confidence and love for this sport. I also want to keep those safe as well. Then again, why are others taking the certification for?


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

wa-prez said:


> When seeing this influx of raw newbies into the Level 1 Instructor courses, you'll help to know some background.
> 
> USA Archery has but some strict requirements on who can have access to the tournament field during events.
> 
> ...


Are you serious? This is insane. I have to be L1 certified just to be on the same field with my daughter when she shoots? I am glad that the NFAA is not like that.


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

It's to protect the kids.
Don't you appreciate the fact that the people interacting with your kids are background checked. I know lots of parents that do.


----------



## Zalmo (Oct 6, 2014)

Stone Bridge said:


> kshet26, I fully understand what you are saying about NTS. Have read everything about it. But you know what I think? 90% of NTS is basic archery to begin with wrapped in shiny new paper. I'm not disagreeing with you, but good archery is not very complex at all in my view. It's just damn hard to do well. That's the hang up. LOL
> 
> Too many have tried to make proper form something mystic. It's not. The basics can be engrained in a new shooter fairly quickly - like how to draw the bow, hold the string, etc. After that it's all on the student to see if he or she has the athletic ability and desire to be good at it. It's really that simple but many want to make it into something very complicated and deserving of a level of study more suited to astrophysics.
> 
> The best shooters I've ever come across were naturally good athletes and didn't overthink what they were doing. They were just good. Same with kayak racing or golf. Archery is no different. Except for golf, no sport is more overthought than archery by the players. Over coaching is much of the problem. Every shot that goes bad must be a form problem. That's the thinking. Nobody ever understands the more obvious truth - maybe they are no good at such a tough game. It's why only one person can win in the end. The guy who makes the fewest mistakes.


How do you expect to have a training system, without hierarchy, and a set discipline to teach?

And since this is a post about ranting against L1 L2 instructors, I see every day, JOAD kids who go through the program, and breaks 200 easily, in spite of their parents 35 years of practice in this sport without proper training, and with cheaper equipment than their parents use. 
And in order to finish with this rant, please advise, instructors instruct. And for those of you who forgot how it is to undergo instruction, it is about imposing a rigid system as the benchmark to be achieved by the archer.
Now, this forms a proper logical and fundamental delimitation between ones person's personal abilities to score high , and ones ability to instruct.
Now I noticed that the person that started this thread, said that he wanted to become an instructor and he decided not to. But he also decided to play devil's advocate and rant about the personal abilities of instructors (instructors that I did not met or cannot tell if they truly exist) in archery, as a means to destroy the entire fundamental ideology of why a structured teaching system exists in archery, in US?
Is it just me, or this is "The Fox and the Grapes" fable, where the fox posts on archerytalk?...


----------



## Moebow (Jul 8, 2010)

The range pass does not require a level 1 qualification (last I checked). It only requires a background check, and "Safe Sport" online course completion, along with having them registered with USA Archery. All qualifications L2 and higher already requires the Safe Sport and Background check so no "range pass" is required. Don't make it too hard.

Under any official USA Archery event or activity (JOAD club, etc.), IF folks have "frequent" contact with minors, they must have at least "range pass."

Arne


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Zalmo, I now understand the certification is mainly to allow insurance for the instructor or organization or building the teaching is taking place in. I was not aware of this. I also didn't know a person could not be near children anymore without first being considered a predator. So the background check that goes along with the cert.

I still disagree there needs to be a hierarchy of teaching levels so kids can reach the top of competition. This is not the case in golf or cross country running. It's not the case in my sport of kayak racing. What gets you to the top in the other games is talent. Hard work helps, but talent is the limiting factor in the end. Nobody ever played more baseball than me as a kid. I lived on the diamond and had good instruction. Wore myself out in the batting cage, dreamed of the Major Leagues. But it never happened because I was a normal kid with no superior ability at hitting or throwing or running the bases. Archery is no different. The biggest fallacy in sport is hard work will take you to the top. It will only take you to your own, personal best. 

That "best" for 99 percent of us, is only mediocrity at best when compared to the true best. I would never push any kid or young adult in any sport if they dream to be a champion or professional. I'd help them but temper it with the cold truth. We don't see that much anymore - this telling of the statistical truth. Have them shoot for fun without the over-coaching approach to archery and if there is a truly talented kid hidden in the bunch, he or she will quickly become apparent. That's how it always happens in any sport in my experience.


----------



## Zalmo (Oct 6, 2014)

Well said. For the 99 % of the population there are l1, l2 instructors to help them attain their personal best. But there is a threshold of natural ability that some archers exceed, and they cannot address their now individualized coaching needs to the l1 l2 instructors, for them there is L3 and above Coaches.
Think about it, there is simply not enough supply of top archers to meet the demand of kids and adults wanting to pick up a bow and shoot. Therefore a hierarchy was established in this sport. I have to agree with it because it allows this sport to become accessible to the masses, and for those that want to pursue excellence in it, a path to do so.

Also, you can be around children without being considered a predator, yet, when you are around children as a authoritative figure, a instructor, or coach, or trainer, and spend hours every day around those children, well you better not be a predator... Don't you think so?


----------



## 2000Z-71 (Aug 10, 2012)

It saddens me to see conversations like this. So many times it seems personal egos become more important than what is truly better for the kids involved in youth sports.


----------



## shamlin (Aug 18, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> The trouble with these arguments is scope... Or lack of.
> 
> No, it doesn't take a former elite athlete to coach a beginner. It doesn't even take a former elite athlete to coach a journeyman archer. But at some point, every student that works hard and sticks with it will progress to the level of their coach's ability. Then what do they (student and coach) do?
> 
> ...


EXACTLY, John gets it!!! This is exactly the point of this thread! If I was going to attain certification in any sport, I would take the time to at least compete to learn the sport regardless. I can't see why this is so hard to understand. As a matter of fact it is the purest definition of sport, we do it to compete! Plying your trade to pass on intellectual Capitol gained through competition is the essence of instructing/coaching. To do otherwise is a disservice to your students; certified or not.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Zalmo, hard to argue against background checks for adults dealing with kids. I'm just an old guy who remembers the old days when I never thought about children being abused because it wasn't in my makeup to do such things. I think most of us are like that. But these are different days. What a pity.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

bobnikon said:


> By the way, that is a hell of a leap from what I posted... not quite sure how you got there, must have been a professional long jump coach...:wink:


Not a leap at all. My thrusts of my posts have been that it's desirable for a 'hands on' coach to have had some competitive background and proficiency in the activity that he/she is now coaching others, and your rebuttal was Bela (and a humorous mental picture in tights he is!). My take on that is that an archery coach will in almost every case be a one man band - the overseer, the training strategist, AND the technique demonstrator/teacher. Bela's scenario hardly fits that of the average archery coach - his scenario better fits that of a college football head coach, who has many assistant coaches who teach technique (offensive line coach/uneven bars coach; wide receiver coach/pommel horse coach, etc). Bela (apple) and the average archery coach (orange) are different fruits, that's all.

What percentage of major league/college baseball pitching coaches never pitched, on any level? And if there is one, is that the coach one would actively seek out to teach?


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

First, I would like to say that I am pretty impressed that a thread where so many people have widely varying opinions has
managed to stay remarkably civil. It is great to see everyone simply agree to disagree and have a constructive discussion.

I will also not argue that a coach should not be proficient / competent in demonstrating the various physical skills that
are part of the sport (any sport).

One thing that needs to be considered here is that you can can be a world champion, Nobel prize winner or whatever 
makes you stand out what you do but not have any clue how to teach or coach. A few people have mentioned that 
a lot of world class archers (and other athletes) are simply naturally talented. In many cases things come relatively easily
to them and they have no clue why. Watching someone like that try to teach is amusing for the onlooker and frustrating for
the student. My dad was one of those people. He was an excellent archer and I have been shooting since I was about 8.
In the 40+ years since then I have realized that his frustration at trying to teach me things stemmed from the fact that he
was naturally gifted at many things and could simply watch then do. He would try things just to try them and when he 
achieved a certain level of accomplishment he would get bored and move on to something else that had to be conquered.
As the student it simply frustrated me because he had no idea how to explain anything. He would just watch someone who
was good at it and do it. He learned to figure skate the same way. That being said, he was also not interested in competing
with anyone other than himself. He would shoot a quiver full of arrows, walk up to the bales and pull his arrows without counting
and start over. 

Being a coach (or instructor) is not simply about being an accomplished archer. One must also be dedicated to and proficient
at disseminating knowledge. My dad used to say that those who can DO and those who can't TEACH. I have come to disagree
with that. Some people eventually realize that for one reason or another they will not achieve the top of an activity and chose to
instead derive satisfaction by helping others who may have more natural talent on their way to the top. 

BTW I recommend that anyone who is interested in coaching read anything written by Al Henderson who IMO exemplifies what
all coaches should strive to emulate.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

So, you are saying that coach lee is the only coach at the OTC, now I understand. That doent hold any water either, as I was refering to an olympic level scenario... I guess we are just a leaky couple analogists. Anyway, huge tangent for a thread about level 1 and 2 INSTRUCTORS and range safety types, so I will bow out and leave it to its intended topic.



lksseven said:


> Not a leap at all. My thrusts of my posts have been that it's desirable for a 'hands on' coach to have had some competitive background and proficiency in the activity that he/she is now coaching others, and your rebuttal was Bela (and a humorous mental picture in tights he is!). *My take on that is that an archery coach will in almost every case be a one man band *- the overseer, the training strategist, AND the technique demonstrator/teacher. Bela's scenario hardly fits that of the average archery coach - his scenario better fits that of a college football head coach, who has many assistant coaches who teach technique (offensive line coach/uneven bars coach; wide receiver coach/pommel horse coach, etc). Bela (apple) and the average archery coach (orange) are different fruits, that's all.
> 
> What percentage of major league/college baseball pitching coaches never pitched, on any level? And if there is one, is that the coach one would actively seek out to teach?


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

There may be some legal differences between "instructor" and "coach" But to the average person, there is no difference to them. The expectations are the same.

I know a lot of people that take L1 and L2 classes to learn more about archery rather than to be an "instructor" or "coach". I see no problem with that.

But to be an "instructor" or "coach", one must be able to fully demonstrate what they are teaching, and have the extremely rare talent of being able to "teach"


----------



## _JR_ (Mar 30, 2014)

rkumetz said:


> First, I would like to say that I am pretty impressed that a thread where so many people have widely varying opinions has
> managed to stay remarkably civil. It is great to see everyone simply agree to disagree and have a constructive discussion.
> 
> I will also not argue that a coach should not be proficient / competent in demonstrating the various physical skills that
> ...


+1 and +1 on these statements.

In my day job, I'm a language teacher, so I'm going to add another analogy to the mix here. Instructing/Coaching archery is like teaching a language. In the very beginning, it's primarily enthusiasm, patience, interpersonal skills, and establishing a good group dynamic where learners are at ease and feel like they can take risks (safety isn't really much of a issue). For the instructor, just being able to speak the language is definitely not enough - there are literally hundreds of thousands of people with bad learning experiences who sat through someone's class just because they were "fluent" or a "native speaker". On the other hand, if the teacher can't speak the language, any kind of instruction is going to be pointless and will completely fail. Millions of students learn language in the US every year at all levels and at all ages. Of those millions, there is a much smaller subset who really finds engagement with it and has various intrinsic or extrinsic motivations to continue and excel. Once they reach intermediate and advanced levels, those learners obviously need instruction from someone with higher level language skills. At ALL times in the learning process, it is extremely important for the language teacher to be aware of the STUDENT's goals. Do they need to be assigned a lot of extra practice because they want to get really good quickly? Or are they reaching the point where their interest is starting to wane and they're at risk of losing interest. That's of critical importance because it is the instructor/teacher who is probably the one advising the student "go study abroad for a year" versus "maybe only take this one easier language class instead of those two difficult ones". I have taught several thousand beginning language students, but there have only been a few dozen who have "made it" to the highest levels (e.g., language careers, Ph.D., translators, etc.). Just like archery, language is something that is fun, is a huge challenge, can seem deceptively simple at first, and is extraordinarily complex upon deeper analysis. Oh, and we debate endlessly about what are the best qualifications/credentials/certificates/skills for teachers at different levels, just like in this thread...

One more example illustrating the need for the coach/instructor to KNOW, UNDERSTAND, and RESPECT the students' motivation: I happen to know of a promising young athlete who is a naturally gifted runner and who loves to run. This kid would be bored by video games and such and would just go out on a long run for the fun of it. Going into organized competition, he started winning awards in several events and even set a course record in one. All is good, all is well, running is fun, running is good, 3rd place, 2nd place, 6th place, all good... Then, reaching a higher level, he gets a new coach. Coach's qualifications include the sport science degree and a former Olympic runner. Coach's goal is to create "CHAMPIONS" (because, you know, 2nd place is NOT GOOD ENOUGH, and "No pain, no Gain"). Long story short, kid stopped racing (still running, just no more racing). Gotta respect the athlete's personality and motivation!

TL;DR: Most important thing for beginners is interest and enthusiasm with a minimal level of competence (and safety). Millions of people will try it, for the few thousands that want to go on, you need higher-level skills, but always respecting the apprentice archer's goals and motivation. 

Conversation overheard during a first-time group archery lesson that I was leading at which I had 4 assistant instructors working with small groups:

_STUDENT: Why do the arrows have feathers? 
INSTRUCTOR'S ASSISTANT: Um, I guess it's for decoration, oh, and one of them is different color to help you see which direction to clip it on the string_

I cringed, but held my tongue. Ended up that she was the assistant (one of 4) that got the highest level of interest and enthusiasm from her group because she was always saying "good job", "great shot", and "wow, Katniss" or "wow, Legolas". After the two-day course was over, it was students from her group that went out and got bows and continued on with more instruction and lessons (in other words, the future of archery...). At some point they'll figure out that the feathers aren't just for decoration (heck, I suspect they probably didn't believe her on that anyway). ((Oh, and for the record, this was done outside of USA Archery's purview and the 'feathers-as-decoration' instructor wasn't Level Anything)).


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

I agree a coach need not be a world class shooter. Ted Williams might have been the best hitter of all time. Everyone in baseball agrees he was a lousy manager and horrible hitting instructor. Williams admitted in later life he just didn't get it, why the young kids couldn't do what he showed them. Williams could not grasp his own greatness, his own natural ability. You can't teach talent. You are born with it, or you are not.

Having great talent in no way means you can transfer it to others. Most of the time guys like Williams are operating on auto-pilot and really don't know what they are doing during the 3-4 tenths of a second it takes a pitched ball to reach them. Archery is no different.


----------



## BubbaDean1 (Dec 20, 2014)

I used to hold a USSF coaching license when I coached soccer. I held the highest license I could hold without to going to a week long clinic. There were others in the area getting lower level licenses that basically said they knew the difference between a soccer ball and a bowling ball. The current trend in archery license seems more geared toward safety(which is important) than toward making good shooters. The experience factor whether it be in soccer or archery can't be taught at a clinic. I know many people who can teach people to shoot correctly that have no interest in having a license.

Traditionalrj my feeling on your anchor point is.............it doesn't matter whether you anchor on your face or under your chin. But for the love of God son please anchor somewhere. I have seen you shoot and it scares me.:wink: Merry Christmas lil brother.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

bobnikon said:


> So, you are saying that coach lee is the only coach at the OTC, now I understand. That doent hold any water either, as I was refering to an olympic level scenario... I guess we are just a leaky couple analogists. Anyway, huge tangent for a thread about level 1 and 2 INSTRUCTORS and range safety types, so I will bow out and leave it to its intended topic.


Well, Coach Lee has experience as a competitive archer, so he certainly fits my 'thrust'. I don't have any first hand knowledge of the other coaches at the OTC, but my assumption was that they are probably all fairly proficient archers. Are you saying they're not? And if you're Bela comment is in the context of Olympic Level only scenario, then are you arguing that you would be in favor of the Olympic Archery Coach not having any competitive experience? Surely not.

In any case, this is a classic case of no 'definition of terms' going in (just the nature of a forum, not anyone's fault really), and so lots of talking past one another. My main scenario backdrop was coaching at the local level - who will all of these new and fledgling archers get their instruction from - coaches with competitive experience, or coaches without it? Every chance I get, and all else being roughly equal, I'm going with the coach who has (or has had, or is getting) the competitive experience, too. That's all I'm saying. And I'll stop pulling this off the OP's thrust. Over and out...


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

A little background on myself real quick and then I'll make my point. I've been shooting a recurve bow pretty steady now for about a year and a half. I have fallen in love with this sport now, to the point that there isn't much else that I would prefer to do, than pop a few arrows. Due to my wife volunteering me I am now a 4-H level 1 coach. I knew that I wasn't knowledgable enough in the sport to really help get someone past how to nock, draw and shoot. So I bought some books, downloaded some manuals from FITA, and about 3 months ago I signed up for a USAA Level 2 course to get more knowledge, and it helped fill some holes in what I knew. Anyway currently I am one of the 4-H head coaches, and also over a 4-H/JOAD archery club that I started for the kids. 

Now some here would say I have no business doing what I am doing, that I don't have enough experience, and to be honest I would agree. I wish that I didn't have to take this route; but if I didn't who would? Nobody else my community has stepped up, and at least I have a passion for the sport, and doing everything I can to learn the sport to the point that I can at least help these kids, do archery. We don't have the option of going to another community with an existing JOAD club. The closest one to us is 3 hours away. 

In my state of Louisiana, my JOAD club is the third one, and only one of two JOAD clubs that are active. In my community we do have an archery club, based around NFAA, and I am now a member; but no one from this club has stepped up to do something for the youth. Also in my community there is a husband and wife who are level 3 certified, but the only students they are coaching are their own kids, who granted are both now members of the USAA junior olympic team. 

Am I the best archer in my community? Far from it, and there are other archers far better than I am, and more accomplished than I am by far; but like I asked: where are they?

So either the kids get a level 2 instructor, who has some experience and is willing to share what he knows albeit limited; or they get absolutely nothing. In your opinion which is better for the sport of archery in my area?


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

erose said:


> A little background on myself real quick and then I'll make my point. I've been shooting a recurve bow pretty steady now for about a year and a half. I have fallen in love with this sport now, to the point that there isn't much else that I would prefer to do, than pop a few arrows. Due to my wife volunteering me I am now a 4-H level 1 coach. I knew that I wasn't knowledgable enough in the sport to really help get someone past how to nock, draw and shoot. So I bought some books, downloaded some manuals from FITA, and about 3 months ago I signed up for a USAA Level 2 course to get more knowledge, and it helped fill some holes in what I knew. Anyway currently I am one of the 4-H head coaches, and also over a 4-H/JOAD archery club that I started for the kids.
> 
> Now some here would say I have no business doing what I am doing, that I don't have enough experience, and to be honest I would agree. I wish that I didn't have to take this route; but if I didn't who would? Nobody else my community has stepped up, and at least I have a passion for the sport, and doing everything I can to learn the sport to the point that I can at least help these kids, do archery. We don't have the option of going to another community with an existing JOAD club. The closest one to us is 3 hours away.
> 
> ...


Thank you!


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

Aha! I see this thread is coming around. I think that the common thread that we have arrived at is that having
L1 and L2 instructors that can get beginners going safely and in the right direction is really the purpose of those
certification programs. If a person who took a L1 class can get beginners going, make sure that they are not
hitting their arm or doing anything that would cause them to dislike the "archery experience" and make them 
enthusiastic about learning more and becoming part of the sport (instead of just trying it on a lark) then
the are doing something incredibly positive for the sport. If those kids that ARE incredibly talented athletes who
will be future champions are turned off by their first contact with the sport then it doesn't matter if the person
who pushed them away is a world class archer. Sure, as the original poster said, there ARE L1 and L2 instructors who
are not competent or who (more likely) don't understand the limits of their training but that is not entirely the fault of
the those training programs. 

This is, IMO, the biggest problem:

*There are some people who do not allow an absence of knowledge about a subject to prevent them from offering advice on that topic. *

That is true in archery as much as any other activity.


----------



## Moebow (Jul 8, 2010)

Great point erose!! Don't let the egalitarians get you down! The fact that you were willing and able to take the training, are willing to help beginners and to contribute is far better than whining about whether a person's expertise or skill does or does not qualify them to instruct archery. To be sure, there are folks out there that get the qualification just for "bragging rights" but that is true in all fields of endeavor. There are always some that "under perform." But, I think, most have good intentions and work hard to learn and to help others succeed.

Some, think that the ONLY reason to shoot a bow and arrow is to compete at the highest level. There are areas of the country where that is, in fact, an important part of archery but far more archers have different goals and opportunities. I, personally, think that helping an interested person to learn to shoot, both from a safety standpoint and personal injury reduction view (do no harm viewpoint) and finally a proficiency level is far more important than whether you or I (as instructors/coaches) can shoot some given score in some given archery game.

4H, NASP, JOAD ALL need instructors and coaches and for someone (anyone ) to say you don't qualify (or are hurting archery) because you don't have some sort of archery background is beyond inappropriate. If folks are motivated to get the training (whatever is available) and offer it to an organization then I (for one) applaud you and offer absolute support. That is what the Centershot, NASP, 4H, Boy Scout and other organization's training is for and how it is intended -- TO INCLUDE THE USA ARCHERY LEVEL 1 and 2 instructor levels. IMO! 

Arne


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

erose said:


> A little background on myself real quick and then I'll make my point. I've been shooting a recurve bow pretty steady now for about a year and a half. I have fallen in love with this sport now, to the point that there isn't much else that I would prefer to do, than pop a few arrows. Due to my wife volunteering me I am now a 4-H level 1 coach. I knew that I wasn't knowledgable enough in the sport to really help get someone past how to nock, draw and shoot. So I bought some books, downloaded some manuals from FITA, and about 3 months ago I signed up for a USAA Level 2 course to get more knowledge, and it helped fill some holes in what I knew. Anyway currently I am one of the 4-H head coaches, and also over a 4-H/JOAD archery club that I started for the kids.
> 
> Now some here would say I have no business doing what I am doing, that I don't have enough experience, and to be honest I would agree. I wish that I didn't have to take this route; but if I didn't who would? Nobody else my community has stepped up, and at least I have a passion for the sport, and doing everything I can to learn the sport to the point that I can at least help these kids, do archery. We don't have the option of going to another community with an existing JOAD club. The closest one to us is 3 hours away.
> 
> ...


Erose,

You have a love for the sport, you are a practicing archer, you have a desire to contribute, and the resolve to do the things that will increase your contribution and involvement - what you're doing is GREAT! Absolutely. You're filling a need, and obviously doing it with positive motivation and results.


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

What I can't understand is why people think competing is important at all based on the masses. A quick search of the number of archers/hunters vs competitors indicates competing isn't very important to most people that buy bows. An overwhelming majority simply want to shoot better and nothing more.

Why would any "coach" spend the money, time, time away from family competing when most don't care for that direction. It's a significant stress on family and in most cases, they're not going to be on board with the time competition takes away from family time. Then there is the time necessary to take off work or the funding it takes to compete.

I agree if your students want to get into competition that the coach should be involved in competition but to think that all coaches should be competing just to be called a coach is unreasonable.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I think a good coach is always interested in learning, and keeping his/her skills sharp. A coach with a conscience would see it as their duty. Call it "in-service training" if you will. Or "recertification" of a practical sort.

By competing on a regular basis, a coach is forced to stay current with equipment, technique, registrations and rules, recall ALL the things necessary to perform well, and yes, remember what it's like to stand on the line instead of behind it.

IMO, good coaches owe it to their students. 

John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I'm not going to add anything else to this thread except this thought...

I think everyone would agree that there is a great deal to be learned through the process of entering tournaments and competing. I've often said that one major competition equals months-worth of learning on one's own.

So, my question is this. With it being so incredibly easy to register for and compete in archery events at the local, state, national and yes, even international level, why on earth would any credible coach IGNORE the opportunity to gain experience they can later pass along to their students?

I would love to hear the answer to that one simple question - why would you willfully ignore an affordable and highly effective learning opportunity? 

John


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> I'm not going to add anything else to this thread except this thought...
> 
> I think everyone would agree that there is a great deal to be learned through the process of entering tournaments and competing. I've often said that one major competition equals months-worth of learning on one's own.
> 
> ...


family
work
cost
time
their students don't care about competing.
not much can be gained form competition for a coach that will apply to the typical student.

It's not really that difficult to understand. Though you may have difficulty because you have a family that allows you to devote the necessary time, you can afford it and I believe your work schedule allows for it as well.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

I haven't as of yet entered a competition, but this has been due primarily to how my journey as an archer has gone. This will change next year though, as I will shoot my first indoor tournament in February. My son has shot in a couple of 4-H tournaments already.

I do want to eventually coach competitive archers; but outside of 4-H I'm not there yet.

But even though my fellow coach and I have never shot competitive archery ourselves yet, our team ended up having the most ribbons out of all parishes represented in 4-H last year


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

I think the biggest attribute that any good coach needs to have is the ability to say: "I don't know", when he/she doesn't know; and the second biggest one is, when you realize that you don't know something to take the initiative to go learn what you don't know.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

I think in this thread that folks keep forgetting the function of level 1 & 2 instructors.

The intent of Lvl 1 is to help beginners. Lvl 2 is to help beginners to transition to intermediate, and to coach JOAD clubs.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Fury90flier said:


> family
> work
> cost
> time
> ...


Sorry, but if you have time to coach, you have time to compete. If you don't have time to compete, then you probably don't have time to coach.



> not much can be gained form competition for a coach that will apply to the typical student.


And I don't even know how to disagree any more with this statement.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Fury90flier said:


> family
> work
> cost
> time
> ...


My local club had an indoor 300 tournament (NFAA format) two weeks ago on a Saturday. We had a members line on Friday night - shooting started at 7pm, we were in the car driving away by 9:15. The shooting fee was $10. After work, not a lot of time, not a lot of money.

Eight of my students shot on Saturday, half of them for their first competition. The first timers all said the thing that struck them the most was how familiar everything seemed (sign up, practice, whistle commands, nerves, line etiquette, what to stay focused on, how to score) because we'd been over everything so much in lessons and club practices.









I have two missions as an instructor/coach: 1) to teach as many people as I can the basic principles/techniques of shooting and safety protocols, and 2) for the people in that first group that really get their fire lit and want to reach for their personal archery ceiling through the crucible of competition, to be able to help inspire and educate and lead those students at least some of the way on their journey (the same way that Limbwalker did for me). I couldn't do that for group 2 nearly as well if I didn't have any competition experience to draw on. Like John said, I feel like I owe it to those students (and to myself) to continue to shoot and study and compete and try to learn more to pass on. And besides, competing is just plain fun! Talk about a win-win!


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> *Sorry, but if you have time to coach, you have time to compete. If you don't have time to compete, then you probably don't have time to coach.
> 
> *
> 
> And I don't even know how to disagree any more with this statement.


not even close John...but nice straw.


Your argument is like saying if you have time to drive your car, you have time to race.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Fury90flier said:


> not even close John...but nice straw.
> 
> 
> Your argument is like saying if you have time to drive your car, you have time to race.


Huh?

I'm out. There is so much nonsense on this thread it's not worth even following anymore.

Look, we all know the reason so many coaches don't compete. Let's not kid ourselves.


----------



## shamlin (Aug 18, 2007)

Even though I started this thread, I am with John and a few others; time to bow out. It is fairly obvious there is no opportunity for some to understand the overwhelming value in competing. If for any other reason to learn the nuances of equipment and how it effects performance. As well as the opportunity to collaborate with fellow competitors on technique, practice, etc. There is so much that many of you miss out on by not taking the time to shoot tournaments. Once again, I notice that the majority of those that "dont get it" are the ones with the signature line "Level 1, 2, 3, 4". For the level 3 and 4 folks, I am astonished that you would not overwhelmingly agree with this. If you are not competing at some level, than you are teaching "old archery" and believe me, much has changed. There is so much more than the manual and certifications educate you on. 

I have enjoyed the dialogue, but realize people are set in their ways, we all have opinions, we all think we are right, and we all are trying to do the right thing for our future archers. This in of itself is awesome and gives me hope for the future of this great sport. Carry on..................


----------



## bigHUN (Feb 5, 2006)

I got burned and hated badly after my comments exposed many of these "coaches" in early spring in Ontario and the association doesn't talk to me since... And my club still keeps fabricating clinics 2-3 times a year....


----------



## JimB1 (Feb 18, 2013)

I agree that if you are going to be a level 3 or higher coach, you should have experience competing. We are talking about USA Archery coaches here not hunting or whatever. USA Archery is the sport of archery which by definition is competition. I am not sure about level 1 and 2 which was the initial focus of the thread. I don't see a reason why a level 1 of 2 should necessarily have to compete to teach range safety and archery basics. I can see why anyone who wants to progress as an archer in the USA Archery program would want to and I don't see a really good reason to not compete, that's really the whole point of the program. If you don't want to compete, why become a USA Archery level 3 or higher coach? I think that distinction has been missed in this thread. We aren't talking about a hunting coach or something, we are talking about a very narrow program aimed towards a particular game. In my opinion, coaches certified to teach that game need to have a good understanding of that game. 
As a kid I would have loved to have had a level 1 or 2 instructor around to help me with the basics. I agree with Erose, having some level of training available even if not expert would have been far better then no training.
JMHO
-Jim


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

shamlin said:


> Even though I started this thread, I am with John and a few others; time to bow out. It is fairly obvious there is no opportunity for some to understand the overwhelming value in competing. If for any other reason to learn the nuances of equipment and how it effects performance. As well as the opportunity to collaborate with fellow competitors on technique, practice, etc. There is so much that many of you miss out on by not taking the time to shoot tournaments. Once again, I notice that the majority of those that "dont get it" are the ones with the signature line "Level 1, 2, 3, 4". For the level 3 and 4 folks, I am astonished that you would not overwhelmingly agree with this. If you are not competing at some level, than you are teaching "old archery" and believe me, much has changed. There is so much more than the manual and certifications educate you on.
> 
> I have enjoyed the dialogue, but realize people are set in their ways, we all have opinions, we all think we are right, and we all are trying to do the right thing for our future archers. This in of itself is awesome and gives me hope for the future of this great sport. Carry on..................


I get it. Even though I also have L3 in my signature.

Your title stated L1 & L2 will ruin archery and I think this thread has established that it won't.
They all serve a purpose.

As for the other argument about competing, I do that as well. Not as much as I would like but as much as I can.
I've even won some shoots every now and then.
Just because we don't agree with you doesn't make us wrong. 

All in all this was a good thread.


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

"just because we don't agree with you doesn't make us wrong"

well said. This is why I believe there should be different styles of coaching...almost a different classification system. One for those who have a desire to coach "athletes" and those that simply want to help others improve their grouping or accuracy. 

Oh, by the way, Lynda had some nice things to say about you this weekend...


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> I'm not going to add anything else to this thread except this thought...
> 
> I think everyone would agree that there is a great deal to be learned through the process of entering tournaments and competing. I've often said that one major competition equals months-worth of learning on one's own.
> 
> ...


Take note... John says local, state, .....

if your students are not ready for national competition, but many are going to local competitions., WHY would you NOT go and compete. He's not saying you have to be competitive, it's the experience of going and understanding what your students and athletes have to endure and go through so that you can guide them better and prepare them better. That is what a coach is supposed to be doing, is it not?

I used to compete nationally (vegas and other competitions). I used to travel to just about every venue in the state to shoot (long before coaching) Recently I have been to the local Cal bears tournament, just to shoot. No expectations of finishing real high but just to remind myself what the students go through and to see if *I* could manage to just have fun. What did it take to keep that level mind and just enjoy the time there.

It was amazing how much effort it takes to keep a level mind. I can only imagine what it takes for someone on their first tournament. Something as coaches we are expected to guide them through. It was a great reminder of what I need to do to properly prepare my students and athletes.

And that's my last input on the subject as well.


----------



## Zalmo (Oct 6, 2014)

I like that this thread came full circle, and I would like to also add the following: World Archery, as opposed to NFAA, have a continuos education program, there are monthly shoot outs, that a JOAD group needs to organize, as well as quarterly shoots. So there is more competition in their program in this respect. They also have a great reward system, which keeps a competitive spirit among the club members. To insist that the only way to learn and perfect the craft is by going to state and national competitions, is a narrow view. Although I am not negating their importance, one thing I am sure of; and that is, I haven't seen yet a L1 or L2 instructor that doesn't strive to become better and is not competitively engaged in breaking the highest score they can every month on the FITA qualifiers, and at the quarterly mail in tournaments'
I am writing this to raise awareness, and I also have a question:
How many the people who posted on this thread are aware and actively attempting to participate in the USA Archery monthly FITA qualifier contests at your local archery clubs?
How many of the ones that wrote on this thread are participating in the USA Archery Quarterly mail in tournament to compare yourselves at a national level with the rest of the participants?
More specifically now, @shamlin, are you actively pursuing ALL USA Archery shooting avenues? And of course ALL OF THEM THROUGHOUT THE YEAR?


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

The mail in tournaments are great for the kids.
We have not missed a single one since we started our club.
Many of my kids just don't have the means to travel to Nationals and this gives the competitive feel of a tournament.
About half of our group will be going to Indoor Nationals as it is held in our state and another 10 to 20 will be traveling to Alabama next year. I will also be competing at both events.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> I'm not going to add anything else to this thread except this thought...
> 
> I think everyone would agree that there is a great deal to be learned through the process of entering tournaments and competing. I've often said that one major competition equals months-worth of learning on one's own.
> 
> ...


Very good points John. I am planning to start competing this year, for I feel that I have gotten to that point in my journey. To be honest I didn't consider the importance of me competing would be to my club members, I was going to start competing for selfish reasons only [emoji6]. But now I will definitely look at the experience in a different light, and hopefully it helps me become a better instructor.

I would have preferred having my son and I join an existing JOAD/AAP club. That would have been the preferred route, and I would prefer for myself and him to get personal lessons from a good coach; but unless I move somewhere else, I don't have that option.

So what do I do? Well one thing I do is come here for advice; and for that advice which has helped me during my journey (which you have provided much) I thank everyone here who takes the time to respond to all the questions.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Fury90flier said:


> "just because we don't agree with you doesn't make us wrong"
> 
> well said. This is why I believe there should be different styles of coaching...almost a different classification system. One for those who have a desire to coach "athletes" and those that simply want to help others improve their grouping or accuracy.
> 
> Oh, by the way, Lynda had some nice things to say about you this weekend...


Do you compete? Local, regional, national?

Chris


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> I think a good coach is always interested in learning, and keeping his/her skills sharp. A coach with a conscience would see it as their duty. Call it "in-service training" if you will. Or "recertification" of a practical sort.
> By competing on a regular basis, a coach is forced to stay current with equipment, technique, registrations and rules, recall ALL the things necessary to perform well, and yes, remember what it's like to stand on the line instead of behind it.
> IMO, good coaches owe it to their students.
> John


John, I am in absolute agreement with the first part of what you say above. It is essential that just like the student the coach never stop learning and improving his or her skills.

That being said, competition is not the only way to improve those skills. You may disagree but IMO the archer's ultimate competitor is himself. The goal is not really to beat others but to put every single arrow exactly in the center of the target. My dad was a pretty good shooter however he had zero interest in beating anyone and whether someone else was 2 points up was irrelevant to him. His goal was the perfect score and he needed to beat himself to do that. Whenever I convinced him to join leagues with me folks love to have him on their team because he could not be shaken. He was there to practice with other people around. I will admit that he was sort of an odd duck but he had the mental game down before anyone was really talking about the mental game. His big advice from a man of few words? "Don't worry about what the other guy is doing. Worry about what YOU are doing".
The number of trophies stuffed in the back of a closet tells me that for a guy who didn't give a damn about competing he seems to have done pretty well.

That being said we are all here for the same purpose. We enjoy shooting and we would like to help those who are interested in joining us in what we are passionate about.
Some of us compete, some of us hunt and some of us just want to put perfect the shot. Oh. Almost forgot: some people just like to shoot arrows and hang out with others that
enjoy doing the same thing.


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

chrstphr said:


> Do you compete? Local, regional, national?
> 
> Chris


on occasion just local. No time for regional and absolutely zero desire to compete nationally...about like most shooters


----------



## Dand23 (Jan 3, 2013)

As a Level 1 instructor, i have followed this thread with interest. I would hate to be contributing to the downfall of archery. 

I became certified in order to help my Scouts at camp, and as a merit badge counselor. The goal of the scouting shooting sports program is not competition, but to expose the Scouts to the sport. The emphasis is on safety, and the level one class helped prepare me for that. I also feel qualified to help raw beginners safely have a fun experience. From that, I have started volunteering with a local JOAD program. There, I am working with highly qualified instructors with beginners, helping them learn the basics as we prepare them to compete. 

I have not competed before, and had not planned to. There are a number of highly qualified competitive archers in the program that have that experience, and I am learning from them. However, after reading this thread, I may have to rethink this, especially if I decide to move to the Level 3 level. I would have to say that I am not convinced that every level 3 or 4 coach has to compete, as long as they are aligned with coaches in their program that have the experience. 

To get back to the starting point of this thread, I would argue it is not the level 1 and 2 instructors causing problems, but the lack of understanding of the purpose and limits of the training. Maybe the classes should have a section included in them talking about these limits.


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

Hmm. Interesting thread, which I have read most of, skipping here and there.

Here's a real world problem. There are thousands of kids wanting to learn archery and not enough instructors to cater for the need. We know why, and can debate the good, bad and indifferent. But the fact remains that we have to get instructors up to speed asap. And that means there are going to be a lot of shiny new instructors with little knowledge. But... they will learn. That is the same in any field of instruction. They have to start somewhere.

I am, probably, a good example of someone who is trying to make a difference without the real world skills that are needed. But I'm doing my best to get there. I started out by volunteering at a local archery club, almost four years ago, when I had only been an archer for around a year at that time. That club became a JOAD club almost two years ago, and there are now 70+ students on the roles, and keeps growing. I HAD to churn out more instructors to help cover the needs, and it's a constant process to keep up with the growth.

That's not even mentioning the dozens and dozens of kids that want to learn at the local outdoor club.

I'm having to grow very rapidly - by being thrown in the deep end and crafting my own boat. I have students who have maxed out my knowledge, and we are growing together. There are very few options for getting the next level of coaching in front of them on a regular basis, so I have to keep on keeping on to improve my game, knowledge, and understanding.

I compete when I can, and have a few medals and such, but honestly, my students get more of my archery time that I do. Now that I am a full time coach, and have just opened the doors on a range, I will be able to spend more time on my own archery.

On the other side of the coin... yes, there are those who want to get certified just to try and make some $$ - I had one very obvious candidate in one of my classes - and some who will never use the knowledge. But just like anything else, it's a numbers game. Of all the folks who graduate in a particular field, what are the statistics of those who go on to make a real difference in that field? Very few.

Unless one has been in a cave the last few years, everyone can see the growth, how the USAA numbers are growing and what they are doing to cater for the need as best they can. 

Instead of disapproving of all these new instructors, understand WHY there are all these new instructors and lets collaborate on how we can work together to make a difference for them and their learning curve, and the students. 

Lynda


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Fury90flier said:


> on occasion just local. No time for regional and absolutely zero desire to compete nationally...about like most shooters


So you shoot a few local tournaments. From your posts, it would appear you find your tournament experience does nothing to help with your coaching. Perhaps that is because your experience is less in tournaments. You might change your mind if you ever shot a regional tournament or National tournaments.

I know for a fact i was asked to help with the JOAD program here, and with the competition team specifically for the tournament experience i bring. I also feel it gives me a huge advantage in teaching beginners. Having seen very type of equipment at a tournament, every level of shooting, all different types of form and body shapes, gives me a wealth of information to pull from in teaching and addressing issues. I would not be half the coach i am had i not shot a number of tournaments. Heck, i have given an hour lesson just on what to carry in your quiver to our JOAD kids. 

I would disagree than most shooters have shot minimal tournaments or are not interested to shoot tournaments. Between NFAA, USAA, 3D, Field, 80 percent of the archers in Vegas shoot tournaments. Even a bunch of our kids shoot the mail in JOAD tournaments. Any time someone learns a skill based activity, the very next thing on their mind is how do i stack up to others. Even shooting for JOAD pins is a beginning to competitions.

In my opinion, any coach worth his salt, should have tournament experience. Even if its just to prepare the few who may want to compete one day. Keeping the bow in your lane, Sky drawing, shooting lines, ABCD, shooting commands etc. All are valuable. Being prepared, what to expect.

To say its not needed because you think most wont use it or need it, is very shortsighted for the scope of a coach.

And in my tournament experience, one thing i can say is I do see many kids show up to tournaments regionally and Nationally NOT prepared at all. Neither are the parents. I have seen parents and kids show up to Vegas expecting the kids to be able to shoot 10 yards. Kids show up with no bow or arrows because they thought it was provided like at their range. Kids show up shooting left handed bow and break a rest, but have none in backup. Kids lose their finger tab, and have no backup. Kids show up with not enough arrows. 
and on, and on, and on. 

While i respect your opinion, i cant see any valid argument for a coach not to have tournament experience. If you dont know where, and when tournaments are, how can you answer questions to parents and kids about them? I get questions constantly from what can my kids shoot, to what colleges have archery. I have kids that are in NASP and compete, to kids that are state champions, and kids that never want to compete. But i as a coach must be prepared for all of them. I would not limit myself as a coach. 

And while i am a Level 2 USAA "instructor" i consider myself a coach. I coach kids in archery, from beginners first lesson, to competing archers youth and adult. 


Chris


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Ms.Speedmaster said:


> Instead of disapproving of all these new instructors, understand WHY there are all these new instructors and lets collaborate on how we can work together to make a difference for them and their learning curve, and the students.
> 
> Lynda


Great post! I'm a Level II but do a good bit of "coaching". I can add that I compete and have competed up to the National level. That aside, moons ago I did a ton of Little League coaching and with having never played much baseball in my life. I just volunteered like millions of other moms and dads over the generations - non-playing, non-competing volunteers are what makes that program work.

Archery is a bit different it seems. We have the entry level expectations up to near-collegiate expectations, coaching and player, crammed into the same organization level. This close proximity within progression levels is what seems to aid in having one level "appear" to not respect the efforts the other, or, one level exceeding their ability and role.

I guess the bottom line is whether it's about a sport for folks or about grooming champions. One needs tons of volunteers and other needs tons of seasoned coaches.


----------



## arrowchucker222 (Jun 17, 2013)

First off, I don't have any certificate saying I am a "qualified"coach. I have been shooting 40+ years. I won my first state championship in 1974, set 7 state records, received an archery schorl ship and ah.ot my way around t,he country,won my 1st, national title in 1978. On paper I don't know [email protected]@t. But I can get on people shooting and shooting in a short time. I can tune a bow. I always looking for that last point ,not the first one. I crInge when I see people shooting arrow that are so far off for them but we're recommended by thee "coach"! Where I live it is difficult to get to a shooting range let alone a coaching class. Would love to go thru all of them, but as was said the level 1&2 really don't know much. But "gotta start somewhere"
.


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

We can banter this about forever. All of us have opinions and we will never agree completely. That being said, I will now say what I say when I hear
politicians busy bashing each other: "OK, there is a problem. What is YOUR solution?". We don't need to rehash that the system isn't perfect we need
to collectively arrive at some improvements. 

One problem that I see is that there is no legitimate system of "continuing education" for coaches like there is in medicine or even teaching. The vast majority
of us barely have enough time for family, work, shooting and coaching or teaching. Assuming that we don't all have the budget to regularly hop planes to OTC
how do we keep the flow of information going? Sharing information is how we all grow. A good example for this is the fire service. The national fire academy,
National Fire Protection Association and various other entities have extensive amounts of online training available for firefighters and fire officers. You can
take college courses online and get credit. I noticed that MIT has an extensive offering of classes available for free to those who are interested. I personally would
eat up any training that was available assuming that it didn't take excessive amounts of time from my family and job and did not drain my checkbook.

So why is the ongoing training for archery coaches and instructors only available to those who can get to it? Is it that nobody has thought of it? Maybe
nobody can figure out how to implement it? I would prefer not to think that there is a cult of personality that wants to keep the tribal knowledge in the hands
of the village shaman.

Discussion? More ideas?


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

I think any instructor or coach who really cares would want to continue learning. Whether is be from tournaments or books or from other coaches.
I am lucky to have a great network of coaches I can depend on to answer questions and help address issues I've come across.
Some are on here, some are in my own area.
The tools are out there, all you have to do is look around.
I take issue with the OP stating level 1 & level 2/are the downfall of archery.
As others have said, why not be part of the solution and not the problem.
The best part if this thread is that it has opened up some dialog.


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

It's pretty simple. It's a work in progress. Did you see the holiday email from Denise Parker, today, with an opening statement that included, "Archery is growing at a faster rate than it ever has before"?

There has been discussion about regional training. It takes a village, but it won't happen overnight. I did contact someone at USAA for them to consider my facility for local training, but that kinda fell flat. It'll come.

So, in talking about more ideas, here is what I am doing on a local basis. I have created an academy for lessons, JOAD, AAP, archer and instructor development, and have started conversations with some of the names in Texas to come and teach workshops. This is so fresh, the paint is still wet... http://www.x10archery.com/home-1/academy

I have created an outdoor tournament series, running through the fall and winter, for my students and whoever else wants to come, to encourage them to try longer distances. It's called HOT 'n' Cold - Houston Outdoor Target series, in the Cold - yeah! Loosely based on John's TOTs series. Archers can choose two distances of 10/20, 20/30, 30/50, 50/70 in any division. Their score is multiplied by the first number of the distance. This encourages them to slowly increase their distance as the series progresses, and has been very well received, if a little rough around the edges. It also allows brand new adult archers to shoot at closer distances, so they're not scared off.

What else... um... workshops for kids to learn about how tournaments work. Many of my students have a fear that stops them from going. How about workshops for new instructors on how JOAD works and how to get it going? How did I learn? At John Magera's dining room table with he and his wife. John and I put on an equipment workshop that was very well received. Guess who organized and who did the teaching - haha.

Okay... what about this... a workshop for parents and instructors on how to accommodate special needs archers. I have two parents working with me on pulling together a Special Olympics format and a workshop curriculum for parents and instructors. The number of students on the spectrum are increasing, and we need to educate ourselves on how to be fully inclusive. Then there's adaptive archery. There was a great workshop on this at the OTC this year, and I understand that it will be covered again in 2015. This needs to be rolled out on a local level.

Anyway, these are all ideas to try and encompass the whole package. Being a great coach isn't just about how well you can shoot. Honestly - I'm really not that great. I have to work really hard at it. My son is a different story, but he has a great coach.  If you drill down on my site, you'll see my scores - from someone who spends more time crafting solutions for my archers than I do on the shooting line. When my team has grown enough that I can delegate, maybe I'll get to shoot more. 

So, what are other instructors and coaches doing to grow on a local level?


----------



## gonehuntin (Dec 2, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> Yup. I've seen it since I first joined the NAA. Even before the switch to BEST and then return to Level ... and NTS add-on, we had paper coaches who had never figured out how to shoot, but they were charging $$ for lessons.
> 
> I have no idea how in good conscience anyone can do this. But that doesn't seem to stop them.
> 
> ...


Actually... the standard practice for most camps is to hire college students on school break as their camp staff. Not always... but... more often than not, these camp staffers work through one camp session... then go back to school... some return next session... most do not. The great majority of these camps has a whole new crop of staffers over and over again.... So, the Level 1 for camps many times isn't reflective of ongoing, or even any real interest in long term teaching...the camp director generally designates which staff will certify in which activity.....when camp ends... so does most of the staffer's archery interest. Very difficult to maintain quality control over such a situation....


----------



## JimB1 (Feb 18, 2013)

Well, I had the opportunity to attend a level 2 class on Sunday. Wasn't really planning on it but the level 3 coach who I took an intermediate class from emailed me that he was running it and had an opening if I wanted to do it. I have to say that this thread pushed me to do it and see what all the fuss was about. 

The level 2 uses the level 1 and level 2 manuals with the level 2 going a little deeper into how to provide positive feedback to students, more in depth descriptions of the BEST method of form, and how to structure group classes. I just wanted to share an excerpt from the manual for the class:
" The level 2 instructor course is a continuation of the level 1 instructor course. Level 1 instructors learn the basic techniques to teach the first 5 archery lessons to beginning archers. The level 2 instructor will learn enough information to teach the first 16 lessons, or two 8 week sessions."

From taking the class I'd say that description is about right. A lot of the stuff in the class is about running a beginner class of kids. Designing skill building games, how to structure a class for beginners, etc. We spent a lot of time going over safety and methods of training basic form. Broke up into groups and teams to have us work under the Level 3 coach and assist on the line with one group playing beginner students and the other playing level 1 and 2 instructors then switching roles. That sort of thing. 
Very heavy on safety and what to watch for on the line.
I liked the class. Passed the test with only two wrong because of odd wording. 
It really comes down to know your limits. They did go over when to hand off a student to a level 3 as well and we had a short discussion on when to know when or if you want to go to level 3 yourself. Many people have no need to go to level 3, say camp councillors or people just helping out beginners around their club.

So just waiting for the background check and I need to do the SafeSport training but I am almost a level 2 instructor now... Opportunity knocks I guess...
-Jim


----------



## Zalmo (Oct 6, 2014)

JimB1 said:


> Well, I had the opportunity to attend a level 2 class on Sunday. Wasn't really planning on it but the level 3 coach who I took an intermediate class from emailed me that he was running it and had an opening if I wanted to do it. I have to say that this thread pushed me to do it and see what all the fuss was about.
> 
> The level 2 uses the level 1 and level 2 manuals with the level 2 going a little deeper into how to provide positive feedback to students, more in depth descriptions of the BEST method of form, and how to structure group classes. I just wanted to share an excerpt from the manual for the class:
> " The level 2 instructor course is a continuation of the level 1 instructor course. Level 1 instructors learn the basic techniques to teach the first 5 archery lessons to beginning archers. The level 2 instructor will learn enough information to teach the first 16 lessons, or two 8 week sessions."
> ...


Congratulations Jim!
Now you will actively contribute to this sport.


----------



## _JR_ (Mar 30, 2014)

chrstphr said:


> *Originally Posted by _JR_ *View Post
> Here's a challenge - if you (or anyone, for that matter) want to constructively help grow the sport of archery, our small, self-funded team needs arrows (we do field archery once a month and you know what happens to arrows there), intermediate-level equipment (our club president competed at outdoor nationals last year with his grandfather's 65#, 50-year-old hunting bow), or funds to travel to tournaments and repair target butts (tax-deductible). PM me if you think you might want to help grow archery in the USA by that means.
> 
> 
> ...


I want to publicly thank Chris for the Aerotec that he donated. It was received today, and it is obviously a huge step up in equipment; when he's done using it he will "pay it forward" to the next archer so that it will continue to be of benefit. "Hear, hear!" (raises glass in toast...)


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

dchan said:


> FYI They are NOT coaches. They are "instructors" and we all need to be reminded of this. Coach designation comes at L3.
> 
> L1 instructors are very Basic instructors and if properly taught, can be very affective instructors. They fill a huge hole in the process that allows camps and other organizations that might get kids for a week during the summer, safely run an archery program.. They don't need to be proficient accomplished archers to teach safely, a child to follow rules, and shoot a 122cm target from 10 yards. (most summer camps and scout camps I've seen and I've seen plenty)
> 
> ...


Perfectly stated


----------



## Dewboy (Apr 19, 2005)

JimB1 said:


> Also, I like the idea that you have to be an instructor level 2 for at least a year and show that you have been active in archery before you can get into a level 3 class. That alone will weed out some paper coaches that just took a level 3 class to say they are coaches.
> -Jim


Here is the problem I have with that Jim. Say a guy like me who has about 38 years of archery experience. I've already done lots of "unofficial" instructing, helping lots of people learn how to safely shoot, and working on and tuning lots and lots of bows. But never even thought about taking a course to be come an instructor. So If I want to become a "coach"(level 3), I have to pay and take the level 1 course. Then I have to pay, and take the level 2 course. Then I have to be a level 2 instructor for a year before I am deemed experienced enough to even attempt to be an L3??. And then PAY again of course. All the while being much more knowledgeable than most of the other L1 & L2's, and even many of the L3's. This might discourage someone like me that has a vast amount of archery knowledge from bothering with it at all. So mostly what you get taking these courses are newbies. 

"IF" it were based on knowledge, experience, and ability, those like me could take a test, and "QUALIFY" atleast L2 or L3 right off the bat. Then, depending on who we wanted to coach, we could remain at L3 or take more classes to become L- whatever. But it seems that "money" takes precedence over knowledge, experience, and ability. I mean, dang, you can even clep a college course! Which means you take a test to prove your knowledge and understanding of the course/subject and if you pass the clep test, you get credit for the college course without ever having to sit in all the classes. And yes, you have to pay to clep a course as well. 

What they need is a clep test or base the tests more on knowledge and skill, or some other way to get more knowledgeable, experienced, and skilled archers into the program that have already been teaching people how to shoot for Years. All experienced archers need is to get a manual in the mail prior to the test with an option to sit in the class. Most could look over the manual the evening before the test and pass with no problem. And don't force them to remain at L2 for a year before they can become level 3. That's absurd....That is, "if" you think about it in terms of skill, ability, and knowledge. 

It seems to me that most of the "experience" part of the equation when it comes to going from L2 to L3 has to do with working with kids and much less with actual archery experience. I realize that being an "experienced archer" does not mean you have experience with working with kids. But archers like me that have lots of experience in archery, as well as with working with kids, are held back, or even discouraged from participating to begin with. I would have taken these course years ago if this was available in my area at the time, but even now, I would have to travel hours away to take the course(s). 

Just my 2 cents worth from "MY" perspective. I've "paid" my dues in YEARS of learning in archery over many years, yet a total newbie gets to "pay" in the form of "cash", spend a few hours in class, and get a card that says they have this knowledge, while I get no credit for my years of experience and talent. I have to admit, it makes me sick.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

"L2's are still basic instructors. They are expected to be able to teach a L1 course, VERY BASIC, and understand some of the logistics of running a program. They are not expected to "train" anyone or "coach" anyone. Just give basic instruction and keep the range safe. Nothing more.."

David, as it's drawn up on paper, you're exactly right. But where the rubber meets the road, there will be a lot of abuses of this. The scenario that will play out/is playing out all over the place is trade orgs that light a fire under bow shops to "cash in on the archery revival" by starting a youth JOAD program. The bow shops will have a couple of their employees (who are overwhelmingly guys who are almost exclusively focused on/interested in 3d, hunting, and 70lb compound bows - at least this is true in the majority of shops I'm familiar with/have been in) run through a wham bam 2-3 hour special L2 course, and then start promoting themselves as "L2 certified to be coaching kids". I've had dozens of newbies come to me for lessons and they're carting a 35 or 40lb recurve hunting bow that some bow shop or some 'archery dept employee' at Bass Pro advised them to get "oh, you've got to get at least a 35lb bow so you'll be able to hunt with it" ... 

It's probably all part of unavoidable growing pains, but that doesn't make it less confusing/vexsome for many newbies. I suspect I'm not the only one who's seeing it already.


----------



## JimB1 (Feb 18, 2013)

Dewboy said:


> Here is the problem I have with that Jim. Say a guy like me who has about 38 years of archery experience. I've already done lots of "unofficial" instructing, helping lots of people learn how to safely shoot, and working on and tuning lots and lots of bows. But never even thought about taking a course to be come an instructor. So If I want to become a "coach"(level 3), I have to pay and take the level 1 course. Then I have to pay, and take the level 2 course. Then I have to be a level 2 instructor for a year before I am deemed experienced enough to even attempt to be an L3??. And then PAY again of course. All the while being much more knowledgeable than most of the other L1 & L2's, and even many of the L3's. This might discourage someone like me that has a vast amount of archery knowledge from bothering with it at all. So mostly what you get taking these courses are newbies.
> 
> "IF" it were based on knowledge, experience, and ability, those like me could take a test, and "QUALIFY" atleast L2 or L3 right off the bat. Then, depending on who we wanted to coach, we could remain at L3 or take more classes to become L- whatever. But it seems that "money" takes precedence over knowledge, experience, and ability. I mean, dang, you can even clep a college course! Which means you take a test to prove your knowledge and understanding of the course/subject and if you pass the clep test, you get credit for the college course without ever having to sit in all the classes. And yes, you have to pay to clep a course as well.
> 
> ...


Well, you can just take the level 2, you don't need to take the level 1. Or you can ask USA archery if they have any way to make exception if you can show you have been active in the sport. Alternatively just don't bother with the certification if you don't want to. Get a range pass if you need it and teach what you have been this whole time. 

I'm in IT and there are tons of certifications that I need to take simple, preliminary tests or low level classes before I can take the certification test I want even though I have a Masters degree and over 20 years in the field.

They have a specific set of things they want you to know and they don't know if you are on the same page so they make it a progression so they know you know what they think you should know.

In college I had to take all the simple 100 level junk even though I didn't learn anything new from any 100 level course. It was just a requirement as part of the core.

This just seems normal to me... 

Maybe you should suggest some sort of a test out process to them... I'm sure you aren't the only one thinking it but maybe you will be the only one who actually suggests it..
Just a thought...
-Jim


----------



## mcullumber (Jul 31, 2006)

You do not need to be a Certified Level 1 to take the level 2. You do not have to be a Level 2 to take the Level 3 Course. Here are the prerequisites for Level 3, from the USA Archery web site.

Prerequisites: Minimum age: 18; Must have been a Level 2 Instructor for one year - or pass an exam to ‘test out' of the Intermediate level and verify three years experience in an archery instructor capacity; successful background screen; successful completion of SafeSport training; and USA Archery or NFAA Membership (See Membership Benefits)

You just need to back up your experience with proof.


----------



## JimB1 (Feb 18, 2013)

mcullumber said:


> You do not need to be a Certified Level 1 to take the level 2. You do not have to be a Level 2 to take the Level 3 Course. Here are the prerequisites for Level 3, from the USA Archery web site.
> 
> Prerequisites: Minimum age: 18; Must have been a Level 2 Instructor for one year - or pass an exam to ‘test out' of the Intermediate level and verify three years experience in an archery instructor capacity; successful background screen; successful completion of SafeSport training; and USA Archery or NFAA Membership (See Membership Benefits)
> 
> You just need to back up your experience with proof.


Well, there you go 
-Jim


----------



## Dewboy (Apr 19, 2005)

mcullumber said:


> You do not need to be a Certified Level 1 to take the level 2. You do not have to be a Level 2 to take the Level 3 Course. Here are the prerequisites for Level 3, from the USA Archery web site.
> 
> Prerequisites: Minimum age: 18; Must have been a Level 2 Instructor for one year - or pass an exam to ‘test out' of the Intermediate level and verify three years experience in an archery instructor capacity; successful background screen; successful completion of SafeSport training; and USA Archery or NFAA Membership (See Membership Benefits)
> 
> You just need to back up your experience with proof.


*THANK YOU* so much for this information! This is the reason I come here to AT! I was not aware of this and have not found this information yet on their website, but I will now go back and look again. *Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!*


----------

