# Kisik Lee



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

Was he once an elite archer?


----------



## DWAA Archer (Oct 14, 2011)

??? He's an Elite Coach.
From what I have read he did not have an opportunity to shoot at an Olympics.


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

Yes, I know about his coaching acumen. To rephrase my question: In addition to being an elite coach, was he also an elite archer?


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

from what i understand, he was a 1200 shooter. 

Chris


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Arcus said:


> Yes, I know about his coaching acumen. To rephrase my question: In addition to being an elite coach, was he also an elite archer?


Coach Lee was trained as an elite archer but developed target panic so severe that he couldn't release the arrow. 

It is not necassary to be an elite athelete to be an elite coach. Bela Karolyi is an elite gmnastics coach but was never a gymnast, if I remember correctly he was a boxer. I know several elite atheletes that can't teach anything, much less their specialties.

TAO


----------



## JDT_Dad (Nov 5, 2008)

From what I understand, KiSik Lee was a member of the Korean National team before they started sending teams to the Olympics. Because of his target panic, he had to shoot his last tournament with his eyes closed. I understand he still managed to score over 1300.


----------



## wanemann (Oct 7, 2010)

TheAncientOne said:


> Coach Lee was trained as an elite archer but developed target panic so severe that he couldn't release the arrow.
> 
> It is not necassary to be an elite athelete to be an elite coach. Bela Karolyi is an elite gmnastics coach but was never a gymnast, if I remember correctly he was a boxer. I know several elite atheletes that can't teach anything, much less their specialties.
> 
> TAO


first of all just wanna say thanks, love this form, i feel the collective knowledge here is great and very useful to me though i do not shoot this style. however the target panic comment surprises me, i was under the impression that having an aiming method, and sequnce check eliminated target panic, thought it was jsut a trad thing.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> with his eyes closed. I understand he still managed to score over 1300.


and you believe that?


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

JDT_Dad said:


> From what I understand, KiSik Lee was a member of the Korean National team before they started sending teams to the Olympics. Because of his target panic, he had to shoot his last tournament with his eyes closed. I understand he still managed to score over 1300.


I once had to do that at nationals when my TP struck bad. Shot a couple at frame but managed to keep most near target... at 18m....


----------



## gairsz (Mar 6, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> and you believe that?


He told Matt the same story.


----------



## monty53 (Jun 19, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> and you believe that?


Why not?...If IM Dong-Hyun is really blind....!
They can beat you with their eyes closed!..:wink:


----------



## JDT_Dad (Nov 5, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> and you believe that?


I actually believe he was capable of shooting a1300 with his eyes closed more than I believe he was on a national team and never scored above a 1200.


----------



## JDT_Dad (Nov 5, 2008)

monty53 said:


> Why not?...If IM Dong-Hyun is really blind....!
> They can beat you with their eyes closed!..:wink:


Good point!


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

Talking about coach Lee's techniques, from the 2 books that published under his name so far, I can see archery technique was explained using general anatomical terms, I can not find any real biomechanical analysis that verifies his technique biomechical efficiencies. 

Biomechics analysis and technique development used on swimmers and runners, usually involving measuring details of a individual's body bone and muscle structures, using mechanical/mathemical modelling to find a more accurate/efficient/balanced/optimal technique for a particular individual (efficiency is not only about which muscle to used but also how symmetrical is the whole movement is, etc etc), it is on details and finding difference about each individuals, and develop technique variations that may best fit the individual. 

I was interested in how biomechnics is actually used to help finding different techniques to suit each individual, I understood shooting techniques can be explained with general anatomical terms, and coach lee had a impressive records, but, I would really like to see biomechical analysis on how one technique is biomechnically more efficient, as this phase "biomechnic" were very often used in promoting the technique.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

_"Biomechics analysis and technique development used on swimmers and runners, usually involving measuring details of a individual's body bone and muscle structures, using mechanical/mathemical modelling to find a more accurate/efficient/balanced/optimal technique for a particular individual (efficiency is not only about which muscle to used but also how symmetrical is the whole movement is, etc etc), it is on details and finding difference about each individuals, and develop technique variations that may best fit the individual."_

That would be great, but it sounds expensive. Maybe it'll happen if Nike starts making bows and paying top archers $1million a year


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

"and you believe that?"

:bs::set1_polevault::moon::laugh::icon_joker:


----------



## Chris RL (Oct 30, 2011)

Chang, hello!

I started shooting recently, but have shot a lot since I started. My son is in JOAD and shoots the NTS. I was coached slightly differently, more like the McKinney style. But not Korean influenced, anyway. 

However I have to tell you that the NTS/KSL shot technique, as pertains to me, does indeed work more efficiently for me, at least that part of the technique that I've started to incorporate into my own style.

The main difference, I'd say, in the KSL shot cycle is the open stance and the twist/drop of the rear arm to engage the back muscles earlier. 

This earlier transfer to the back muscles (in the set-up portion of the KSL draw) means that the back is more involved in coming to full draw and anchor, and the shoulder works less. 

By the time the bow is up to eye level, the bow is already half-drawn, and the back muscles have done most of the work getting there. 

So now all that's left is the remainder of the draw to anchor, which is already cued up to be completed mainly by the back muscles, instead of the shoulder muscles.

Since the larger, more powerful muscle groups have literally done most of the heavy lifting (drawing), and the lesser muscles haven't done much except stabilize the system up until now, this means the bow gets up to the eye and drawn quicker, which in turn leaves more energy left over, and therefore more time left over to settle the sight, aim, and hold, while the remaining transfer turns into extension and then release.


Over the space of a hundred or so arrows per session, I've found that I have been able to use less energy using that shot sequence over my previous aim and full draw technique. 

I've been in a pretty unique position in that I'm advanced enough to be able to change over just that part of my shot cycle, and then slot it into the rest of my regular cycle (i.e. my hook-up, anchor, hold, release, follow through etc are all pretty much the same as they used to be), so while I was evaluating that change for myself, I found myself being able to switch between the two styles and discern the difference for myself.

And once I did, I ended up adopting that part of the KSL technique. 


As the man says, and our team coaches say, and I can now confirm for myself at least, it is indeed a more biomechanically efficient method. 

In itself, that doesn't necessarily make you shoot more accurately, or actually any differently at all from the other styles in terms of where your arrows end up on the target.

It's just that, after a hundred or so arrows, you've used less energy coming to full draw and hold, and so theoretically that would maybe make a difference, if one were less tired at the end of a match or when shooting in wind, between an 8 or a 9, or a 7 and an 8.

So it's more efficient in that sense.


----------



## JDT_Dad (Nov 5, 2008)

Actually some bio mechanical studies have been performed on archers at the University of Florida. Several athletes including RA's and top Junior Dream Team archers participated in a study performed by the department of Orthopedics & Sports Medicine at UF. This is the same department which usually performs studies of athletes from various UF teams with an aim toward preventing injuries and increasing performance. I believe Easton paid for the study.

Some of the results of the study were presented at the Regional Coaching Certification Class I attended some time ago.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I believe Easton paid for the study


Hmmm.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

IIRC Oh Kyo Moon who replaced Kisik Lee as the Australian archery coach was a member of a Korean Olympic gold medal team and a previous holder of some Olympic records..

i presumed Kisik Lee had similar credentials....apparently not...


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

JDT_Dad said:


> I actually believe he was capable of shooting a1300 with his eyes closed more than I believe he was on a national team and never scored above a 1200.


I did not mean he only shot a 1200. I should have said shot in the 1200s. Though i have no facts or knowledge. I just remember at a seminar he gave at the arizona cup, someone asked that afterwards and that was an answer by someone else in the crowd. 

Chris


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

lksseven said:


> That would be great, but it sounds expensive. Maybe it'll happen if Nike starts making bows and paying top archers $1million a year


There are different ways and details that biomechnics being applied, not all are expensive or always require special equipments, but most of the time are finding uniqueness. 

There is no doubt Coach Lee has some very impressive coaching records, however, to me, "Biomechenics" is one of the things that "B.E.S.T" distinguish itself from other techniques. in fact, I have seen simular technique used by Steven Hallards described in the shooting stars (Early 90 British Archery Publication). I have seen EGM test study in Japan by Mr Rick Mckinney, I have seen scientific test done in Taiwan by Coach Kim Hyung Tak, I would like to see the some sharing of the results (just by a simple reference without details) as "B.E.S.T" was so often promoted as scientifically-based "biomechenically efficient".


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

chang, I don't believe you will ever see sharing of results. 

I've not seen a lot of real science applied, when in fact - as you point out - it is not that difficult to do. Rather, there has been a lot of kool-aid mixed and people were asked to drink it. Most were happy to do this.

The other day, my wife and I were watching the Olympics and there was a story about science in sport. I told her that by now, we should have an incredible amount of knowlege about things like most consistent grip position (pressure sensitive plates and skins are not that expensive to put on a grip), the most stable stance and shoes that promote the best balance in the wind, and what exactly goes on in the body when an archer properly "expands" should no longer be a mystery to anyone. 

A simple examination of the muscle groups and movements that are engaged during expansion would answer a LOT of people's questions a whole lot better than it has been explained for the past 7 years.

John


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

Scientific methods have been used by many countries on many sports, and results do being published and shared. Coach Kim for example did show some interesting results on his students in his seminars. 

It is also true that many techniques are developed using complex scientific methods including biomechanics. and very few of them need to be explained scientifically in details to the general user, yet, technical records or references can be found, at a place called the reference section. but so far, I have never seen Newtons law being used as analogy for a sequence of movement and call it biomechanics except ...... 

To me, if anything promoted to be more scientific particular, there should be a way to allow other scientific people to verified it.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

Pressure plate testing is pretty bread and butter for most teams I'd imagine. At least for those I know of. I've done it a couple of times with the sports university here when they were calibrating their equipment.


----------



## DWAA Archer (Oct 14, 2011)

Multiple cameras linked in to a computer running dartfish software is often used to look at the biomechanics of the archers.


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

the BEST books have been very helpful to me. i dont recommend them for beginners or to someone without a decent background in kinesiology/movement mechanics etc because they will be hard to decipher without a coach or without some kind of decent archery experience (ie youve felt what they are attempting to describe).

a MAJOR downside is that they intersperse made-up terminology with kinesiolgy/anatomy terms and a lot of the actual anatomy/movement terms are incorrect. 

i think a lot of the books are a work of effort by many people, trying to get across coach Lee's methodologies and i appreciate what they are doing.

that being said, i would have liked to have seen consistancy and accurate use of the myriad of movement mechanic terms already in use rather than doing what they did. whom ever wrote the book has some basic knowldedge of these terms but a high level professional was either not consulted or the authors chose to use their own terms instead.

with out a background in movement mechanics you are going to have to have a reference for a lot of the anatomy terms used anyway so why not just stick with popular nomenclature instead of using it here and there.

obviously using established nomenclature is going to make the book even more "technical" but at least it would be concrete. terms like LAN2 and describing joint and muscle actions with incorrect terms are just confusing (especially when using partial terms or attempting to describe rotation movements and not sticking to set parameters of definitions being used). yes, you can figure it out if you have some background (in archery and movement mechanics) but its a real chore. i dont know what a beginner could possibly get out of the books without a bunch of luck and or a really good coach.

i would like to see more pictures (from various angles) of all the movements and techniques presented in the books and in the method. ..might be hard to put into another, updated, and costly book but it would be VERY easy for the expert coaches and shooters to build reference videos for all to watch. i dont know why someone at the OTC has yet to do this. too much stuff to sell i suppose. all it would take is a coach walking through the steps and a few top archers running through the mechanics. it could be very basic or very in depth. all of it could be done without much time imo. you could set the video reference up in stages from novice to expert. dwelling on mechanics that are appropriate at each skill level.


----------



## Greysides (Jun 10, 2009)

A good book on a lot of this stuff, and with proper nomenclature is: Archery Anatomy by Ray Axford.


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

i have that one and youre right its good. i think one has to describe joint mechanics/movements in RELATIONSHIP to the position of what the rest of the body is doing. its hard without getting very technical. i didnt get much out of that book though other than the "neat" factor. mckinneys book (minus trying to describe the "constant motion" concept) and trial and error with the BEST books (along with internet information and vids and going back and forth between my normal weight and a very light trainer weight/and stretch band) has worked the best for me. .. again why i think an ongoing video library provided by the NTS/OTC/USA ARCHERY.. ANYONE.. would be about the best thing in the world to help grow archery in the united states. with all of the movie stuff and the olympics now is THE time to keep the fire burning in all the new enthusiasm. as it stands, everyone is still pretty lost unless you are lucky enough to live close to a coach that knows what they are doing. on the bright side there is going to be a TON of barely used stuff for sale in the coming year!


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

JDT_Dad said:


> From what I understand, KiSik Lee was a member of the Korean National team before they started sending teams to the Olympics. Because of his target panic, he had to shoot his last tournament with his eyes closed. I understand he still managed to score over 1300.



I have some ocean front property in Arizona.....cheap.


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> chang, I don't believe you will ever see sharing of results.
> 
> I've not seen a lot of real science applied, when in fact - as you point out - it is not that difficult to do. Rather, there has been a lot of kool-aid mixed and people were asked to drink it. Most were happy to do this.
> 
> ...


John, if I remember correctly Rick McKinney did a lot of this type of testing...little electrodes pasted all over his body etc. Perhaps he would know some of the data.
Art


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

"... shoes that promote the best balance in the wind"

New Balance 1540's!!!!! Wide, high toe box to spread out your toes, lots of side-to-side heel support, great balance angle heel to toe. (yes, I know there's already a 'shoe thread' that's immortal).


----------



## gairsz (Mar 6, 2008)

I do believe it was only at 30 meters. He would set his pin, close his eyes and shoot.


----------



## JDT_Dad (Nov 5, 2008)

gairsz said:


> I do believe it was only at 30 meters. He would set his pin, close his eyes and shoot.


That was my understanding also.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

never heard of anyone shooting a 1300 at 30 meters.


----------



## gairsz (Mar 6, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> never heard of anyone shooting a 1300 at 30 meters.


He only shot with his eyes closed at 30 meters. I am sure you knew what I meant.


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

As B.E.S.T method specially emphasised as technical-scientific based. but if the word "Biomechanics" is taken away from the 2 "B.E.S.T" books, so far the technique has neither been presented more scientifically than any other techniques (Frangelli, Mckinney, Kim, Park etc), nor any indication of the scientific evidence or records. 

Ray Axford's "Archery anatomy" is a good example, it has been referenced by many archery articles in different countries/languages/details. 

Biomechanics is not only anatomy but mechanics and mathematics. the study details can be complex, there are simple ways that biomechnics can be explained with for example basic "stick/frame" models instead of anatomical terms, or scientific records can be simply mentioned. 

It could my very own impression, when TA first published, what strikes me was the word "Biomechnics". from what I seen from swimming or cycling, biomechanics (simple or complex) are more often used to find more individual solutions for particular type of person. not one common general method to fit everyone. and I notice those perform well with BEST technique share some similar in physique as well. that make me wonder how the method is developed and its scientific background. 

I like the way things being presented in Mckinney's book, It is like reading from the point of view of an archer instead of a coach.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> As B.E.S.T method specially emphasised as technical-scientific based. but if the word "Biomechanics" is taken away from the 2 "B.E.S.T" books, so far the technique has neither been presented more scientifically than any other techniques (Frangelli, Mckinney, Kim, Park etc), nor any indication of the scientific evidence or records.


Agreed. 



> I like the way things being presented in Mckinney's book, It is like reading from the point of view of an archer instead of a coach.


I've long since thought that everything an archer needs to know about Oly. recurve is contained in that book. Rick covered it all. The rest is up to the archer.

John


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

gairsz said:


> He only shot with his eyes closed at 30 meters. I am sure you knew what I meant.


I knew what you meant. How's the Tab biz coming?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

gairsz said:


> He only shot with his eyes closed at 30 meters. I am sure you knew what I meant.


Don't be so sure. It wasn't making sense to me at first. I get it now. Still don't believe it, but I get what you're saying. Fact is, nobody here will ever know. Another fact is that I'm not sure it really matters.

John


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

In 1994, Italian Institute of Science and Sport, in conjunction with Italian Archery fedration, carried on an analysis about Biomechanics in Archery, using as subjects some of the top Italian (male) shooters of that age, among them Andrea Parenti (1330 FITA round level ) and Alessandro Rivolta (first European at 1350 FITA round level).
I have a copy of the results, and Astracts of the study have been have been presented to the XII International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports held in Budapest, Hungary, from July 2 to 6 1994. 
The following is a short abstract from the conclusions of the memories presented to the symposium (original is already in English):


> The main specific findings of the work may be reassumed as follow:
> - despite apparent similarities in performing shoots, differencies were observed in kinematicc, EMG and kinetic variables.
> - some differencies seem to be related to individual skill level and other appear to be idiosisyncratic
> - a clear and meaningful link between alignement of various body segments and degree of muscle activation has been found
> ...


The general approach to the study was to analize real existing top level archers and to compare them with lower level ones to find were to work for improvement 
Content of the study clearly says that almost nothing in common has been found between the two top level archers analyzed and also all others were different, using different muscle activations in the various phases of the shot sequence.
So, the results only refer to the possibility to use the analysys to compare individual shot startegies an techniques and to help to find variables introduced during coaching. No result has been found releted to an theoretical "optimal" biomechanic solution. 

These results have been discussed hundreds of times, with the sole conclusion that "there are several ways to the gold" and it is almost useless to continue to try to find a single one better than others and generally valid for all archers.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

And there you have it. 

We can, and most likely should, enjoy all the flavors of Kool-aid we have. 

John


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Biomechanics…I agree with Chang. The classes I took showed that your goal is to use the bone structure as a lever and the muscles were used minimally in order use your body efficiently. The cupping of the draw hand, the drawing of the string virtually away from the body first then into the body, the tipping of the pelvis, the twisting of the Radius by 45 degrees from it’s natural state (which by the way the Ulna bone is much stronger), the forcing of the bow wrist down upon release, the extra long hold, twisting of the upper body without twisting the lower body are just not biomechanically efficient from everything I know about shooting a bow. It doesn’t mean it can’t be done, it just means that there is a greater demand on the body due to these inefficiencies. There is no question that it works. It just requires a tremendous amount of training on the body. Whether or not it is better has not been proven as yet. 

In the 1980’s the USAT ran a lot of scientific tests using biomechanists, physiologists, and psycho-physiologists. We used the force platforms, high-speed camera’s, sensor devices, EMG’s, laser diodes, brain wave activity, slow twitch vs. fast twitch muscle activity. We measured anticipatory reaction vs. triggered reaction. Unfortunately, most of those test results were lost due to the poor administration after 1996. It was extremely sad, however, the rest of the world took advantage of the test results. The Koreans were one of the first to grab our tests and results once available. You might even find some articles in the US Archer. 

As for closing your eyes to shoot a score….well, if you close your eyes at the instant you let go, I guess it can happen.


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

For info the Italian papers mentioned above are available in PDF format from 12 International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports (1994)


----------



## rpdjr45 (Jul 28, 2007)

Just a few thoughts I have as I read the above postings.
1. Whether or not Lee was an elite archer means nothing other than providing a set of credentials. Meaning he may have been able to walk the walk and talk the talk.
2. Some good to great athletes do not know how to coach. They cannot get the athlete to do what they found so easy or applicable to themselves. 
3. Many coaches, I think, were or are fair to good athletes, and some were probably not very good, but they love the sport, studied it, and even have an advantage in teaching people because they know how hard or difficult it is to do the actions. For example, I always wanted to be Jim Thorpe, but I stunk in the hurdles and never got past 5'7" in the high jump, but I coached two championship teams with district champion hurdlers and two jumpers who went over 6'8". My point, trying to play Jim Thorpe and competing in decathlons helped me understand what needed to be done, but as a decathlete, well, I still have the Wisconsin state record for the slowest time in the high hurdles and still scored points (3, yes, 3 whole points.)
4. The key to coaching athletes is to go where the athlete goes rather than forcing the athlete to go where you want them to go.
If the athlete wants and feels most confident shooting with the anchor in the corner of the mouth, then stop trying to force the athlete to anchor under the chin in Lee's classical BEST style. If the athlete is successful, leave them alone and work with what they have. In our current system, we seem to think that all we have to do is weed out all those can't or won't follow Lee's classical technique, and we can do that just based on numbers. And at what cost? How many archers are out there who would be or are as good as the current group of Olympic Training Center residents, but aren't there because they don't follow the system? (And this is why I state that our Olympic team selection process is flawed and wrong. But that's another topic.)
5. Books about archery: if you read the book, and you learn one good new thing that will help you or the archers you are coaching, it is good. If you learn things and you determine that it is wrong and you would never do such things: that too is good for you know enough to know what is right and what is wrong, and yet, it must work for someone or it would not be in the book. Best book written for coaching and for the archer is On Target for Understanding Winning Archery, by Al Henderson. Based on what I have read, I would have followed him around all day with a tape recorder and notebook. How about this: Chapter three: Building the Best Form, "Tailor practice programs to the physical and mental needs." I don't see that philosophy in the current Olympic coaching staff's quiver. I may be wrong, but I don't see it nor hear of it emphasized. I hear and see, "my way or the highway." (But I am coming from my little long bow corner of the archery world.) Trust me on the book by Henderson, though. Buy it, read it, and you will be enlightened, and you will improve. Hmmm, I going to re-read the book, now.


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

It's really curious...all the studies are for on purpose...to attempt to duplicate an elite athletes performance, but as shown each elite athlete has variance in what they do. Two examples I can think of that I have witnessed. Jay Barrs, pulls his bow to the right strongly upon release (left hand shooter), Butch Johnson has a prismatic jerk, twitch, movements when he releasless...Jay's comment about it. Neither matters because the arrow has already left. Point is,
get some basics and then duplicate them. Elite athletes are elite due to genes, talent, and work...period. Everybody is making to much over nothing. The secret is there is no secret.


----------



## DWAA Archer (Oct 14, 2011)

rpdjr45 said:


> Just a few thoughts I have as I read the above postings.
> 1. Whether or not Lee was an elite archer means nothing other than providing a set of credentials. Meaning he may have been able to walk the walk and talk the talk.
> 2. Some good to great athletes do not know how to coach. They cannot get the athlete to do what they found so easy or applicable to themselves.
> 3. Many coaches, I think, were or are fair to good athletes, and some were probably not very good, but they love the sport, studied it, and even have an advantage in teaching people because they know how hard or difficult it is to do the actions. For example, I always wanted to be Jim Thorpe, but I stunk in the hurdles and never got past 5'7" in the high jump, but I coached two championship teams with district champion hurdlers and two jumpers who went over 6'8". My point, trying to play Jim Thorpe and competing in decathlons helped me understand what needed to be done, but as a decathlete, well, I still have the Wisconsin state record for the slowest time in the high hurdles and still scored points (3, yes, 3 whole points.)
> ...


With Lee's system although he states what he thinks is optimum in his latest book he does mention that there is some wiggle room with that.


----------



## DWAA Archer (Oct 14, 2011)

JDT_Dad said:


> From what I understand, KiSik Lee was a member of the Korean National team before they started sending teams to the Olympics. Because of his target panic, he had to shoot his last tournament with his eyes closed. I understand he still managed to score over 1300.


And he was standing on one leg as well


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

DWAA Archer said:


> With Lee's system although he states what he thinks is optimum in his latest book he does mention that there is some wiggle room with that.


The crux of the matter is that what is biomechanically efficient for one archer is not biomechanically efficient for another. As long as you can make adjustments to accomodate the individual archer most major "styles" will work. 

The one thing that you can say about the NTS is that it attempts to promote consistancy with respect to coaching. Now we just need those coaches to loosen up and kick it old school when appropriate.

TAO


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

DWAA Archer said:


> And he was standing on one leg as well


That's the Flamingo style that was popular in the '90's.

TAO


----------



## JDT_Dad (Nov 5, 2008)

DWAA Archer said:


> And he was standing on one leg as well


I think he actually did it standing on his hands while drawing the bow with his feet .


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

When they saw who it was, they just gave him a score. Stay thirsty my friends.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

bownut-tl. said:


> When they saw who it was, they just gave him a score. Stay thirsty my friends.


Post of the day...


----------



## shootemstraight (Jan 13, 2007)

rpdjr45 said:


> Best book written for coaching and for the archer is On Target for Understanding Winning Archery, by Al Henderson.


I love this book!!! Have read it several times. I love the many examples of coaching the mental side of an archer. Between this book and Rick McKinney's book, it's "all" covered!


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

"Between this book and Rick McKinney's book, it's "all" covered!"

That reminds me of one of William Buckley's great quips - someone asked him 'how the new book was coming' and Buckley replied "A piece of cake! I found all the words in the dictionary - now all I have to do is figure out how to use them correctly." :wink:


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

Re: "eyes closed": I personally witnessed Kateryna Serduyk (UKR) closing her eyes completely as the clicker would go off throughout the Sydney Olympic Games. Every single shot of her on film from that event clearly shows this. Finished 16th individually and won team silver.

Some people are really quick to dismiss some things.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Would love to hear McKinney's take on this. Probably never will, but I'd love to hear it. He probably knows the history of Korean Olympic archery better than anyone.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Also makes me wonder what advice he (Lee) would offer someone struggling with TP and whether he could coach his way out of that problem today. 

From everything I've ever read, the Koreans don't waste time with archers who develop TP issues. I somehow doubt that's entirely true, but considering the pool of archers they have to work with, I can see where only so much effort would go into working with any one archer who was struggling before they would just move on to the next one.

We don't really have that luxury here in the U.S., and that's when you find out how good a coach is. Not when talented archers are in abundance, but when they are a rare, precious commodity that you can't afford to give up on.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

During one of our conversations with Coach Lee, he said the Korean coaches would give the archer a specific amount of time to overcome the problem. If they couldn't fix it by then, they (the program) moved on. They have enough depth in their program to absorb the loss.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

So they become coaches then? 

Pardon my "difficult" question, but should it bother anyone that we have a national head coach that has well documented TP issues they never overcame? There are as many reasons that people became coaches as there are coaches themselves, but I hope that those who struggled with significant issues as athletes learned from that experience and used it to their advantage as a coach. 

We'll never know all the stories that come out of the OTC, of course, but I'd love to hear how our program is preparing athletes both physically AND mentally. We've heard all about the physical side - and read all the books. Now, since our pool of archers is NOT big enough to "absorb the loss," I want to know what our program is doing to address the mental side, which, as most surely know, is the real difference between winning and not.

John


----------



## Bob Furman (May 16, 2012)

ArtV said:


> I have some ocean front property in Arizona.....cheap.


Hey now... I'm waiting on California to drop in the ocean from the next BIG one...


----------



## gairsz (Mar 6, 2008)

The RA's have been working with the Bassham team. 

Gary


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> So they become coaches then?
> 
> Pardon my "difficult" question, but should it bother anyone that we have a national head coach that has well documented TP issues they never overcame? There are as many reasons that people became coaches as there are coaches themselves, but I hope that those who struggled with significant issues as athletes learned from that experience and used it to their advantage as a coach.
> 
> ...


I'm not bothered if Coach Lee was unable to conquer his TP. At least for me, his other abilities and knowledge easily outweigh any concern I might have had over the TP issue. 

The RA's utilize aerobic and weight lifting training to supplement their shooting. As for mental preparation, they typically use 4 things: the on site/off site sports psychologists, Lanny Bassham's Mental Management program (working with Lanny and his son), going to as many international competitions as the program can afford to send them, and using various practice scenarios (like the gold game, set system drills, and timing changes) to put pressure on the archers at the OTC range.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Wouldn't it make sense to have an asst. coach who was a qualified sports psych, but could also perform other functions? 

We all know what a huge % of this sport is mental. Why not just admit it, go with it, and prepare for it. 

Personally, I like the idea of collateral training with SEAL teams at the nearby Naval base... 

John


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Are you talking about an assistant that is both an archery and psych coach or just a psych coach that may or may not have any archery experience? I don't know if having the person be an assistant coach would be needed but having one that is readily available would be nice. Would this coach also be one of the staff going to all the national and international tournaments?


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Did Rick have a psych coach? Jay Baars? Butch? Vic? John? Darrell? Will daily or weekly meetings with the psych coach be mandatory attendance? What if I hate the psych coach? What if talking to a psych coach puts more stress on me (due to my personality type) than a 'shoot off' does? I'm reminded of the recurring locker room scenes in The Natural where the little bitty psychologist is trying to talk the team out of a slump with mind numbing, singsong platitudes, while Robert Redford's blood pressure is skyrocketing in exasperation.

Really?

Or am I misunderstanding exactly what is meant here by 'psych coach' ?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Larry, a good (repeat, GOOD) sports psych knows when to get involved, and when to stay out of the way. 

Terry, what I mean is that coach Lee's asst. probably should be the sports psych, but they could also serve as team leader on trips. This is a position that could easily be doubled up IMO. 

John


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

bownut-tl. said:


> When they saw who it was, they just gave him a score. Stay thirsty my friends.


roflmao....good one Terry.


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

"So they become coaches then?

Pardon my "difficult" question, but should it bother anyone that we have a national head coach that has well documented TP issues they never overcame? There are as many reasons that people became coaches as there are coaches themselves, but I hope that those who struggled with significant issues as athletes learned from that experience and used it to their advantage as a coach."

John, I really don't see how it would matter if he couldn't over come his TP as long as he knows how to work someone else through it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Perhaps not. I just thought I'd see what folks thought. And as was said, TP comes in so many forms...

I think a coach can be a great coach by knowing the fundamentals, having good, but maybe not elite level experience, and then being a great student of the sport. The best coaches have a very analytical eye that is trained by 1000's of shots they have watched, made by 100's if not 1000's of archers.

John


----------



## aaronthesun (Oct 13, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> Perhaps not. I just thought I'd see what folks thought. And as was said, TP comes in so many forms...
> 
> I think a coach can be a great coach by knowing the fundamentals, having good, but maybe not elite level experience, and then being a great student of the sport. The best coaches have a very analytical eye that is trained by 1000's of shots they have watched, made by 100's if not 1000's of archers.
> 
> John


Adding to that, I think that in a good coach, the ability to observe and teach is much more important than skill in competition. Knowledge without the ability to explain and demonstrate concepts and techniques to people in a way that they will process easily does not make a coach.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I think that in a good coach, the ability to observe and teach is much more important than skill in competition


Depends. If an individual is truly observant and intelligent, then I think they can pick up a lot through their students. However, there is little substitute for having stood on the line, or having actually felt the feeling of "expansion" or other subtle techniques that are difficult enough to learn if you shoot. Nearly impossible if you don't.

Another observation I've made over the years is that coaches who were never good archers seldom know the subtle differences in equipment selection, setup and fine tuning that elite archers need to know.

John


----------



## tigersdad (Jun 13, 2009)

As a psychologist who appears to have taken care of his target panic, I must be a damn good psychologist for a case study of ONE... Now, I suppose I should aspire to be an archery coach so I can be referred to as that "psycho-coach" with all it's attendant meanings...


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

JDT_Dad said:


> I think he actually did it standing on his hands while drawing the bow with his feet .


Well, All I learned from the 2 Total Archery, The principle of "B.E.S.T" is to use stronger muscle, If Lower Trapez is bigger and stronger than upper Trapez, hence biomechancial more efficent. Shooting with feet may be even more "Biomechanical Efficient", 
View attachment 1447170


Using a few technical word, I can say Femur, Fibula and Tibia are stronger than Humerus, Ulna and Radius, Gluteus maximus, Gluteus medius and Biceps femoris are stronger than Trapezous, Deltoid and Biceps Brachii, Phalanges of toes are shorter than Phalanges of fingers, etc, etc, put it is a simple way, legs are stronger than arms, Can we conclude that shooting with feet is more biomechanical efficient tham shooting with arms?


----------



## Moebow (Jul 8, 2010)

John,

"Another observation I've made over the years is that coaches who were never good archers seldom know the subtle differences in equipment selection, setup and fine tuning that elite archers need to know."

Not necessarily disagreeing with you but how then do you explain all the golf coaches that work with the Pro tour players that we've never heard of (many of whom never played or won on the PGA tour)? One of the most respected golf coaches in history, Harvey Penick, was a caddy as an example. Golf is also a pretty "mental" game, especially at that level, too.

Arne


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

chang said:


> ... Can we conclude that shooting with feet is more biomechanical efficient tham shooting with arms?


Yes, ant this is the reason why in FLIGHT Archery longer distancies are won by by feet(legs) shooters ... :angel:


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

If you fellas don't mind a brief intrusion from a "dark side" shooter, there's a great bunch articles describing the various tests performed to define the biomechanics involved in shooting archery. The site is located at: https://sites.google.com/site/archerybibliography/home 

Some of the papers have broken links, but for anyone wishing to learn more about how the body responds to the forces of shooting a bow, then there is some really good reading there. 

On another note, quoted from a NY Times article published August 19, 2008. Coach Lee was questioned about his alleged proselytizing at the OTC. His response was: To be an effective archer, Lee said, athletes must learn to clear their heads and focus. “If you are Christian,” he said, “then people can have that kind of empty mind.” Asked if people of other faiths could learn to focus in the same way, Lee said he was not sure. “Maybe,” he said. “But for me this is the best answer. So that’s why I’m encouraging people to be the same as me.” (full article here:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/sports/olympics/20archery.html?_r=1)

If coach Lee carries this same thinking in to his coaching, would it be possible for a young resident archer to truly meet their athletic potential if he/she does not conform to the mold the head coach as invisioned as being perfect? I agree, it seems almost impossible to fit everyone into the same "athletic shoe" when it comes to training a person to compete in this sport. I am still a newbie, but even I can see that if you do not have 100s or 1000s of potential archers who have the potential to rise to the elite level, it would be very difficult for any coach to toss out those who could not be molded into a theorized ideal. So, is the US archery program really deep enough to successfully adhere to this philosophy or could it spell the eventual demise of the program once the current batch of core elite shooters moves on to greener pastures?


----------



## JDT_Dad (Nov 5, 2008)

chang said:


> Well, All I learned from the 2 Total Archery, The principle of "B.E.S.T" is to use stronger muscle, If Lower Trapez is bigger and stronger than upper Trapez, hence biomechancial more efficent. Shooting with feet may be even more "Biomechanical Efficient",
> View attachment 1447170
> 
> 
> Using a few technical word, I can say Femur, Fibula and Tibia are stronger than Humerus, Ulna and Radius, Gluteus maximus, Gluteus medius and Biceps femoris are stronger than Trapezous, Deltoid and Biceps Brachii, Phalanges of toes are shorter than Phalanges of fingers, etc, etc, put it is a simple way, legs are stronger than arms, Can we conclude that shooting with feet is more biomechanical efficient tham shooting with arms?


Hey, my comment (I think he actually did it standing on his hands while drawing the bow with his feet) was meant as a joke! Seriously, everybody was riding me for believing Lee shot above 1300 while shooting part of 30 meters with his eyes closed at the moment of release, so I made what I thought was a sarcastic joke, hence the sarcastic smiley face.


----------



## screemnjay (Nov 2, 2008)

Moebow said:


> John,
> 
> "Another observation I've made over the years is that coaches who were never good archers seldom know the subtle differences in equipment selection, setup and fine tuning that elite archers need to know."
> 
> ...


Penick was a good Golfer, as are most Caddys on the elite level. I would offer to Caddy on that level, would be excellent preparation for a coaching career. I'll also add, to think any different would express a lack of understanding what Caddys do. As John said, in his own words, and I agree, elite level performance isn't necessarily a key ingredient, however, a requisite level of understanding the nuances is.

As Coach Lee goes, I believe that one fair basis of evaluation, is to analyze the development of the program versus those of his predecessors. A example would be, is Coach Lee's program more comprehensive and effective than Lloyd Brown's?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Moebow said:


> John,
> 
> "Another observation I've made over the years is that coaches who were never good archers seldom know the subtle differences in equipment selection, setup and fine tuning that elite archers need to know."
> 
> ...


True, but archery is a much more equipment-dependant sport than golf. I know plenty of my golf buddies who would disagree, but as someone that's played both for a while now, I can tell you that there is more at stake when trying to set up and tune a bow for a particular archer. I've seen too many up-and-coming archers, and even some veterans, who were using equipment that simply was not properly fit or tuned for them. It does no good for a coach to point to "form errors" when in fact the bow isn't properly tuned or fitted to the archer. Unfortunately there are many level 3 and some level 4 coaches that still don't understand this well.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

screemnjay said:


> Penick was a good Golfer, as are most Caddys on the elite level. I would offer to Caddy on that level, would be excellent preparation for a coaching career. I'll also add, to think any different would express a lack of understanding what Caddys do. As John said, in his own words, and I agree, elite level performance isn't necessarily a key ingredient, however, a requisite level of understanding the nuances is.
> 
> As Coach Lee goes, I believe that one fair basis of evaluation, is to analyze the development of the program versus those of his predecessors. A example would be, is Coach Lee's program more comprehensive and effective than Lloyd Brown's?


Not yet it isn't.

Under Lloyd's direction, the U.S. won how many Olympic medals? One individual Gold, one team gold, one team bronze and one individual silver. That's not a bad track record really. Of course, only one of those archers (Huish) was actually coached by Lloyd. Perhaps Rod White was too, I don't know that for sure.

So, anyone who followed Lloyd had pretty big shoes to fill, if one were only to count Oly. medals. 

But didn't Lloyd also create all the instruction manuals for the coaching certifications too?


----------



## screemnjay (Nov 2, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Not yet it isn't.
> 
> Under Lloyd's direction, the U.S. won how many Olympic medals? One individual Gold, one team gold, one team bronze and one individual silver. That's not a bad track record really. Of course, only one of those archers (Huish) was actually coached by Lloyd. Perhaps Rod White was too, I don't know that for sure.
> 
> ...


Yes. My observation is Lloyd did a much better job on a National level disseminating essential information. On a local (in my case California) level, the sport was healthier with regards to competition and preparation for developing Archers, on Lloyds watch (although Rabska and economics may be a component of this dynamic as much as Coach Lee).


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

Aside from the word "Biomechanics", Engaging and using lower trapez is what "B.E.S.T" claimed to offer better efficiency over other techniques. I agreed that lower trapez is bigger and stronger, Shifting the load from the upper trapez, deltoid and biceps to lower trapez will definitely reduce the load on original muscle groups.

However, The lower trapez runs much more diagonally across the rib cage than the upper trapez. The movement created by upper trapez are mostly horizontal, The movement created by lower trapez has more vertical elements. if such movement need to be compensated. more muscle groups have to be involved. 

while engage lower trapez for expansion, the draw side scapula needs to be at a lower position than the bow side. The stress on rib cage bone structure are more uneven and unsymmetrical. while tighten up the lower trapez is stronger, it can also introduce down-ward presure on the draw side shoulder and up-ward stress on the bow side shoulder. my concern is the supporting stability of such skeletal arrangment, and the mental stress it creates. off course, human body can natually adjust to balance this situation by engaging other muscle groups. 

Our body can not control a single piece of muscle only, our body controls a group of muscle to perform action, and subsequently affect other portion of the body as well, One effect of tighten up the upper trapez, is it keep the ribcage down naturally, while tighten up the "stronger" lower back muscle (mainly the lower trapez), it will create a upward pressure for the ribcage.

As for scientific result for BEST, all I found are a couple of EMG so far, What they shown were the muscles on the draw side (bicep, deltoid and trapez). They simply confirm that lower trapez can share some loads from other muscle on draw side of the body. but what about the full body?

The so called "Traditional korean" technique has a proven record, and I can not find sufficient prove that BEST is any superior to it. what really surprise me, is that a coach whose experiense and fame were built and accumulated from the "tradiontal korean" technique, yet, he can only teach one "alternative better" technique, why can't the traditional technique (he also excel in) being taught along side his new "export version"? and let the community find their own results?

Uniform, consistance in scientific methodes and processes not only increase efficiency, they also comprehend discover and explain diversity, and hamonized controdictions. It madee sense for korea to choose a few technique for their national team as they don't have any recreational modern archery community like we do. 

consistancy can be implement from top-down approach, it can be built from bottom up, or both way. When you have one superstar on top of the hierachy, how to balance the interest of the elites and recreational community become a far bigger issue.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> When you have one superstar on top of the hierachy, how to balance the interest of the elites and recreational community become a bigger issues.


That is indeed a mouthful. And precisely what we will be struggling with here in the U.S. for the next few years, I think.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> chang, I don't believe you will ever see sharing of results.
> 
> I've not seen a lot of real science applied, when in fact - as you point out - it is not that difficult to do. Rather, there has been a lot of kool-aid mixed and people were asked to drink it. Most were happy to do this.
> 
> The other day, my wife and I were watching the Olympics and there was a story about science in sport. I told her that by now, we should have an incredible amount of knowlege about things like most consistent grip position (pressure sensitive plates and skins are not that expensive to put on a grip), the most stable stance and shoes that promote the best balance in the wind, and what exactly goes on in the body when an archer properly "expands" should no longer be a mystery to anyone.


I took up the “BEST” method with the (false) understanding that its claims were all scientifically validated rather a hodge podge of science and subjective conjecture by a cult of personality presented as fact. There is a certain truthyness to BEST—using invented terminology rather than using existing scientific terms is something that is common in crank science. There is no anatomical “LAN 2”, for instance, but it makes it easy to talk about invented concepts without having to relate them to the actual science of anatomy and human kinetics. 

I was pretty surprised to find out that lots of basic, fairly easy to measure stuff like LW mentions haven't been done. I can't help but think that much of what thousands of archers are slavishly copying around the US under NTS may have some components that are of imagined benefit rather than actual benefit, like the superstitious behavior developed by pigeons in Skinner Boxes, where the box distributed treats on a random timer, but the pigeons thought they'd done something to make it happen and repeated the behavior over and over again until another randomly timed treat appeared, re-enforcing the idea that their behavior cause the treat to appear. If enough people practice a behavior in archery, regardless of whether it is truly biomechanically efficient, someone is bound to do will with it if they have the right mental game and practice enough with it.

Most people seem to agree that Kisik Lee is a talented coach in person, the questions seem more to do with whether his system is objectively valid or objectively superior to any other system as opposed to whether he can coach individuals well. So one can respect coach Lee's abilities as a coach without having to assume that NTS is scientific or superior to other systems until each of the techniques in NTS is scientifically proven to be so.




ryan b. said:


> the BEST books have been very helpful to me. i dont recommend them for beginners or to someone without a decent background in kinesiology/movement mechanics etc because they will be hard to decipher without a coach or without some kind of decent archery experience (ie youve felt what they are attempting to describe).


Which, unfortunately, rules out most people.

I think the made up terms suggest that BEST/KSL Shot Cycle ##/NTS are not as scientifically based as they purport to be. It isn't just that existing terms put everybody on the same page but that the apparent lack of knowledge or indifference to the existing terms doesn't doesn't seem consistent with a strong familiarity with existing science of anatomy or human kinetics.



Rick McKinney said:


> Biomechanics…I agree with Chang. The classes I took showed that your goal is to use the bone structure as a lever and the muscles were used minimally in order use your body efficiently. The cupping of the draw hand, the drawing of the string virtually away from the body first then into the body, the tipping of the pelvis, the twisting of the Radius by 45 degrees from it’s natural state (which by the way the Ulna bone is much stronger), the forcing of the bow wrist down upon release, the extra long hold, twisting of the upper body without twisting the lower body are just not biomechanically efficient from everything I know about shooting a bow.


I wonder to what degree national archery head coaching is like management consulting, where the consultant feels obligated to make changes regardless of whether they are merited to justify being hired?

The free, intermediate FITA coaching manual, with its sections on archery anatomy, physiology and psychology seems much more scientifically based than the privately published Kisik Lee books.



chang said:


> When you have one superstar on top of the hierachy, how to balance the interest of the elites and recreational community become a far bigger issue.


I'd say that a “superstar” at the top of the hierarchy can skew the science, siding with their own ego and subjective opinion over science. Science is convergent. When something is objectively true, different studies and different branches of science will all eventually converge on the same answer. Some aspects of BEST/whatnot seem divergent—and it can be hard initially to tell advances from non-science. Is BEST a clever improvement made of new scientifically supported insights that trump outdated understandings of human kinetics? Or is BEST a hodge podge of science and Skinnarian superstitious behavior? Only objective science can tell us, and there seems to be a surprising lack of it at the moment.

In order to use science properly, one must accept sound, tested and confirmed scientific findings over ones own experience and opinion. Can those in charge of USA Archery's training system do that? And are they willing to support scientific studies that could confirm/or disprove some aspects of BEST/NTS/Acronym of the Day?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Science is convergent. When something is objectively true, different studies and different branches of science will all eventually converge on the same answer.


Something we have not really seen in our sport. If anything, the results from the past Olympic and World Championship events point to the theory that multiple methods are in fact successful, and that it is only when the right archer adopts the right method for them, that their potential can be reached. 

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Something we have not really seen in our sport. If anything, the results from the past Olympic and World Championship events point to the theory that multiple methods are in fact successful, and that it is only when the right archer adopts the right method for them, that their potential can be reached.
> 
> John


Reminds me a little of when people argue which martial art is superior. There are differences in applications, but what can get lost in such discussions is how much of success is with the training and capabilities of any given individual rather than the specific techniques taught. I'm thinking there is some of that in archery, that technique does matter, but that the individual, their ability and dedication may matter more. It is just a WAG, but I'm thinking you'd be good at archery no matter what special style you learned, that is, if you were in Italy and learned from Vittorio, or learned the Korean, British, Ukranian or any other system that was reasonable, that you'd be a good archer.

Clearly, no rigid system will work for all archers. But I am interested in vetting techniques that work for most, and in getting objective data on whether certain affectation have any objective benefit at all, such as deliberately forcing the bow wrist down as part of follow through bow "sit down"--many high end shooters do it,but it seems more like an affectation than a necessary technique since the arrow is long gone before the exaggerated sit down happens (and the action is an un-natural, forced action, the exact opposite of what we now tell people to do with their draw hand follow through, which is supposed to be just from the natural tension, not a deliberate, forced action.) I'm also interested in objective, science-based data on injuries. Does BEST reduce them, increase them or what? Is the injury rate based soley on amount of arrows shot, on quality of coaching, bow weight? What are the objective factors? What can I do to keep our students, and my self, from getting injured? One of the great things about archery is that it is a sport you can do as you get older, but not if you blow your shoulder out.


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

I wonder how much of any given form is quantifiable or measurable. Some aspects of a form may be for comfort, efficiency, safety, or style. Like what has been stated, if the result of good form is good scores then there are many forms that work. You only get out what you put in.

That being said, I find some elements of the NTS (as outlined in Inside the Archer) unnecessarily complicated, even contradictory. Maybe that's what happens when people inside the system write for others inside the system, intentional or not. There's just enough information included for people to treat it as a manual for shooting NTS, but it leaves out enough to actually be a manual for shooting NTS.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Form isn't all it's kracked up to be...replication is.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

kshet26 said:


> That being said, I find some elements of the NTS (as outlined in Inside the Archer) unnecessarily complicated, even contradictory. Maybe that's what happens when people inside the system write for others inside the system, intentional or not. There's just enough information included for people to treat it as a manual for shooting NTS, but it leaves out enough to actually be a manual for shooting NTS.


Yes, I think that is why USA Archery needs to create its own manual if NTS is really going to be the USA Archery National Training System rather than the Kisik Lee system, a system that will leave when he does. And the science needs to be based on science, what is true, rather than what may seem to be true-science being the tool we use to separate one from the other. If USA Archery can't get NTS to stand still long enough to write it down then it really can't be a national a standard in any meaningful sense.

Your point about inside info written for insiders is a good one. We often run into that problem when trying to understand the techniques outlined ancient fencing manuals and wonder, "how could they have just assumed every one knew what they meant?"--but we still have good examples of that same type of instructional writing being used today. I think there are a number of good things to say about Inside the Archer, but it is far from being perfect.


----------



## Chris RL (Oct 30, 2011)

Warbow, hello!

Now we're talking.

Sorry for this, but it will be a fairly long post and slightly off-topic. But relevant still, I believe.

While there isn't much chance that our archery will go the way of Australia's national program when Lee leaves, there's still that central debate about whether or not a single coach's system, BEST or not, can apply equally to every young and potential archer in the USA.

While my own son's local JOAD program is very strong, and by and large he's having a great time here, the very genesis of the BEST system needs to be looked at. Insiders for insiders is a great key for looking at what's going on.

Not everybody is Korean, built like a Korean, cultured like a Korean. In fact, the whole of Korea would fit inside Texas (as would most smaller countries). Which leaves the rest of the US to be addressed, namely the rest of the world put together with the natives who were here first. A tremendous variation of free-thinking individualists, only a very few of whom are built like or think like the kind of people the NTS system claims to be for.

So which other US sport says "do things exactly this way, or else?" My boy's in shooting teams, kung fu/martial arts teams, soccer and softball teams. Nobody else says "you have to throw the ball exactly this way or else you're not on the team."

Not even Kisik Lee says that, I believe. In his second book he himself says there should be leeway given for the individual student. However, that's not the case with a lot of his disciples.

The question here is how much leeway should be given, and that, of course, differs between the coaches, as indeed it must do in Korea as well - but to a different degree, depending mostly on the culture, or otherwise, of the individual versus the group.

And because the NTS coaches are themselves Americans, there's a lot of minute variation in each one's own interpretation of what NTS is - enough so if a kid switches coaches in the US, it's an entirely different ball of wax than if a Korean kid switches archery coaches in Incheon. So when two US coaches, both teaching NTS, tell the same kid to do two different things, and then have both of them in turn tell him he's wrong? (Not incorrect, not "that's great, and now let's do it this way, this is better", which is the OREO method of teaching which is also, incidentally, part of the USAA instructor's manual under Positive Reinforcement). Not the best. Not when all of them are doing it, encouraged to do it, permitted to do it.

Insiders for insiders. Trouble is, the insides are getting smaller.

What to do?

To require that a Level 2 coach take the KSL NTS course before Level 3 and further qualification is saying "NTS or the highway" to all future generations of advanced archers.
That definitely requires a much longer look and a total revision of the actual wording and philosophy of the NTS book, before presenting it to all future generations as The Bible.

If this isn't done, then we have two types of student resulting: a pliant, compliant type of conformist child who will accept the rule of the coach/master/sifu system without thought or question, and the other type - a group of dissident young archer kids who want to compete - and thus to beat - the perceived injustices of that system. 

Guess which type is in the core DNA of every American who ever was.

It's even in the core design of our competitive system here - I believe this is one of the very few countries in the world that it's not necessary to be a part of an archery team to compete in a national level competition. Club membership, sure, and fine - no club member has ever said to me "shoot the club way or you're out of the club".

This isn't Korea. We aren't Koreans.

It's not the race I'm getting at here (I'm Asian too), but the culture of the individual. 

We're a free-thinking people here and don't take kindly to people saying "do it this way, this is the right way. All else is the wrong way". 


All other styles of archery coaching fit the training to the individual - the coach teaches the student and the student provides feedback - it's a two-way street. 

Which is the main reason why people like my son, for instance, would rather be coached by a competitive athlete who is, for instance, on a major team, rather than a team coach who doesn't shoot. In other words, walk the talk, don't tell me, show me. Prove it. Shoot one way, let me see, then shoot the other way, let me see. If you're such a master, you can surely shoot McKinney and BEST methods at will. And other styles too. 

Or let me prove it for myself before I just accept it at your face value. But for heaven's sake don't just say "this is the one and only Right way - or else you're out".

To deny this is just to incite rebellion and thus an eventual renewal of regime. 

I heard that Mr. Lee is religious. 

Even JC Himself started out as a rebel for the Cause.


----------



## DWAA Archer (Oct 14, 2011)

I think Kisik Lee is good at what he does. Clearly the performance of the us archery squad has improved. The hard bit is getting free willed free thinking Americans moving in the same direction but when they get it the whole thing will turn in to an unstoppable juggernaut.

being good at shooting does not automatically mean you are good at coaching although there are always exceptions. In Europe one of the top football (soccer) coaches is not a very good football player but you would not want to be going against one of his teams.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

NTS is being used, to a degree, as a "you're either with us, or you're again' us" litmus test within USArchery. When you look deep into the background behind how we got to this point, and who the main players are that got us here, it's not surprising. 

Some of those involved had an agenda. Others were well-intentioned and were simply sold a bill of goods because, well, it sounded good. And many of those are still, unwittingly, buying it.

I find it more than comical that the same coaches who will apply the "NTS" litmus test to other coaches will turn right around and say that the NTS has plenty of room for individual variations. 

What? 

Well, in that case, every archer I teach is using their individual interpretation of "NTS" 

Rectify that one.

John


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

DWAA Archer said:


> I think Kisik Lee is good at what he does. Clearly the performance of the us archery squad has improved.


I am not convinced that US performance has improved or is better since the arrival of Coach Lee and his way of doing things. It is simply just a way of shooting. He happens to be in charge so it becomes the standard. Alot of people have bought into it, because the reality is, it's his way or the highway when it comes to Oly shooters, for the most part.

If the time comes that another Coach comes into play, it just might bring in another system. We Americans seem to like systems. We are all sheep we follow those that lead. What we need are a few more good leaders. Nothing worse than than sheep with red kool-aid on their lips.


----------



## Moebow (Jul 8, 2010)

I have NO vested interest in the discussion overall, just find it interesting. I am not (and don't pretend to be a FITA style shooter) -- Heck, my real interest is in shooting Hill style longbows. It took me about 6 years since I retired to gain more information on archery and shooting form than I ever had during the previous 50 years of archery. Why have I pursued knowledge on the NTS?? Because, folks, right now it is THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN! Am I a little proud that I successfully completed my L4 training? Absolutely! BUT, most folks I work with are local people that just want to shoot better(with what ever style of archery) -- there is little interest in FITA style shooting here - or opportunity to do so. I do feel that I can apply parts of the system to beginners and that it also help me to see a direction to go to help folks. I certainly don't see it as set in stone.

I read with interest what appears to be an effort to criticize the BEST/KSL shot cycle/NTS and to state that it is so set in stone that it takes a different cultural mindset for it to work. And even to imply that it can't work for us " free thinking Americans." You may even be right! Where, I ask, is the alternative written down???? If all you folks with the really impressively high level competition credentials don't like the current effort (or parts of it) by Coach Lee, where is YOUR method?? Where is the publication and video resource so us "low on the totem pole" folks that just want to teach people to enjoy archery can get more (and arguably better) ideas.

Seems that you are quick to criticize but offer no alternatives. The only archery agency out there that even offers coaching training/certification is USAA. NFAA, ASA, IBO, you name it; offer NO instructor/coach training. If the NTS is so bad, who is doing something about it??? And when can we expect to see it????

I am NOT disagreeing with what you are saying, but the military philosophy is that if you point out a problem, you should offer a solution.

Just my 2 cents.

Arne


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> NTS is being used, to a degree, as a "you're either with us, or you're again' us" litmus test within USArchery. When you look deep into the background behind how we got to this point, and who the main players are that got us here, it's not surprising.
> 
> Some of those involved had an agenda. Others were well-intentioned and were simply sold a bill of goods because, well, it sounded good. And many of those are still, unwittingly, buying it.


I wonder if Kisik Lee has become like George Lucas, both talented and successful in their fields, but perhaps a bit too successful, so much so that nobody in their inner circle will tell them something is a bad idea, letting them believe their own legend a bit too much.




limbwalker said:


> I find it more than comical that the same coaches who will apply the "NTS" litmus test to other coaches will turn right around and say that the NTS has plenty of room for individual variations.


Sounds like a failure with the system. If only Coach Lee is really qualified to diagnose the need for and implement variations then the system isn't really robust enough to be considered a national system--it is Coach Lee's personal system taught in person. A guide to the range of acceptable variations and why might be a good start. The system has to teach not only the standard but *also* when to diverge from it, why and how.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Moebow said:


> You may even be right! Where, I ask, is the alternative written down???? If all you folks with the really impressively high level competition credentials don't like the current effort (or parts of it) by Coach Lee, where is YOUR method?? Where is the publication and video resource so us "low on the totem pole" folks that just want to teach people to enjoy archery can get more (and arguably better) ideas.
> 
> Seems that you are quick to criticize but offer no alternatives.


Fortunately, at least one poster to the thread has written a book, The Simple Art of Winning 

I'm interested in alternatives, and we have some, such as the system taught in the FITA Intermediate Coaching manual. NTS claims to be better. Well, prove it, objectively. I don't have to have an alternative to say "prove your claims" any more than I have to be an MD to say to someone who claims coffee enemas cure cancer, "where is your scientific proof?"

I think questioning NTS *is* the first step to improving it. If people don't question it, it will never change. If we could just identify and remove bits, if any, that are at best unnecessary or at worst prone to increasing injury, we'd be a lot better off. As for potentially un-necesary, I'd love to see objective proof that the forced bow sit down is necessary, and a consistent explanation of why forced follow throughs are bad for the draw arm but good for the bow wrist. And we can move on from there


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I ask, is the alternative written down???? If all you folks with the really impressively high level competition credentials don't like the current effort (or parts of it) by Coach Lee, where is YOUR method?? Where is the publication and video resource so us "low on the totem pole" folks that just want to teach people to enjoy archery can get more (and arguably better) ideas.


Plenty of places. The volumes of archery instruction written by U.S. authors prior to coach Lee's arrival are almost endless.

And please don't take this personally, but again, where were all the NTS coaches before 2006? What were they coaching and where are the top level recurve coaches that were here then? The answer to those questions deserve consideration, I think. 

Moe, do yourself a favor. Get a copy of Richard Carella's little inocuous book that comes with every Formaster sold. Then tell me we haven't seen biomechanically correct shooting form written down in this country before. 

That little book has more science in it than any of the recent volumes published.

And that's just one example.

John


----------



## Chris RL (Oct 30, 2011)

Arne, hello!
I have to agree with Warlock here.
There is an alternative to the NTS. Alternatives are all around us, and ever have been. Many nations shoot bows and arrows without one of them claiming that theirs is the one and only way to do it.
In fact, is that not the entire point of the Olympics?
To see which is best? To see who is best?

What I am saying is that Korea's success in archery is much like China's success in gymnastics when they first came to the international scene - gymnastics, specifically tumbling, has been a part of Chinese culture for millenia. Of course their kids are good at it. 

But there's not any one technique that China puts out as being the best, the one and the only way of tumbling. And even they would think twice about adopting one person's singular point of view about that matter, without a very deep investigation into that.

There are many books on other ways of doing it. I like Kim Hyung Tak's method. He's also Korean and his way is not BEST or NTS. It's just his way. He has a pretty successful archery school going near Incheon in Korea. 

My own coach has a very successful practice going, and there are many coaches who teach where I shoot, all with slightly differing methods.

So I agree. A deeper level of study will yield much that is useful. And I mean a deeper level of study by practitioners of the sport, rather than by researchers or theoreticians.

For instance, when is shooting FITA, all archers stand on one line and the targets are brought up or down range to the various distances for shooting, right.

So in the NTS/BEST set-setup stage, when the arrow sweeps to the left (in the case of a right hand shooter) momentarily as it is coming to full draw, that's kinda sorta okay, right?

Dead wrong. 

Absolutely, positively wrong. 

Where I shoot, the bales are all in a line. Longer distanced shooters shoot from further back. In theory, if everybody obeyed the range rules, all shorter distance shooters should shoot the right side bales, and all longer distances the left side.

But they don't always do that. And we're not all right-handed.

So when I see an NTS shooter winding up I get well out of the way and the heck off the range - because I do shoot shorter rages and their arrows sweep me every time they crank up. Contrary to basic rules of (US range) safety.

I could go on.


----------



## Chris RL (Oct 30, 2011)

Arne, hello!
I have to agree with Renegade and Warlock here.
There is an alternative to the NTS. Alternatives are all around us, and ever have been. Many nations shoot bows and arrows without one of them claiming that theirs is the one and only way to do it.
In fact, is that not the entire point of the Olympics?
To see which is best? To see who is best?

What I am saying is that Korea's success in archery is much like China's success in gymnastics when they first came to the international scene - gymnastics, specifically tumbling, has been a part of Chinese culture for millenia. Of course their kids are good at it. 

But there's not any one technique that China puts out as being the best, the one and the only way of tumbling. And even they would think twice about adopting one person's singular point of view about that matter, without a very deep investigation into that.

There are many books on other ways of doing it. I like Kim Hyung Tak's method. He's also Korean and his way is not BEST or NTS. It's just his way. He has a pretty successful archery school going near Incheon in Korea. 

My own coach has a very successful practice going, and there are many coaches who teach where I shoot, all with slightly differing methods.

So I agree. A deeper level of study will yield much that is useful. And I mean a deeper level of study by practitioners of the sport, rather than by researchers or theoreticians.

For instance, when is shooting FITA, all archers stand on one line and the targets are brought up or down range to the various distances for shooting, right.

So in the NTS/BEST set-setup stage, when the arrow sweeps to the left (in the case of a right hand shooter) momentarily as it is coming to full draw, that's kinda sorta okay, right?

Dead wrong. 

Absolutely, positively wrong. 

Where I shoot, the bales are all in a line. Longer distanced shooters shoot from further back. In theory, if everybody obeyed the range rules, all shorter distance shooters should shoot the right side bales, and all longer distances the left side.

But they don't always do that. And we're not all right-handed.

So when I see an NTS shooter winding up I get well out of the way and the heck off the range - because I do shoot shorter rages and their arrows sweep me every time they crank up. Contrary to basic rules of (US range) safety.

I could go on.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Chris RL said:


> So in the NTS/BEST set-setup stage, when the arrow sweeps to the left (in the case of a right hand shooter) momentarily as it is coming to full draw, that's kinda sorta okay, right?
> 
> Dead wrong.
> 
> ...


That really is a range issue, not an issue as to whether BEST/NTS/System du jour is bio mechanically efficient. Not the NTS fault that your range is set up without a fixed shooting line. It is a real issue to consider for safety, but that is a whole different thread.


----------



## rpdjr45 (Jul 28, 2007)

So, to conclude: we're making it harder than it has to be. Best system may be: keep it simple, stupid.:grouphug:


----------



## Moebow (Jul 8, 2010)

Guys,

Guess I missed my point. (that isn't surprising, I often do:smile My point was that for ANYONE (today) to get a coaching credential from an established organization the only game in town is USAA and therefore the NTS. I know MANY established coaches "bailed" out of USAA when Coach Lee was hired (or shortly thereafter) and I understand the political and personal reasons for it. I also know that Coach Lee is softening his stance on some things but maybe not to the degree some would like. I would suggest though that NO ONE changes an organization by quitting it in a pique. The ONLY way is from the inside -- never the outside.

I didn't just fall off the turnip truck either. I have most of the books and references listed and appreciate them all. I have studied as many of the "systems" as I could and in NO WAY do I think that the NTS is the "end all, be all." I do certainly recognize that many/most parts of the current NTS are and have been established for many years -- no argument there.

Again, I'm just saying that IF a person wants a CREDENTIAL at this point in time you can only go to USAA and their CURRENT system. Not saying the current system is right or wrong, I AM asking what you folks are doing about it? I do not work or compete at anywhere near the level where much of it really matters anyway. My concern is that IF I ever have a student that has the potential to go to world/Oly levels (or even national) that I have given them a basis that HELPS them and doesn't impede them.

Arne


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Moebow said:


> I know MANY established coaches "bailed" out of USAA when Coach Lee was hired (or shortly thereafter) and I understand the political and personal reasons for it. I also know that Coach Lee is softening his stance on some things but maybe not to the degree some would like.


Moebow, actually most of those coaches were forced out. Many questioned what was happening in the beginning and that was all it took to be "pushed to the side". It was without a doubt a very unfriendly environment for those who had given so much for so little in return other than self satisfaction. Yes, Lee is softening his stance on some issues, but I believe that is due to his understanding the US culture and he is speaking "American" better every day, thus he is getting it as to how to speak with "Americans". However, the method can be debated and rightly so.

The bottom line is that there are many ways for archers to become Champions, but so far many of those ways are being pushed to the side and one way is being focused on. How many potentially great Champions have been tossed to the side due to this one method? We will never know. THAT's what is sad.

Just watch the Olympic Mexican team and you will see a better style and technique (my opinion). Classic shooting that is still proven to work if applied right. Once the Mexican team works on the belief that they truly can be the best, they will be the best!


----------



## Chris RL (Oct 30, 2011)

Thank you, RM. Hear, hear!


----------



## Chris RL (Oct 30, 2011)

Sorry, don't know why I'm double posting all of a sudden. My apologies.


----------



## rpdjr45 (Jul 28, 2007)

Hey, Rick stated what I said on page 2. Only he said it better. Oh, and Rick, Arizona State FITA Field is in October, and you still haven't come out to play with us yet. Could it be this year? Hmmmmmm?


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Warbow,

_"That really is a range issue, not an issue as to whether BEST/NTS/System du jour is bio mechanically efficient. Not the NTS fault that your range is set up without a fixed shooting line. It is a real issue to consider for safety, but that is a whole different thread."_

Chris' range certainly amplifies the issue, but the issue of the NTS sweeping style is not limited to Chris' range. At the US Indoor nationals in College Station, I was on the line sandwiched between two NTS disciples, a righthanded shooter in front of me, and a left handed shooter behind me. Both of their stabilizers were constantly sweeping into my lane and field of vision (in my lane) as they swept up into their anchor. It was not only distracting, but really just plain intrusive. I don't know if that's been others' experience, too, when they're on the line with NTS practitioners, or if it was just my luck to get NTS-sweep writ large.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

lksseven said:


> . At the US Indoor nationals in College Station, I was on the line sandwiched between two NTS disciples, a righthanded shooter in front of me, and a left handed shooter behind me. Both of their stabilizers were constantly sweeping into my lane and field of vision (in my lane) as they swept up into their anchor. It was not only distracting, but really just plain intrusive. I don't know if that's been others' experience, too, when they're on the line with NTS practitioners, or if it was just my luck to get NTS-sweep writ large.


That, I can see as a problem--one that to me, not being you working hard at a competition, is almost comically farcical. But, again, that doesn't relate to whether that annoying behavior is bio mechanically efficient or not, nor whether it causes or prevents injuries. Whether BEST/Etc. breaks rules or decorum on the line is a worthy subject for a whole 'nother thread.


----------



## Moebow (Jul 8, 2010)

Rick McKinney;
Just watch the Olympic Mexican team and you will see a better style and technique (my opinion). Classic shooting that is still proven to work if applied right. Once the Mexican team works on the belief that they truly can be the best said:


> I did and was impressed. Funny that the Mexican Head Coach is also Korean AND was in the L4 class in Indianapolis back in November.
> 
> But, I restate my request. How does one get personal training in the "other" methods and a CREDENTIAL that means something (from a recognized organization)? They DO NOT EXIST.
> 
> ...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Arne,

Let me see if I can explain this in "Texican" 

This is the horse that USArchery has chosen to ride for the moment. They can only ride one horse at a time. 

For change to happen, either the horse will have to die, buck it's rider or find a greener pasture. Because the rider has committed to this horse.

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Arne,
> 
> Let me see if I can explain this in "Texican"
> 
> ...


I think Kisik Lee might bridle at that comparison.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Not sure why. It's not a bad horse. Rather, it's the rider I wonder about sometimes.


----------



## Chris RL (Oct 30, 2011)

Warbow, hello!
With all due respect, this isn't at all about range safety.

1) Archery is one of the safest sports with a reported injury rate of less than one incident per 1,000 participants in 2004. Other activities like Golf and fishing have an injury rate of up to 1.5 to 2 times the rate for archery. Sports like soccer, baseball and basketball have injury rates 15 to 25 times as high as archery.

2) Rule 5). Always keep your arrows pointed down or towards the target.

Both these items come from the USAA Level 1 Instructor Training Manual, 4th edition. Item 1) is from page 06 and Item 2) is from page 51.

i.e. if all archers keep their arrows pointed at their own targets or at the ground, then shooting common line bails is safe and not an issue of range safety.

By the way, the Olympic range at El Dorado Park also shoots a common bail line, in the same "unsafe range" that you mention. It just shoots common shooting line during competitions, which as you know is way way less than 1% of the total time an archery range is employed. More than 99% of the time, unsupervised common bail line ranges are the norm here. We govern ourselves with common sense - and the range rules.

This is an issue of which way works - driving on the right? or driving on the left?. Both work. And common bail line archery was here for decades before NTS was invented. And works well, as long as the rules (and these are real rules) are observed.

Which the NTS obviously and very clearly fails to do in this instance.

I could go on.


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

About the sweeping thing. That is NOT proper NTS form. Its a misinterpretation of setup.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Not sure why. It's not a bad horse. Rather, it's the rider I wonder about sometimes.


I dunno, maybe I'm just a neigh sayer. :embara:


----------



## Chris RL (Oct 30, 2011)

kshet, hello!

my point entirely. 
it is a misinterpretation of setup - and it is overtly and very clearly demonstrated and continued on throughout many an officially sanctioned training program. And represented as the only correct way to come to anchor.

No wonder so many of the old guard just left.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

kshet26 said:


> About the sweeping thing. That is NOT proper NTS form. Its a misinterpretation of setup.


Is it? What is the correct interpretation? I'm looking at page 74 of _Inside the Archer_ and the sweep is very much part of the KSL shot cycle as described in the book. 








Are you saying there is some newer, "correct" interpretation that supersedes Inside the Archer?


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

Yeah unfortunately all coaches don't share a hive mind. From watching the RAs and from reading inside the Archer, it is clear the wide sweep is not part of the system. Just people teaching / learning it incorrectly.


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

Technique wise, I can see the koreans have more variaty than what BEST's preached. 

System wise is a different story. Korean sport traing systems are much more similar to those of the Soviets, Chinese and its northern brother's, it is a centralized system owned and run by the government. It not only choose methods of training but each person for it.. This kinda concentrated effort in training did proved to be effective, economical to run a system for the single purpose of getting olympic golds.. with one thing missing, It has nothing to do with the recreational community. 

In the West, There are many sports traditionally establised and being supported by their recreational communities, the communities are the foundation of the system. Such system is much more diverse yet has proven itself capable of producing some internatioanally very competitive althetes, while there are things can be learned from another system , Is that the best to adapt a centralized system from the top of the hierachy? and impose it downwards? Is there anyone consider its impact to the grassroot communities? 

There are many things can be learned from the Koreans, the matter here is how to adapt them? To copy the centralized training system that promotes one single technique? even the current system offer more choices to their chosen ones in korea. 

Technique wise, A lot of us in the past have spend a lot of effort to learn from the Koreans of their well proven "traditional" methods, why this effort have to be wasted? and start all over again with the "new" "revolutionary" "biomechanical efficient" export version? Is it only the korean can be taught with korean methods the rest of us aint?


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

Warbow said:


> Is it? What is the correct interpretation? I'm looking at page 74 of _Inside the Archer_ and the sweep is very much part of the KSL shot cycle as described in the book.
> 
> Are you saying there is some newer, "correct" interpretation that supersedes Inside the Archer?


I'll stop derailing this already derailed conversation, except to add this:

No there is no newer interpretation, but you are pointing out the misinterpretation. The bow arm is already pointing at the target. Many archers swing their bow arm far behind them into the other lane and then bring it back into alignment with the target.

What is being show in the picture is a rotation of the bow in the hand. You'll notice that the stab never moves behind the archer, its actually a very small motion.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> and you believe that?


Luke let the force be with you!!!


----------



## Matt Z (Jul 22, 2003)

Does a certified JOAD program have to have a certified NTS coach? Does an archer not receive their awards if coached by a non-NTS coach?

Would Daniel LaRusso not have been able to enter the All Valley Karate Tournament if Mr. Miyagi fibbed on his NTS entry form?!?


----------



## Chris RL (Oct 30, 2011)

Absolutely. The JOAD program has to have an NTS certified coach and NTS is all that is taught. One way only.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

chris rl said:


> absolutely. The joad program has to have an nts certified coach and nts is all that is taught. One way only.


lol!


----------



## shootemstraight (Jan 13, 2007)

But... if your JOAD kid wants to make the JDT or get into the RA program... must one shoot the NTS style?


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Warbow said:


> Is it? What is the correct interpretation? I'm looking at page 74 of _Inside the Archer_ and the sweep is very much part of the KSL shot cycle as described in the book.
> View attachment 1448616
> 
> 
> Are you saying there is some newer, "correct" interpretation that supersedes Inside the Archer?


There is no "sweep" in the sense that we use in handgun safety as in sweeping the muzzle. Note that his bow hand is fairly static in relation to the white frame to his left field of view. His hand is similar to a pivot and the draw hand is moving right to left which causes the arrow point to rotate, not sweep, from left to right. He is not at full draw when the arrow is turned toward the left, so there is no danger of it being released into some of the wadded underwear being waved in this thread. 

Oh, and for the cowboys, its easier to ride a horse in the direction its going.


----------



## agillator (Sep 11, 2011)

shootemstraight said:


> But... if your JOAD kid wants to make the JDT or get into the RA program... must one shoot the NTS style?


Item 2 listed under Minimum Criteria for applying to the JDT selection camp: 

"Any archer applying to the JDT selection camp must meet the following criteria:
...
2. Be willing to use the National Training System (NTS) shooting technique.
...
"


----------



## Chris RL (Oct 30, 2011)

Seattlepop, hello.
Let's see you say that when the arrow's pointing at you.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Moebow,

"But, I restate my request. How does one get personal training in the "other" methods and a CREDENTIAL that means something (from a recognized organization)? "

Why is the 'credential' so important? Is it primarily needed as a marketing tool?

Vince Lombardi, Tom Landry, Chuck Nolls, Bill Walsh didn't have a plaque from the Montana School of Coaching (Neither did Harvey Penick, for that matter). Nor did any one of them coach 'the same way' as any of the other ones. But they all had some successes, to put it mildly. Isn't the 'real credential' the recognition that comes after a body of work over time?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

agillator said:


> Item 2 listed under Minimum Criteria for applying to the JDT selection camp:
> 
> "Any archer applying to the JDT selection camp must meet the following criteria:
> ...
> ...


Well, I wanted to say :mg: to that, but isn't the JDT selected to a certain degree on who's willing to toe the line rather than objective qualifiying scores? On the other hand, what would be the point of being in the so-called JDT if the archer doesn't want to train using the only system the JDT offers? :dontknow:


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Warbow,

_"I dunno, maybe I'm just a neigh sayer. "_

Ohhhh, that's bad.


----------



## Moebow (Jul 8, 2010)

"Why is the 'credential' so important? Is it primarily needed as a marketing tool?"

Not for me. I have not and will not ever "charge" for ANY instruction from one on one to L1, L2 classes. I just feel that folks should be able to take training that is "generally" accepted so they have a solid basis for what they are passing on and are not just being a "shade tree mechanic." That is where I see the "credential" -- it is proof that the individual has made an effort to learn the techniques and has been validated by someone/something outside their own self concept. No different than a teacher certification, or licensing required in many endeavors. That's all.

Arne


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Chris RL said:


> Seattlepop, hello.
> Let's see you say that when the arrow's pointing at you.


I'd say this range is run by idiots and go somewhere else. 

Seriously, RL, the problem is with the range or the archer has grossly misunderstood the what is being taught and should be corrected. Watch Louis Alvarez at the Olympics. Comments have suggested he is the next great protege of the K. Lee style. Watch how he rotates the bow and see if this is what you are talking about. Jump to around minute 1:22 and watch the match, some shots are more obvious of the style. http://www.nbcolympics.com/video/archery/mens-team-1-8-elimination-round.html


----------



## Chris RL (Oct 30, 2011)

Seattlepop, hello!

Thanks for your comments. 

Actually the range is in a park, and so is open to the public, no supervision at all, mostly, just posted rules.

As a USAA instructor there myself, I try to teach safety and form to the people as best I can. There are probably a dozen of us during the free beginner's classes, teaching upwards of a hundred new students twice a week. It's quite popular. However, less than 1% usually return, most are just there to find out what it's about. They shoot at 9m on our 18m range. 

However, the long range is exactly as I have described. Many elite shooters practice there, and quite a few of them shoot NTS. And yes, that sweep still gives me the willies. And yes, I come from competitive rifle and pistol shooting. I don't care if the gun's not loaded or the bow's not at full draw, sorry. I don't let my son point a plastic toy gun at anything living. He knows better. That's just me, I have a lot of weapons in the house.

We are lucky to have several elite shooters, one of them a 5-time Olympic shooter who's local LA, and I see how she shoots too. She doesn't sweep the bails, sorry. And KSL is her coach.

The problem comes when the JOADers or NTSers shooting at our range not only do it wrong but then insist that their way is the only way to do it correctly. And then look down on the other kids who are just there to shoot, because they're not doing it right. That's where my problem comes.

Also when I see a bright youngster with eyes that burn and questions coming out every five seconds, and I can tell that the kid's just bursting to shoot, and shoot better than anybody else in the planet, what am I going to tell them? That NTS is the one and only way to go?


----------



## screemnjay (Nov 2, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Arne,
> 
> Let me see if I can explain this in "Texican"
> 
> ...


The rider, and I found this curious, re-upped for an additional 4 years not only before the Olympics but, before Ogden. The Women's team performance/qualification wasn't even a relative element of the evaluation. Again, curious.


----------



## Bob Furman (May 16, 2012)

What nice weather it is today


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

screemnjay said:


> The rider, and I found this curious, re-upped for an additional 4 years not only before the Olympics but, before Ogden. The Women's team performance/qualification wasn't even a relative element of the evaluation. Again, curious.


Has the horse been bridled? or the rider?


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

You know, to sell a system or product you first have to name it. Then, you have something to market. Without a name it is plan vanilla, just one of a bunch, but a name makes it different whether it is or is not. With a name it becomes marketable. 

Who pays to learn the system to be a coach? Who do they pay? Who receives the proceeds from publication of the system? Who sponsors the system and passes judgement on who can teach? With a named system someone can be in control, sell the rights to it, and gain a cash flow that didn't exist.


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

Chris RL said:


> Warbow, hello!
> With all due respect, this isn't at all about range safety.
> 
> 1) Archery is one of the safest sports with a reported injury rate of less than one incident per 1,000 participants in 2004. Other activities like Golf and fishing have an injury rate of up to 1.5 to 2 times the rate for archery. Sports like soccer, baseball and basketball have injury rates 15 to 25 times as high as archery.
> ...


Chris, sorry, shooting a common bale line is unsafe. I've seen arrows blow and go almost 90 degress. Compound shooters are notorious for doing a lot of pre-draw moving with their bows...having a staggered shooting line is not a safe way to do things. I'm surprised the club can get any insurance for the range, but maybe the insurance carrier doesn't understand how it is set up.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

So, will this awesomely creative and athletic but unconventional Jedi cat fighter be kept out of the JDT catfighting program because he doesn't adhere to approved NTS cat fighting form?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqfXBhsM5ME&feature=player_embedded


----------



## Chris RL (Oct 30, 2011)

Bob, hello!
A beautiful day today!

ArtV, hello!
Thank you!
I really appreciate your comments. And we've had zero problems with the ranges so far. Just want to keep things that way.


Just to clarify - I think KSL himself is great. Just look what he's done with the team! 

It's just that without the very careful spreading of the right stuff, some of the wrong stuff gets mixed in and also labeled as the truth. And in our case, the truth can get you into a place that isn't fun at all.

That's not just up to KSL, but to all of us. 

And I believe that starts here, gents.

The newbies who are on fire will be reading this thread, and the people who support them, wondering what to do next.

At least they get something to go on here.


----------



## Chris RL (Oct 30, 2011)

LKS:

LMAO!! Did you see the one with the Jedi Ninja cat fighter?


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Moebow said:


> I did and was impressed. Funny that the Mexican Head Coach is also Korean AND was in the L4 class in Indianapolis back in November.
> 
> But, I restate my request. How does one get personal training in the "other" methods and a CREDENTIAL that means something (from a recognized organization)? They DO NOT EXIST.
> 
> ...


Arne,
Yes, the Mexican coach was Korean and his style and delivery was so opposite of how the Korean system typically works. The best way to see this is watching the relationship during the Gold Medal match. The Korean coach and archer were all serious. The Mexican coach and archer were smiling and keeping relaxed. Both ended up with similar results. This Gold Medal match came down to 5 ends and one sudden death arrow shoot off and the winner was by less than 1/2". That is great competition. 

Yes, the Korean/Mexican coach may have gone to some L events to learn. Usually the best always want to learn more. They will take information away from those learning sessions and decide on what will work and what will not. Sort of like really good elite archers.

I tend to think that many coaches put the cart before the horse. They want to be certified which they think will make them better coaches. What they really need to do is learn. Yes, take coaching courses but recognize that learning is just a journey. Working with archers is a learning journey as well. Combining the "certification" information to how the archers react and figuring out what will work and what will not is up to the "learning" coach. 

In the end, the best method is one that can give you good results.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Rick McKinney said:


> In the end, the best method is one that can give you good results.


Unfortunately, it can be really hard to separate correlation from causation. So even if you are getting good results under a certain coaching system, it is hard to know what, if any, parts of it are causing the good results. People have built in-cognitive biases that make it easy to mistake one for the other, and they have a hard-wired mechanism, cognitive dissonance, that protects strongly held ideas from contrary evidence. So, it can take careful methodology to separate what is true from what merely seems to be true. BEST was sold to us as if that had been done, but it hasn't. 

We need a system that helps _cause _good results, not merely one that is correlated with them--just about anything can be correlated with good results, including wearing lucky pink socks. Causation is what we need. How do you tell one from the other?


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> I'd say this range is run by idiots and go somewhere else.
> 
> Seriously, RL, the problem is with the range or the archer has grossly misunderstood the what is being taught and should be corrected. Watch Louis Alvarez at the Olympics. Comments have suggested he is the next great protege of the K. Lee style. Watch how he rotates the bow and see if this is what you are talking about. Jump to around minute 1:22 and watch the match, some shots are more obvious of the style. http://www.nbcolympics.com/video/archery/mens-team-1-8-elimination-round.html


I watched the Mexicans shoot again. The biggest thing that stuck out to me was not Alvarez sweeping his bow, a la NTS, but the hook Velez was using. I don't think I've seen a hook like that from a really good shooter. The index finger is a bit of a crooked tip hook, while the middle and ring fingers have a deeper hook. Very unusual.


----------



## gonehuntin (Dec 2, 2004)

kshet26 said:


> About the sweeping thing. That is NOT proper NTS form. Its a misinterpretation of setup.


This is a correct statement


----------



## gonehuntin (Dec 2, 2004)

Chris RL said:


> Absolutely. The JOAD program has to have an NTS certified coach and NTS is all that is taught. One way only.


I was unable to find that stipulation anywhere in the JOAD Handbook, or on USAA website. Could you please show me how to find that requirement? Thank you


----------



## Jason193 (Aug 21, 2012)

Just read the KSL method online and im eager to try out out tomorrow!


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

As far as credentials go, I am/was an advanced level coach with the NFAA, when they did their own thing, prior to merging it with USAA. It was good for 3 years and as long as you remained a member. I never did renew it, but in my mind I will always have it. The renewel fees are simply a way to increase cashflow.

In all my years of coaching, which did include many paying customers, not one ever asked for a credential.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> The Women's team performance/qualification wasn't even a relative element of the evaluation. Again, curious


Agreed, Ask any of the women who've been RA's or USAT team members over the past 10 years. They will tell you how unimportant the women's program is to those in charge. At least, that is the perception from the women. So if that's not the case, then somehow, somewhere, someone needs to get a WHOLE lot better at working with the women. I still can't understand how a program can be declared "successful" when only half the participants show progress. Every time I bring this up, for years now, I get the same answer. Need more time. Haven't found the "right" women, etc., etc. 

Baloney. Maybe we need to figure out what the coaches in Mexico apparently know about working with female world class archers, because whatever it is, it's obviously working, and in very short order.


----------



## Chris RL (Oct 30, 2011)

gonehuntin said:


> I was unable to find that stipulation anywhere in the JOAD Handbook, or on USAA website. Could you please show me how to find that requirement? Thank you


gonehuntin, hello!
You're right, it's not a national requirement. However, the local JOAD makes it a requirement, so unless I start another JOAD group, that's all there is locally.
The recommendation is for a least one of the JOAD leaders to be a USAA Level 1 Instructor. However, to rise above a Level 2 Instructor, the NTS adoption course is mandatory.


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

Kisk Lee now has a phone app for proper shooting form. Obtain via his web site http://www.kslinternationalarchery.com/

Did you know that the BEST method or Kisk Lee shot cycle is now being considered as a format for your life's walk...yep it sure it.
http://www.kslinternationalarchery.com/Technique/KSLShotCycle/KSLLifetCycleShot.html

Did you know that Chuck Norris once arm wrestled a gorilla and won.


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

I wonder if some of the above is the reason Larry Skinner left the Olympic program at Chula Vista?


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

What helps my cycle more..being democrat or republican?:confused3:


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Chris RL said:


> Absolutely. The JOAD program has to have an NTS certified coach and NTS is all that is taught. One way only.


I have a JOAD program...I am NTS certified....it is certainly NOT all I teach....

Not everyone can shoot the NTS system....in fact, most cannot....but the fundamentals can be taught to all and the archer can decide what works...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Not everyone can shoot the NTS system....in fact, most cannot....


Biggest issue I have with this system is that it requires an unnatural front shoulder position, and a new "language" that is pretty confusing to the beginning to intermediate archer. Not saying this is good or bad... Lord knows an "on plane" golf swing is pretty unnatural feeling at first - but it is a position that requires a great deal of training for many archers to achieve, if they ever even can. Not many recreational archers are going to put in the time and effort required to master the NTS. 

I would be fine with the idea that we teach our recreational archers basic classic form until and unless they commit to a long-term training program at the Cadet or Junior level. Because I believe this race to teach NTS/BEST to every single JOAD recreational archer is turning away archers that just want to show up and shoot for fun. That should never happen. Nobody knows when a kid or an adult who has been shooting "just for fun" decides to take the sport more seriously and commit to an intensive, elite training program. If we run them off before they learn to love the sport and get to know the great people in our sport, it's our sport that is losing. And we don't have enough participants as it is to afford for that to happen.

So how about we do this instead:

Require a level 4 coach to be fluent in NTS, recommend that level 3 coaches learn it, but not require our JOAD/Adult Achievement archers learn this until they have signed an agreement that they will commit to a training program at the Cadet or Junior level. Then, have those archers who have signed a training program work with a level 3 or level 4 coach that is getting SUPPORT FROM USArchery or the USOC. Because, frankly, I'm tired of requirements being shoved down the throats of top level coaches, with no incentive or support to meet them. The phrase "unfunded mandate" comes to mind...  

So what we're left with is not necessarily the best coaches at the 3 and 4 levels, but rather those with enough time and MONEY to get to the training programs and travel to events with their students. Meanwhile, I know a lot of more qualified coaches that aren't willing to play the game because they simply cannot afford to keep donating their time and money to coach kids at the elite levels under the current structure. Most of these coaches already donate huge amounts of thier time locally running JOAD/Adult Achievement/NASP/ASAP/4-H archery programs, not to mention the money they donate to help supply and operate those local programs. 

If USArchery wants to put NTS requirements on coaches all the way down to level 2, then they'd better pony up with registration fees and travel expenses and stop feeding off the generosity of the volunteer coaches. 

John


----------



## TexARC (Mar 5, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> ...They will tell you how unimportant the women's program is to those in charge. At least, that is the perception from the women....


My takeaway as a parent/coach was similar...though I was slow to accept the truth. The day she told me she was literally washing windows at the archery shed in a futile effort to show him she was dedicated and worthy of attention in the hopes of improving his inattention to her shooting, was the day I realized it was fruitless for her to go there. We (as a team of two) generally stopped going to the OTC, at least for the hopes of her getting training from the head coach. In the year or so just prior to this time she was ranked by USAA in the top 10 of American Senior able-bodied women, and 4th in the world in paras. It is crushingly painful to misplace your hopes and trust in such a way and I felt for awhile I had really let my archer down. But I did continue going myself to the OTCs for training and seminars, and I got a wonderful education in the NTS, and counter to the theme here from some, feel I am capable of intelligently teaching it to a stark novice. 150+ wounded warriors voted "archery" their favorite sport a week or two ago, and they all got pure NTS from me, from word one. Doesn't mean they wouldn't have had a great time without NTS, but when you get someone to implement a piece of the NTS pie and he immediately does better, that's proof to me it is a good thing if done right. I don't get some of the folks up here that insist it is an "either-or" with NTS, when no one, no one, is likely to get *every* aspect of the NTS unless they do a Brady Ellison with their life and dedicate every waking moment of 7 years+ to it. And look where it got him - #1 in the world...The rest of us just need to "get" and "give" as many pieces of the pie as possible, 'cause every one of them can improve performance. I was also going to say that the problem is a fundamental cultural one, from Korea's way to America's way, of communication. Serious barriers in Korean way, see Gladwell.


----------



## Chris RL (Oct 30, 2011)

I totally agree with that, Tex. There's a good part of the NTS that makes good sense to me, and I've incorporated that part into my regular shot cycle. The rest... is the rest.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Chris RL said:


> I totally agree with that, Tex. There's a good part of the NTS that makes good sense to me, and I've incorporated that part into my regular shot cycle. The rest... is the rest.


OK, so what do people consider the agreed upon parts, and what parts are less so? Rick McKinney mentioned these as being un-proven and perhaps suspect:



Rick McKinney said:


> The cupping of the draw hand, the drawing of the string virtually away from the body first then into the body, the tipping of the pelvis, the twisting of the Radius by 45 degrees from it’s natural state (which by the way the Ulna bone is much stronger), the forcing of the bow wrist down upon release, the extra long hold, twisting of the upper body without twisting the lower body are just not biomechanically efficient from everything I know about shooting a bow.


So, if you take those questionable bits out, what is left?


----------



## Chris RL (Oct 30, 2011)

Warbow, hi!

For me (a right hander), it's the (slightly) offset/open stance, the slight twist of the upper body (about half of NTS), but mainly it's because the preceeding allows for the dropping and rearward motion of the rear (right) shoulder to engage the back muscles of the arrow arm sooner. Then the right hand coming straight up to a half-draw (but not swinging the bow over to one side as it comes up - well, perhaps a little, but nowhere near as much as to point the arrow at the next door target) as the bow is raised. 

This way the transfer's already half done by the time I get my bow up to target (I don't go above the gold and then come down to it, I raise my bow hand until the sight is aligned and keep it there until the end of the follow through). Then I come to full draw and anchor with half the motion I had before, and almost all back muscle already.

This gives me more time to hold (which is the regular short hold, not the longer KSL hold) to aim, complete transfer and extension (forwards only, not 50/50, I don't like moving my head once it's set) before the release and follow through. And the entire draw takes less effort than before. In this sense I feel it's less tiring, therefore more efficient.

It took awhile to build that into my regular raise-bow-then-draw cycle, in particular to get the new draw length consistent re. the clicker, but now it's settled in I can use it, or not use it, at will. I feel it's easier on my muscles when I do use it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Okay then, I teach NTS. 

There, I said so. So, doesn't that change everything? 

I am laughing right now because there are obviously a LOT of different interpretations as to what one needs to be teaching in order to be able to declare they "teach NTS." I mean, at what point can someone say that a coach is NOT teaching "NTS?" Is is that they don't call the same steps the same names? 

This has gotten to be so ridiculous. I can teach an archer 90% of what they would be taught by coach Lee at the OTC, and because I've not received a piece of paper that has the letters "NTS" on it, then somehow I'm not teaching "NTS." Nevermind the fact that 90% of what I teach is exactly the same, but just called something different.

And, oh by the way, once upon a time I did have a piece of paper signed by coach Lee that declared I was a "Regional High Performance Coach." So, what happened. Did all that instruction become obsolete once the name was changed from "BEST" to "NTS" ?

I mean, if NTS now teaches that there is room for individual interpretation, how much is that? 30%? 40%? 10%? At what point is it no longer NTS, but rather, just plain good archery form? 

This naming stuff to sell it just cracks me up. I feel like it's Washington in an election year...

John


----------



## Chris RL (Oct 30, 2011)

+1 what Renegade said.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> I mean, if NTS now teaches that there is room for individual interpretation, how much is that? 30%? 40%? 10%?
> John


Actually it is 13.825374% no more...no less


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

TexARC said:


> ...I was also going to say that the problem is a fundamental cultural one, from Korea's way to America's way, of communication. Serious barriers in Korean way, see Gladwell.


When Coach Lee was in Australia, there were more resources brought together and allowed the "Elite" program to be established. its result were immediate. However, it doesn't reflected at the grassroot community level. and you didn't even realized its real impact until he left, I agree it was a culture thing. 

Only when you looked back at your local clubs, your local archers, the foundation formed our archery community, I just question if its in a stronger and healthier state to progress from where he left?. In Korean, there is simply no recreational community for modern archery.

It did not take Coach Kim Hyung Tak a little more than a month to realized that when he coached at another country, but he did developed a different system with the community. yes, by communication..


----------



## SOCAL_34 (Oct 6, 2008)

What style of archery is Lloyd Brown now teaching in GB? Are his new videos on the GB website using the NTS system too?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I don't see why Lloyd would be teaching NTS now. He was pretty successful already.


----------



## John_K (Oct 30, 2011)

I had the good fortune to meet Lloyd at a seminar shortly before I moved down south. He gave me a little advice on my shooting, which I'm only able to implement now I've recovered from my shoulder injury.

As I recall, he talked to me about the importance of good posture (chest down, strong abs, etc.) in order to help you engage the drawing shoulder muscles properly and achieve good alignment. It's all stuff he went into much more detail in in those videos, which are absolutely excellent.

Although I've been out of the loop for a while I haven't heard any special system of shooting being branded or rolled out. I think more should be done to promote the good fundamentals he's talking about, but unfortunately our coaching structure is quite reactionary. Personally, I just point the keen beginners at the videos, advise them to get a cliniband, and go from there.


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

I had an interesting talk with my JOADer's last night about the NTS and how we are incorporating it...

While there are a great many parts to it, there are some basic pieces that every good archer should have and we cover those every class. Then I told them some advice that I had heard from a certain Olympian who lurks around here: "Keep your bow arm strong and make a good release." If they can focus on that, they will probably do pretty well....

My emphasis to them is that we are going to teach them what we feel is a good fit for them, but that they need to decide whether the can execute that or not. I want them to be able to shoot naturally as their unique body types can support, not some type of "pose" archery where we are trying to look like pictures in a book! Some can perform NTS flawlessly, some use a portion of it and some just have to do their own thing...

SB


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Scott, that's correct. 

It kinda makes me sick that now we need to call basic, good archery form "NTS." That's nonsense. Good form is good form. Kids can learn basic biomechanically correct positions one step at a time. It doesn't have to be all at once or all or nothing. 

I have always taught my students one step at a time. And I can tell you that they absolutely appreciate this. I've had students and parents tell me that if I was going to "completely change their form" they were probably going to quit archery altogether. I know plenty of young archers who could not withstand a total overhaul of their form, and are no longer competing because their confidence was in the toilet, either due to their scores taking a crash, or due to them not feeling like they were "doing it right" if they didn't look like certain elite archers. 

Just take a look at the original JDT members, and then see how many of them are still even competing these days. That's pretty sobering.

That is a sad truth about this transition we're going through in the U.S. There has been a LOT of collateral damage caused by the idea that it's an "all or nothing" game. It's not. But early on, it sure seemed like it. I think Lee is realizing the losses that have occured with this approach. It simply doesn't work here in the U.S. for all but a tiny few. We can't afford to disenfranchize so many young archers with our coaching philosophy. 

Sure, take the ones that want to work hard and are willing to change - and have the capacity to see their scores drop or not shoot tournaments at all - and give them all the tools they need to start shooting NTS. But whatever we do, we do NOT need to be running young archers away from the sport because they don't shoot a certain way. 

I have a young lady that I coach at the moment who is possibly one of the most talented young female archers I've ever worked with. Her form is almost completely homemade. Think "Joe McGlyn" and you'd be close... Super high elbow, vertical knuckles on the grip, flying release, arched back, etc., etc. 

But you know what? She can flat-out shoot. And I was informed first thing with her that if I wanted to change her over to more of an NTS form, she would just quit the sport completely. And I know she would. She is more than good enough to make JDT, but will never attempt to qualify for that program because of the stigma that surrounds it and the fact that she does not want to have to learn to shoot from scratch. 

So, what would the Kool-aid drinkers do with her? Tell her she couldn't be in their JOAD program? Send her somewhere else? Try to change her anyway? Good luck with that.

Quite often, I have two top 5 cadet female recurvers shooting right in front of me, side by side, that couldn't have more different form. One I described above, and the other is a model of NTS in nearly every way. And they both get the job done very, very well.

Good coaches must realize that change is good for some students, and bad for others, and know the difference when they are working with that archer. I have zero respect for a coach who insists that all of their students must shoot one way. To me, that's an example of how naive and inexperienced they are.

John


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

John, I hate to interrupt the K. Lee bash-fest, but you said your primary objection to NTS *shudder* is that the front shoulder position is "unnatural". Could you digress long enough to explain exactly what you mean?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Don't be so sensitive. I don't see where anyone is "bashing" coach Lee. We're all entitled to our opionions, especially when someone self-promotes and puts themselves out there so much, but I think collectively there is a lot of respect for his coaching ability. I know I certainly respect him as an authority on coaching.

Why is it that I doubt any explanation I offer would be satisfactory?

But hey, I'm game and I'll play along anyway. I don't mind taking litmus tests... 

The NTS promotes a front shoulder position that is extremely close to the arrow - one that puts the front shoulder in a line between the bow hand and the rear shoulder. This works fine for a certain percentage of archers, but in my experience it is not at all easy for an archer to learn. I'm not saying the CAN'T learn it, I'm just saying it's not natural or easy to learn. The shoulders parallel to the target line is a more natural, easier to learn position. Lee himself even says in his book that having the shoulders parallel to the target line is a good position. Certainly it's better if the shoulders are in line with the bowhand, but not everyone can achieve this position and still come to anchor and shoot without having clearance issues or strength issues.

But look, I'm way past arguing with anyone over this NTS stuff. If you want to learn it, fine. If you want to learn how to teach it, fine. Get the sheepskin and hang it up for all I care. The tiny details that distinguish NTS from what everyone else in the world considers just plain "good form" are so minute that if someone thinks its the magic bullet that's going to send all their archers to the podium, they've got another thing coming. There is a whole helluva lot more to coaching than teaching someone how to achieve certain shoulder positions or how to recite the steps in a shot sequence. Those amount to less than 10% of what an archer needs to be successful. Maybe less than 5%. Some would argue, it's not even necessary, and they have the hardware to prove it.

It still amuses me (and has for about 7 years now) how people who consider themselves "coaches" will argue all day about trivial details in shot sequences or muscle groups or string or bow hand positions when they themselves have 1) never been able to attain the things they feel so qualified to teach, and 2) have never been a USAT-caliber archer. Physician, heal thyself!

It also amuses me that we argue day and night over trivial terminology and positions when anyone who has shot at the top level will tell you that the biggest difference between winning and losing is the strength of one's mental game. And yet, you never see arguments here about whether Lanny Bassham or Al Henderson teach a better mental technique! 

Incredible.

John


----------



## DWAA Archer (Oct 14, 2011)

It's been interesting how this thread has developed. And how the old and the new view idea's get on. The guys that have been shooting for a long time and produce good results show resistance to what Kisik Lee and Korean coaches in general want from the archers they coach.

First the thing about archery is any form can be used to shoot big scores you just have to be consistant. So when you have archers that have not had much coaching time you are more likely to see them shooting with biomechanically questionable or not very efficient form with the talented ones rising to the top. The older coaches like this because it is one way of filtering out the talent. 
There are pros and cons to this approach which is it works if you have a large talent pool but if you don't because of smaller population or other sports take the talent it does not work.

With how the Koreans do thinks it's teach'em right from day one. now I know that no kid from the west is going to take up archery if they are not allowed to touch a bow for 6 months. but 6 months of being taught correct form results in being able to shoot 300 with 36 arrows at 30m the first time they get to shoot a bow. I know that was something that took me 2 years to achieve.

So where's the happy medium well standard form that clearly works has to be taught and has to be programed into the new archers. But archers come in different shapes and sizes Thats what wiggle room is for and where the experienced coaching comes in it just has to be safe.
6 months without touching a bow this has to be adapted and made fun that's how it you take things forward.

The Bottom line is what the Korean's teach works and that you can have more archers shooting higher scores the cream will still rise to the top but it will also mean they have to work a little harder which is a good thing but with everyone is singing from the same song sheet it makes it easier for archers to buddy up and work together and critique each others form because they will have a better idea of what to look for.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

DWAA Archer said:


> The Bottom line is what the Korean's teach works


...for Korea. And NTS isn't what the Koreans teach, it is what Coach Lee teaches, which is what the thread is about.



DWAA Archer said:


> but with everyone is singing from the same song sheet it makes it easier for archers to buddy up and work together and critique each others form because they will have a better idea of what to look for.


I think that's a good point. It is easier to coach if everyone is on the same page, but if NTS is teaching stuff that is superfluous, such as bow sit down may be, every one may just be getting together to agree on how nice the Emporor's New Clothes look rather than on the things that really are fundamental.

I don't think uniformity for its own sake is a good goal.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> John, I hate to interrupt the K. Lee bash-fest,


I see it as a "Is what USA Archery teaches scientifically proven or not, and what should our USA Archery coaching system look like" thread. Science has to follow where the evidence leads. And if it supports Lee's theories, great, if it doesn't, then we should adopt what is supported.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

my idol is Park Sung Hyun. I think she was the best recurve shooter ever, and i have studied her form since 2006 or so. I dont see her sweep when drawing. She is super still, draws the string straight back to her chin, has a slightly front anchor and releases. She has slight tape on her stock grip and a super smooth release. Her gear is fairly standard. 

That is who i try to emulate. I dont think her method is BEST but whatever it is, i want to shoot just like her and how that form would fit with my body.


Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Agreed Chris. Just watch the YouTube video of her shooting on our practice field at the Athens Olympics. It's so efforless and consistent. A person could do worse than to just watch her shoot and copy what she does as closely as possible.

No odd movements, no tricky bendy at the waist thing. In fact, I see a lot more Koreans with a square stance than an open one. 

Keep it simple, stupid. Because simple is simply consistent.

Ms. Park is arguably the best Olympic recurve archer who's ever shot. So, why aren't we falling all over ourselves to teach her form to every man, woman and child?



> and Korean coaches in general want from the archers they coach


DWAA, what do we know about "Korean" coaches in general? Not that much, I don't think...



> With how the Koreans do thinks it's teach'em right from day one. now I know that no kid from the west is going to take up archery if they are not allowed to touch a bow for 6 months. but 6 months of being taught correct form results in being able to shoot 300 with 36 arrows at 30m the first time they get to shoot a bow. I know that was something that took me 2 years to achieve


Apples and oranges. This approach simply will not work in the U.S., period. Archery is viewed as a recreational sport in this country. Good luck trying to find even 3 kids that will train for 6 months the way we are told they do it in Korea.

They have COMPLETELY different motivations than the kids in the U.S.. So it's not fair to use their culture and training as a comparison.

John


----------



## shootemstraight (Jan 13, 2007)

chrstphr said:


> my idol is Park Sung Hyun. I think she was the best recurve shooter ever, ... i want to shoot just like her.Chris


+1
:thumbs_up


----------



## gonehuntin (Dec 2, 2004)

Limbwalker,
_PLEASE_ don't take this question the wrong way..... I am just plain curious, how much involvement from the beginning of Coach Lee's arrival and early work here in U.S., up to his current activities now are you associated with?


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> This approach simply will not work in the U.S., period. Archery is viewed as a recreational sport in this country. Good luck trying to find even 3 kids that will train for 6 months the way we are told they do it in Korea.
> 
> They have COMPLETELY different motivations than the kids in the U.S.. So it's not fair to use their culture and training as a comparison.
> 
> John


For most of the kids in my JOAD program it's a social activity more than anything else. Few of them have the time to practice every day and since it's illegal in most towns on Long Island to shoot in your back yard they also don't have the place. 

I teach one new thing a week all designed to improve their shooting, If we have to diverge a little from the NTS we do.

TAO


----------

