# Jim C & Mr Black Magic-- Here Goes.



## pencarrow (Oct 3, 2003)

The B.E.S.T. system is not necessarily the best system, only the Kisik Lee system, and this seems to be the path USAA has chosen to follow. The end, justifies the means. For years the US dominated, but like so many things we have fallen behind. There are a lot of good coaches out there, not necessarily teaching a "system" but building on a persons,( I say this with some hesitation ) GOD given talent. The idea that if you throw enough $$$$ at it will fix it, doesn't always work. Through the JOAD and similar programs, identify talented Individuals, a strong and coordinated coach development program, we can prevail again. Coach the individual, not the system. Don't make clones. The Frangillis are not "chopped liver".

Over.


----------



## therazor302 (Jun 2, 2008)

I hear you. It takes a good couch to just show your their way and have you adapt to it. Personally I think the best coaching comes from Joad coaches. My coaches give me suggestions and ideas. The main coach constantly reminds me that he's giving suggestions and that I should interpret them into a way I like.

There is a kid from Missouri who was an amazingly consistant archer. From stance to the follow through it took nearly the exact same amount of time each time and he was ready for the olympics. He went to Chula Vista and their suggestions and tweaking of his form made everything go south. It took him a while to recover back to his previous abilities. This kid had the chance to get gold at the olympics. 

Oh well what can you do.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Hmm-who was that kid from MO?


----------



## Old Hoyt (Jul 28, 2005)

*Biomechanics*

B.E.S.T. is indeed KSL's take on Biomechanics.

I've been reading Core Archery by Larry Wise, and the Biomechanics & Advancd Shooting articles (James Park etal) from Archery Australia. Between these 2 resources I've been able to tweak my form & obtain more consistency & endurance.

Glad to be up here in the Great White North *where one particular shooting system is not mandatory!*

:canada:


----------



## Mr. Black Magic (Sep 13, 2007)

Old Hoyt said:


> B.E.S.T. is indeed KSL's take on Biomechanics.
> 
> I've been reading Core Archery by Larry Wise, and the Biomechanics & Advancd Shooting articles (James Park etal) from Archery Australia. Between these 2 resources I've been able to tweak my form & obtain more consistency & endurance.
> 
> ...


YET!

Ok here is a start with my issues with BEST First off the name, stupid hype applied by the USAA itself, makes about as much sense as calling the resident athlete team by the same name as an utterly dismal failure in Olympic basketball

The method itself is far to restrictive it fits archers into a mold rather than molding itself to the archer. It is a one trick pony and you are risking the ability to develop a better shooting technique by starving yourself of each new archers interpretation of shooting style. It is an autocratic method putting future development in the sole hands of the "Coach" itself. Like many other systems out there there are sound points to it but as an overall training method I find it long term restrictive and far too narrowly focused to develop the archer into a long term career.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

I am curious-who are you-your profile is rather blank and I don't recall seeing much of you here before.


----------



## therazor302 (Jun 2, 2008)

Jim C said:


> Hmm-who was that kid from MO?


You know what I can't recall his name. Although I do know someone that does know. I'll ask them tomorrow.

Also do you mind me asking why this was directed at Jim C amd Mr. Black Magic?


----------



## monty53 (Jun 19, 2002)

The B.E.S.T. system works if implemented the Korean way!
They take little kids, make archery their number one priority and make archers of them!

It doesn’t work as good if you take individuals that are accomplished archers already and try to change their style to that system!


----------



## pencarrow (Oct 3, 2003)

therazor302 said:


> You know what I can't recall his name. Although I do know someone that does know. I'll ask them tomorrow.
> 
> Also do you mind me asking why this was directed at Jim C amd Mr. Black Magic?


Because they both wanted to talk about the subject, B.E.S.T. and USAA, but didn't want to start it. So I did.


----------



## therazor302 (Jun 2, 2008)

Ahh that makes sense. Overall it was a novel idea to bring such a great coach over but I think he is used to teaching from a younger age or refining people that have already been taught the same method. I think the chula vista place should be a place they shoot and practice while the coaches stand by and tweak the form they already have.

Oh well it'll be nice to see what fans out in the next 4 years.


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

pencarrow said:


> Because they both wanted to talk about the subject, B.E.S.T. and USAA, but didn't want to start it. So I did.


So, let me understand something. If a shooter does not go through the OC training camp, but places in the top 3 at the Olympic trials and doesn't shoot a "strick" BEST method they cannot be on the Olympic team?

I thought the Oly trials were open to anyone?

Art


----------



## pencarrow (Oct 3, 2003)

ArtV
I don't know. I would refer you to; http://www.usarchery.org/userfiles/file/Letter_bc_1008001.pdf
and you make an interpretation.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

I don't know if B.E.S.T. system is the best out there, BUT, those cadet (or were they Junior) olympic shooters from Korea shot some pretty impressive scores during the last world youth championships.


----------



## Mr. Black Magic (Sep 13, 2007)

Dado said:


> I don't know if B.E.S.T. system is the best out there, BUT, those cadet (or were they Junior) olympic shooters from Korea shot some pretty impressive scores during the last world youth championships.


Look DADO there is no question as to results being achieved by the method. BUT North Americans are pretty much evolved to rip the "best" components out of a a bunch of systems and improve on them all. Pushing a single method on the masses (I really wish there _were_ masses because that is *THE* actual problem), is the sound of ingenuity dying.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

therazor302 said:


> You know what I can't recall his name. Although I do know someone that does know. I'll ask them tomorrow.
> 
> Also do you mind me asking why this was directed at Jim C amd Mr. Black Magic?


are you thinking of Vic Wunderle from Illiniois? the other two members of the team are from New England and the SW USA


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

ArtV said:


> So, let me understand something. If a shooter does not go through the OC training camp, but places in the top 3 at the Olympic trials and doesn't shoot a "strick" BEST method they cannot be on the Olympic team?
> 
> I thought the Oly trials were open to anyone?
> 
> Art



You win the trials and have a MQS (which by definition you will have if you shoot that well) you make the team. A lawyer could get really rich if this were changed.:wink:


----------



## Mr. Black Magic (Sep 13, 2007)

Jim C said:


> You win the trials and have a MQS (which by definition you will have if you shoot that well) you make the team. A lawyer could get really rich if this were changed.:wink:


And I think the IOC might have a wee bit of a concern as well:embara:


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

I've whined until blue in the face on this issue....

1. People's bodies are different...one size fits all won't work.

2. To believe one single method is better than all others would mean that someone has built the better mousetrap...and that no other better mousetrap will ever be built. And in 1890, the commissioner of the US Patent and Trademark office advised the president of the USA to close that office...because he also believed that everything that was worthy of being invented already had been invented.

So...is the BEST method good? Yes, it is very, very good! Is it the best that will ever be developed? Not very likely.


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 23, 2008)

Excuse my ignorance Jim C, but what is an "MQS"?

Thanks


----------



## Landed in AZ (May 11, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> Excuse my ignorance Jim C, but what is an "MQS"?
> 
> Thanks


Minimum Qualifying score


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 23, 2008)

Ah, makes sense : )...thanks


----------



## Mr. Black Magic (Sep 13, 2007)

well the thing of it is, the whole hire a bigname coach idea was a response to a problem that in essence did not exist.

Opinion time, you might want to change channels now.

Did the US experience a decline in medal performances at the Olympics? Yes.

Was that performance decline due to inadequate coaching. Doubtful, that. I believe the inherent reason for the performance decline is simply numbers. Participation is at an all time low in North America, the talent pool reflects this. Korea experienced an upsurge because they can throw a zillion people in the programme and pick and choose. In any sport there are athletes who will rise to the top and bring it to the level of an art. We are not doing was is necessary to bring those new shooter into the sport in the first place. BEST is simply a method of making any archer shoot well. It replaces the intuition and creativity you find in the top 1 % of athletes with a ridgid template hidden under the biomechanical buzzwords. That takes the art and intuition out of the equation and in fact stifles the very class of athlete which it should be encouraging the most.

I'd have been a whole lot happier to see all that money re invested in JOAD and qualifying tournaments, as I don't see a single new archer coming into the sport because it endorses the BEST method. It's not a big drawing card.


----------



## pencarrow (Oct 3, 2003)

The B.E.S.T. system as we have defined it is not the Korean method( a do anything it takes ,Governmental commitment to win Gold ). A westerner subjected to the eastern philosophy would be home in less than a week. It is sooooo much more than which back muscle you should use or taking a "zen" breath. It is " A Way of Life".


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Surprizingly, this has stayed a pretty civil discussion. Keep up the good work.


----------



## pencarrow (Oct 3, 2003)

The bottem line is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. And where is the $$? COMPOUND. If the Olympics allowed compounds our chances of Gold would go way up, look what Jamie. Erika,Dave,Rio & others are doing. Brady only came over to recurve to have a chance for the Olympics.US manufactors favor Compound because that is where the $$$$ (HUNTERS) is. Recurve ( I include myself in that group ) is like the redheaded step child that thinks it's an only child.
We need to some how increase our talen pool, but telling new comers that you have to do it our way, or no way, is not going to work.


----------



## James Park (Jan 4, 2003)

Biomechanics is nothing new. BEST did not invent it (although at times you could be mistaken for thinking so from some of the hype).
For example, Darryl Pace's technique back in the 1970s was a wonderful example of excellent biomechancs, and it was well recognised as such at the time (at least by me, but also by many others).
That is: KSL did not invent biomechancs.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Mr. Black Magic said:


> ...BEST is simply a method of making any archer shoot well...


 
You say that like its a bad thing.


...


----------



## omega_archer (Aug 25, 2008)

Great discussion all, I've enjoyed the debate. I'm a person who has been toying with the idea of getting a coach and this is my perspective. 

Archery is a unique sport in that like golf is based on individual performances (even in team competition). Coaching a team sport requires different techniques and trying to compare would be apples to oranges. The best example I could think of is when Tiger Woods decided he needed to take his game to the next level (even though he was already on top) accepting that his game would suffer for a period. I think when it clicked, He won 9 tourneys in a row.

Commitment, trust and buy in is the key for improving as an individual and organization. Obviously we the US hasn't been on the top lately and the NAA wants to be by making the a change (Commitment). They believe in Coach Lee's ability (Trust). They now need archer who want to be on the podium (Buy in).

I think you can argue the pros/cons of any technique until blue in the face. It will work for some and not for others. The decision to go with BEST is just that.... a decision. It's better than doing nothing at all. 

As someone noted earlier, $$$$$ is the missing link so those individuals who are medal contenders can train relentlessly.


----------



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> You say that like its a bad thing.
> 
> 
> ...


I think the emphasis should be on that it is *a* method on making an archer shoot well, not *the* method or even *the best*.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

In American we dislike being told what to do or what is BEST. It's our independence that makes us who we are.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

target1 said:


> In American we dislike being told what to do or what is BEST. It's our independence that makes us who we are.


Indeed. I also bristle at cutesey names that make you say their presumption in order to talk about them, from the presumptuously named "Million Man March" to "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter" or "B.E.S.T" Method, though I've been told that name is a marketing gimmick on the part of USAA and is not a name KSL came up with.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Ok, so it seems we don't like the name and some people are resistant to change. Got it.

What are you proposing for solutions? Competition surely helped to make this a great country...how about if the NAA followed the Kisik method and the NFAA adopted the Ukraine method?


----------



## Mr. Black Magic (Sep 13, 2007)

Seattlepop said:


> You say that like its a bad thing.
> 
> 
> ...


No, I don't. However when a rigid method is applied (assembly line style if you will), you inevitably find a performance lever _*fairly*_ high where the majority of the practitioners will be. To become stellar at any endevaour means in a lot of cases going beyond the training into the intuition and feel arena that top competitors inhabit.

BEST does a fairly good job of extinguishing those particular traits in the athlete and I fear we are losing feedback that other coaching methods encourage.

..........and we have not even touched on the long term effects of the method on the physique of the archer:wink:


----------



## pineapple3d (Oct 23, 2002)

..........and we have not even touched on the long term effects of the method on the physique of the archer:wink:[/QUOTE]

So what are the long term effects?


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Although money would be nice for potential champions, if you don’t have the heart you have no chance in becoming a champion. However, having a heart is just the beginning. Once you have a heart, you have to have the drive. Once you have the drive, you have to have the perseverance. Once you have the perseverance, you need support. Once you have the support, you need the guidance. There is no one solid answer here. Oh and one more thing. Real champions fail many times before they succeed. What makes them champions is using those failures to strengthen themselves for the next round. 

The Best method is only one method that has proven with good guidance can work. So does the Ukraine method, so does the Polish method, so does the American method…. 

Recordkeeper, you are right. Biomechanically the human body is different with each person. The goal is to find the most consistent execution of the shot as you can and repeat it….again and again and again….. under pressure…. 

Now, about that “assembly” comment. Beautifully stated! Look at all your champions and you will see INDIVIDUALITY! Leaders stand out and always will. I cry when I see archers being beaten down for their individuality or uniqueness which makes them so great. Eventually they become sheep although biomechanically correct sheep and so-so shooters. 

The Best method has many good ideas in it. I have yet to find the perfect educational tool that gives you everything. So why do you feel the Best will give you 100% of what you need. Take the tool and figure out what does work and use it. Even if you get to use 50% of that tool, it’s better than what we have had for the past 10 to 15 years.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Ok, there seems to be some agreement that bodies are different.

Would someone care to explain to me what body type, exactly, would NOT benefit from having the bones aligned is such a way as to relieve the muscles from primary duty as described in TA, THA, and uh, TSAOW? 

And, four styles have been identified that could work, and we have seen some of them win gold medal matches. 

Would someone care to explain to me what "individuality", exactly, you can see in Fairweather, Frangilli, Ruban, Galiazzo, or Park as they are applied to their particular style?


----------



## Mr. Black Magic (Sep 13, 2007)

pineapple3d said:


> ..........and we have not even touched on the long term effects of the method on the physique of the archer:wink:


So what are the long term effects?[/QUOTE]

Thus far we don't really know do we. There has not been enough time to see the effects first hand. Although there was a critique, by an MD posted here or perhaps elsewhere, that raised a few concerns. I'll look around for that one before diving in head first.:wink:


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Thanks for weighing in Rick. Your perspective as a champion carries great weight and the thought leaders of our governing body, should pay heed.


----------



## Landed in AZ (May 11, 2008)

pineapple3d said:


> ..........and we have not even touched on the long term effects of the method on the physique of the archer:wink:


So what are the long term effects?[/QUOTE]

Has your archer suffered any affects from shooting this method for a number of years? He is the only high level archer that I know personally that has shot this method since just before KSL arrived. I am wondering what he has experienced.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

About the physical aspects of biomechanically correct. Although you may think that if you follow the exact fulcrum/leverage approach you would get an exact map to follow when fixing an archer's form. This is not the case. In theory, it would require a linear/muscular athlete to do this (ecto/meso). For example, Hardy Ward, John Wiliams, Darrell Pace, Ann Hoyt (Corby at the time), Ann Clark, Doreen Wilber. Now, look at America's current elite: Jenny Nichols, Khatuna Lorig, Karen Scavato, Vic Wunderle, Butch Johnson and Brady Elison. These people have virtually a "similar" body type. Does it mean that you cannot win unless you have this body type? No. It just means you have to find a compromise in your form and technique. 

If you look at the individuals you have chosen (Frangilli, Ruban, Galiazzo, or Park), two have this body type and two do not. There is one thing they have in common though if you talk to them...confidence. 

Manipulating the body to fit "perfect" biomechanics is just not possible for many. Even if you look at one of the greats like Darrell Pace, he did not get in line with his elbow directly behind the arrow shaft and I went past that line. According to this Best method we both should not "fit" into the perfect program. However, I looked for the shot that gave me the most accurate and consistent 10 time and again. Not what the books told me and not what a coach would tell me. I am sure Darrell did the same. I can only tell you of my personal experience of fighting many coaches who told me that I did not have the form nor the "right" attitude to win. If I listened to them, I would not have gotten very far. 

So, look at the archer and then see how close you can get them into the line you feel will work. Classic form is the best to start with, then you find the archer's different strengths and weakness' and work on fine tuning it. Find the form that gives the most consistency, not the one that looks pretty. Pretty doesn't win tournaments....

As far as future health issues. I seriously doubt that you will notice much if any at all. Typical issues such as scoliosis, headaches, nerve damage are common. These can be kept at a minimum if you do a couple of simple exercises to offset the muscular imbalance. The biggest concern I have noticed is not the shooting but the lifting exercises recommended with the Best method. There are more potential problems in this area than anywhere else. This is due to the lack of understanding by the "professional" weight trainer/s. Normally the body will scream pain before the archer will have serious injury. Learn as much as you can about physiology and lifting to fully understand the requirements needed to lift safely.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

excellent post rick!!


----------



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

Rick McKinney said:


> About the physical aspects of biomechanically correct. . . .


Thanks for your input!


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Rick, I am among those who are grateful for your participation in these discussions. 

I also think some of your criticism here gives visibility to what I think touches on some common problems folks have with Lee's system.

For example, you mention your "past the line" elbow alignment and suggest you would not fit Lee's program. If I may quote from TA: "In addition, when viewing the drawing elbow from above, it should be in-line with the arrow. *It would be even better to be slightly behind this line*, but definitely not forward of this line." (Emphasis added). So you see, you would have gone to the front of the class!

I think the biggest problem is that most people don't understand what is being taught and reject it as a result. Angular this and lateral that, photos of scapulae that vary too much to really be able to tell what is going on. I would say that Coach Lee is not the best communicator and may not know how to reach his audience. Thankfully, on the Easton CD, Mr. Rabska is the primary presenter and does a great job. 

Regarding biomechanical alignment, I appreciate your knowledge of so many world-class archers, but I still don't get the point, or rather, I don't get the problem. I have looked through your book, TA, THA, Skinner's book And CD, and most recently the Easton SDF CD Narrated by Don Rabska, and I can find not one, I repeat, not one picture of any archer who does not have their shoulders aligned in a manner that can be described as anything but mechanically efficient. And the examples show many body types. 

If, as you say, classic form is the best to start with, would you mind explaining how different classic form is to what is being demonstrated on the Easton CD? And if you agree that a form of some type, classic or otherwise, is a place to start, can you not see that a National program might benefit from teaching just that? 

I personally like Frangilli's very readable book and refer to it often. The end results are not that different than Lee. He doesn't promote a high grip, perhaps, and his presentation through the 11 steps is a different approach. I can't make the high grip work either, but I've had surgery on both shoulders. 

Is the fact that some can't get the high grip an example of why we have rejected an entire system? 

I believe most people can buy into the vision and mission statements of the NAA, but somehow think herding cats should be part of the strategic plan.


----------



## Wilde (May 21, 2002)

Interesting topic.

RM:"The Best method has many good ideas in it. I have yet to find the perfect educational tool that gives you everything. So why do you feel the Best will give you 100% of what you need. Take the tool and figure out what does work and use it. Even if you get to use 50% of that tool, it’s better than what we have had for the past 10 to 15 years." 

Very well put Rick.

Seattlepop:"Would someone care to explain to me what "individuality", exactly, you can see in Frangilli, Ruban, Galiazzo, or Park as they are applied to their particular style?"

I presume you have not spoken to any of them? Rick is correct - Confidence, Confidence, Confidence. Or as Gene Hackman said in Hoosiers - Winners want the ball and Tiger said in an interview with Mike & Mike (ESPN) when asked who he would choose, other than himself, to make a put to save someones life. NO ONE - I will make the shot myself.

As a coach - I coach a method or style. Even though all my students execute the shot "basically" the same, but they have adjusted to work it for them. If you look at myself and my Sons from the upper body at full draw and during shot execution it is almost exactly the same. But Reo leans back more than I or Logan. But that is more repeatable for him. We are not all the same. I cannot hardly hold Reo's bow up and Tim G.(as big as he is) said the same thing - But that is what works for him. A recent coach ( I am not sure who it was) said - and I agree. It is my job to get you (athlete) where you can coach yourself. 

Tiger felt he had reached his limit with 1 coach and could see the limitations of his style. He then went in a direction that he "Beleived" was the right way. It worked.

Lloyd Brown is our most successfull Olympic coach. I know he went out of his way to help the Olympic athletes communicate with their own coach's. 

I could go on but the bottom line is do not be afraid to try a Style of Suggestion but use what YOU can make repeatable. Remember - you have to have confidence in anything you do or choose to do. THAT IS THE KEY>

Sorry to carry on - Nuff Said

Dee


----------



## gig'em 99 (Feb 1, 2008)

I've been reading this thread and wondering if my opinion on this is valid, but I'll share it, and you all can judge.

Of the books and CD's referenced, I have them all, and have studied them all. I'm also lucky to have shot with, and to be friends with, several elite archers. Some of whom, I'm able to use as a sounding board about my ideas. I'll start with this:

I've never attended a HP seminar, but one of my close friends has. And it was this person that told me one of the first things KSL did, was pull out a picture of Darrell Pace and Rick McKinney and state that these were examples of the BEST method, and ask a question about why did we (being the USA) get away from this. That statement alone is extremely important to this thread and this discussion, because I believe it disproves the implication of BEST being a 1 size fits all. Clearly Pace and McKinney look different when shooting. As a matter of fact, in KSL's book he writes that a coach must have "a solid foundation in biomechanics, anatomy and physiology." If a coach has this knowledge, then he will know how to fit the system to the individual, not visa versa. Any good coach will look for the form in their student that the student can repeat, and should encourage it, so long as that form won't injure the student. And while they’re at it, why not strive for simplicity in the form.

The next thing that I want to say, is that in my opinion between TA, TSAOW and THA, there are far more similarities than differences. And I think if we all studied the elite, we'd see that this is true. So Butch's elbow is above the line, but look at his bow arm. Look at Vic's bow arm, and then look at Michele's bow arm. Recall McKinney's statement in TSAOW about how important the bow arm is. I'd also opine that the archer's mentioned immediately above all have terrific shoulder alignment. They all also have very relaxed releases. And most importantly, they all make it look simple. Even when Frangilli talks about expanding with his bow shoulder, we're talking about an imperceptible expansion...just as a KSL archer shooting at that level expands with angular movement around his spine, but that expansion is imperceptible once the anchoring position has been attained. In both forms, you can simplify it down to a very minute internal expansion is utilized to activate the clicker. The bottom line, is far more things are similar than different amongst the best shooters, and I whole-heartedly believe, that the mental aspect is the most important part regardless of form. But everyone's mental game is different, and that is the most difficult part to coach.

I think the adoption of the BEST method is a good approach. The US archery community is finally involved in a lively debate about it. And what comes out of this will most likely be the best system, although we don't have it yet. But we've never had a good system of teaching young archers. We had good coaches, but many of them just taught their system. And that is what caused many good JOAD archers to quit the sport once they were too old to compete in their JOAD clubs. They graduate and then find a coach with an entirely different philosophy. That is a frustrating consequence of our reluctance to adopt something, go with it, debate it, modify it and ultimately gain confidence in what it becomes.

For those of you who haven’t read the aforementioned books, trust me when I say that the BEST method is already evolving. Any one who’s recently taught, or attended an instructor course has received materials, and will confirm that there are subtle differences between how the BEST method is being taught in those classes vs. in Total Archery. Its already being adapted to the American mindset.


----------



## ocn (Sep 17, 2006)

*Wow guys great discussion*

This type of insight is very valuable, a lot of archers that want to get serious about shooting in competitions would greatly benefit from the ideas talked about here. For someone looking to take that next step in their game, finding the right coach is a very important decision.

Thank you guys


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Fred/Seattlepop, I think that the biggest criticism is how the program was implemented. After all, forcing it down the throats of archers and coaches who have trained or coached for years one way didn’t go so well. The all or nothing attitude just rubs a person. Kicking out good coaches just because they questioned issues doesn’t sound very “American.” Having said that, don’t forget that many figured out ways to compromise. Enough of the “political” aspect.

The system Lee is implementing is still in it’s infancy. His communication skills make it very hard to fathom what he is saying sometimes. Therefore many people get upset when they think there is something that does not fit into the classic style of archery. Most of his theory is classic with a little change here and there. I gave a lecture on the similarities at a USAA coaches school last year or early this spring. 

About that behind line thing. It appears you read a lot…I am more than a little behind line. It’s more like over an inch. Also, Darrell’s was in front of line and he kicked my butt…..a lot! And it is just one issue. Lee has a habit of changing the form structure as he goes which has been expressed as “improving as we progress.” I find that a bit unsettling. A small change here and there is fine, but big changes and using archers as guinea pigs is not fair to the archer, a beginning archer, maybe, an experienced archer…no. 

I disagree that most coaches reject what is being implemented due to not understanding it. I think it is more that they want to understand and how to implement it so they can improve their program at home. They fear more of being booted out because it has not been shown and explained well enough for them to fathom it. My basis on this is due to all the coaches I have talked with at schools and events. 

Now about your explanation on shoulder alignment and the biomechanical aspect. That is classic archery and all try to achieve it but many cannot. As for a National program. I thought that is what we are all striving to do. We are just trying to figure out how to implement it so we don’t get kicked out of the program if it is not 100%. Lee has been given full support by the USOC and USAA. It is up to those who he chooses to help implement this program to make it work. I for one applaud some of the form improvements over the past year or two in most “average” archers. This is a good start and let’s hope it continues. 

As for your grip problem….I rest my case. It shows that biomechanically we all have to observe the capability of the individual and figure out ways that work best for the archer.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

I want to be the Bruce Lee of archery. The perfect amalgam of all styles. Plus....he was one cool dude.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Thanks Dee… 

Great comments Staten/gig'em…Yes, Lee has stated that he used Darrell and myself as the standard for his methods. We used to do the same thing and added to it in the early 80’s. We went into detailed analysis with the biomechanical, physiological and psycho-physiological sciences. We spent countless hours working with the juniors to guide them in training physically as well as mental training programs. We spent a lot of time on walking the archers through mental exercises and many went home with videos to work on stress related factors. Now, some of those archers are still going strong today. The program was called USAT and Jr. USAT. Unfortunately, the program is an entirely different program than it was back then. USAA did loose their way…

It took awhile for me to figure out what TSAOW stood for…. duh…


----------



## Greg Bouras (Nov 17, 2006)

Consider what Einstein observed about human nature.

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence."
Albert Einstein 

The BEST system is grounded in science and affords one the opportunity to use his intelligence to understand the physical system of shooting a bow. 

I do not understand why a vast majority of folks refuse to even consider following even the most basic set of instructions and expect favorable results, but I accept that fact as the way it is.

What is wrong with a structured disciplined approach and a step by step process to achieve the desired results? Observe that that is exactly how the physical world around us works, why don't we take advantage of what we observe works?

Don't we expect the food we eat to be prepared by some step by step process? I think they call it a recipe.


----------



## Mr. Black Magic (Sep 13, 2007)

Greg Bouras said:


> Consider what Einstein observed about human nature.
> 
> "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence."
> Albert Einstein
> ...


Well gee, if we are going to be quoting Albert here.

"The only real valuable thing is intuition." Something the environment of BEST seems to stifle.:wink:


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Greg Bouras said:


> Don't we expect the food we eat to be prepared by some step by step process? I think they call it a recipe.


Hmm...the analogy doesn't really hold up to extension. There is no single perfect recipe, for instance, but many that make delicious food.


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

Yes Greg it's a step by step process, but we don't grill a steak the same way we make a salad 

There are alot of ways to cook an egg, but in the end of the day I'll bet it's unlikely you and I will like it done the same way :tongue:

If you study archers like Michele Frangilli, Park Kyun Mo, Darryl or Rick you'll see massive variation. I believe there is virtually nothing in common between them and to have tried to force any of them into a cookie cutter program would have spit them out the back faster than ..... well, I think we have enough examples of that lately that we don't need to get into it 

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Greg, I am a bit troubled by your thinking. First of all, the recipe deal proves my point very well. If one entity uses the recipe exactly via mechanical means you will get the duplicity you are seeking. Now, when you give this recipe to 100 different people and they apply it according to the instructions, you will get 100 different tastes. So do we just have Lee do all the coaching nationwide? It is important to have a program that is fully understandable and one that can be implemented and integrated in an agreeable structure.

Look...I am not trying to be difficult here. It just doesn't make sense to me that it is expected that all coaches get on board when the structure does not lend itself to making it easy. These coaches, who are volunteers, pay a lot of money in order to satisfy a very unstructured program. Organize the program where coaches are taught how to implement Lee's plan. These clinics are nice but do not fully integrate properly. Setting up a curriculum in order to be consistent is very important. All educators know this. Developing a testing procedure for these coaches to be consistently passed or failed is important. It bothers me when the test is talking with Lee, demonstrating the Best steps and he just determines if you pass or fail. Again, I want to fully support Lee and what he wants to accomplish, but we need structure and a good organizational procedure in order to accomplish this. Also, once Lee leaves the program we should be able to continue without a hitch. Right now, it's all in Lee's hands. There is a lot of money invested in this program and the USAA should get full benefits for the long term.


----------



## Archerycat (Mar 1, 2007)

The problem I have run into is trying to find a good coach in my area.
I had a coach who is and has always been VERY devoted to the B.E.S.T system and almost religious about coach Lee.
The big problem is that the system keeps changing and every time I spent anytime with my coach he would change everything or contradict himself from the lesson before. I ended up with target panic along with other issues.

Another thing I have run into is coaches and archers attending B.E.S.T. seminars and coming up with conflicting Interpretation of what they just heard. 
I do agree that some of this is because of Coach Lee’s language issues, but I have also heard that things change from one seminar to another.

Just my 2 cents


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

There is a big difference starting new archers with BEST vs trying to apply it to say a Butch Johnson.


----------



## Mr. Black Magic (Sep 13, 2007)

Rick McKinney said:


> Greg, I am a bit troubled by your thinking. First of all, the recipe deal proves my point very well. If one entity uses the recipe exactly via mechanical means you will get the duplicity you are seeking. Now, when you give this recipe to 100 different people and they apply it according to the instructions, you will get 100 different tastes. So do we just have Lee do all the coaching nationwide? It is important to have a program that is fully understandable and one that can be implemented and integrated in an agreeable structure.
> 
> Look...I am not trying to be difficult here. It just doesn't make sense to me that it is expected that all coaches get on board when the structure does not lend itself to making it easy. These coaches, who are volunteers, pay a lot of money in order to satisfy a very unstructured program. Organize the program where coaches are taught how to implement Lee's plan. These clinics are nice but do not fully integrate properly. Setting up a curriculum in order to be consistent is very important. All educators know this. Developing a testing procedure for these coaches to be consistently passed or failed is important. It bothers me when the test is talking with Lee, demonstrating the Best steps and he just determines if you pass or fail. Again, I want to fully support Lee and what he wants to accomplish, but we need structure and a good organizational procedure in order to accomplish this. Also, once Lee leaves the program we should be able to continue without a hitch. Right now, it's all in Lee's hands. There is a lot of money invested in this program and the USAA should get full benefits for the long term.


First of Rick thanks for all your input.

Secondly I believe you have hit upon the key issue with the entire implementation thus far. It flies against all progress which has been made within education in the last half century. Learning by rote is little more than a test of memorization and a true education encompasses so much more than that. I sincerely believe that if the system is to survive in any form whatsoever serious consultation and revamping by University level sport scientists and profs is going to be needed. How we learn is at least as important if not more so than what we learn


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Archerycat said:


> I do agree that some of this is because of Coach Lee’s language issues, but I have also heard that things change from one seminar to another.


And leaving aside the issues of the cookie cutter approach, people seem to disagree about the fundamentals of BEST at even high levels

In response to a post about form and "back tension", I posted an video still as an example of scapular alignment from Don Rabska's ""B.E.S.T. Beginnings in Archery". Seemed to me that should have been an uncontroversial thing to do and the still should have been a good exemplar. But, at least one poster (a National JOAD Team coach, IIRC) claimed the example to be completely wrong, saying:



> That picture of Brodine's back shows someone who has rotated their scapulea so far around that there is no room for the proper scapulea travel at release. His release and followthrough will be all arm and shoulder with none or very little scapulea movement. I'm sure there's plenty of tension in that back, but it's not what's being taught as BEST Method Back Tension today.


If the top people can't agree on this basic fundamental aspect of BEST biomechanics, what hope is there for any kind of consensus at lower levels nationally?

While I realize that it may be impossible to completely quantify the insights of a top coach, it does seem that there is still much to quantify about BEST to make the implementation objective and consistent and that the current method of testing coaches and dissemination of information is not quite working.


----------



## NHSarcher (Oct 15, 2004)

*Pm*

Rick,

Sent you a PM.


----------



## Spiderkiller (Jan 30, 2007)

*?*

Maybe someone can answer this for me. If the BEST method taught by coach Lee is the Biomechanically Effecient Shooting Technique, then why does it need to change? If it's actually truly biomechanically effecient it shouldn't have to. But why has it changed? Maybe it's not actually the snake oil its made out to be. 

But if someone can explain something that is supposed to be biomechanically effcient being MORE biomechanically efficient more so than the first biomechanically efficency, I'll understand.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Spiderkiller said:


> But if someone can explain something that is supposed to be biomechanically effcient being MORE biomechanically efficient more so than the first biomechanically efficency, I'll understand.


I don't think that is necessarily a contradiction. It isn't claimed to be biomechanically perfect and unimprovable, though that does seem to be implied rather heavily at times...


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 23, 2008)

Archerycat said:


> The big problem is that the system keeps changing and every time I spent anytime with my coach he would change everything or contradict himself from the lesson before.


That's the problem I was having too. I don't disagree with coach Lee's philosophy but he seems to be all over the place at times. Only a year or so ago he was having people come to full draw with their stabilizer on the ground. I understand that archery is dynamic and is constantly evolving, but as a shooter the BEST method has been a little hard to keep up with, especially if you don't meet with a coach regularly.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

this is a very interesting read but is getting a bit too complicated and technical for me.......the way i understand everything so far is this:
1)the BEST system is basically a sound system but may not be applicable for ALL....
2)it should not be taught on a "wholesale" basis to all archers.... 
3)you should instead "cherry pick" its good parts and discard the inapplicable parts 
as it applies to you individually or the other archers based on their coaches 
analysis of their needs...
4)this, of course. presumes that the person responsible for teaching knows the good 
parts vs. the bad parts
5)if everyone agrees on 1) to 4)....we have no problem....

am i oversimplifying the situation or are my findings on the right track so far?....i just want to make sure i understand all the previous discussions....thank you..


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

just to add to my previous post...if we don't totally agree on 1) to 4)...then that's why we already have more than 60 posts on this topic.....and perhaps more to come.....


----------



## Greg Bouras (Nov 17, 2006)

Consider what Einstein observed about human nature.

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence."
Albert Einstein 

The BEST system is grounded in science and affords one the opportunity to use his intelligence to understand the physical system of shooting a bow. 

I do not understand why a vast majority of folks refuse to even consider following even the most basic set of instructions and expect favorable results, but I accept that fact as the way it is.

What is wrong with a structured disciplined approach and a step by step process to achieve the desired results? Observe that that is exactly how the physical world around us works, why don't we take advantage of what we observe works?

Don't we expect the food we eat to be prepared by some step by step process? I think they call it a recipe.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

A shooting technique remains what it is: a specific shooting technique, only.
There is no possibility that a single shooting technique can be applicable to 100% of the human variety. There is no possibilty that the solution to the perfect shot is one and one only. There is no possibility that you can convince a completely formed higth level archer that he can switch to a diffrent technique and get better results. 
So, we have to distinguish:
- Teaching a common basic technique with a clear fixed vocabulary is basic to communication and interchangeability of coaches.
- At a certain point of the development of the archer, the technique has to be adjusted step by step to the archer's body measures. 
- A good coach must be able to develop each archer inside archer's specific adjusted technique.
- There is no way to know in advance if the adjusted technique will bring the archer to the Olympic games, but is quite easy to check if the path is the right or the wrong one... by simply measuring the performance while training advances, day after day, month after month, year after year. 

On my club web site we have held a poll voting to guess who was going to be the Olympic champion. 27 person voted more than 12 different names, ranging from Park to Serrano and to Brady Ellison (my son voted for him). 
I have been the only one to state the name of Victor Ruban 10 days before the start of the Games. I hope to have the same luck in a money lottery, but i never had it. But, progress of Ruban during the last 4 years and specifically during the last one was constant and impressive, so for sure he was on top of those that could get the gold, in my opinion. 
- Ruban is shooting the classical Ucrainian technique since he was a child. Nothing to do with any of the more "modern" shooting techniques, but a hard strong base of training in a specific shooting techniques for years. Ucrainian coaches have been coaching many national teams everyvere before Koran coaches went on fashion. Last nation that used an Ucrainian coach was Greece from 2002 to 2004, and you can see now Greek archers performing quite honestly or even very well around (Evangelia Psarra one of them). 
So, do all countries have to adopt now the Ukrainian technique because of the results of the Games? The coches from the club in Liv will write a book based on their success and explaining how their thechnique works? Of course it will be welcome, if existing, and we will have nother one to discuss about. 
But often I think that the only book needed as a reference for the majority of the internet discussion is still Margaret Kahn's, or NAA level one of 1974, or the more recent FITA level one Instructors manual. Basics are still there, not to mention the Toxophilus from the 12th century.. 
Carlos Holgado, author of the FITA level one Instructors manual, one time told me that after level One there is level II, but after elvel II there are only "secrets". 
And secrets are still difficult to be found inside books just reading them .... 

My small contribution...


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Thanks Vittorio-as always an interesting post


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

I believe form, in and of itself is unconsequential.

Your form should be substainable and repeatable, period.

Good, bad or ugly. If you can keep it going for the long term and it is always the same. That my friends is GOOD FORM.


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

> Don't we expect the food we eat to be prepared by some step by step process? I think they call it a recipe.


Bad analogy...

How many great cooks do you know that follow a recipe exactly? They almost always tailor it to their tastes, style and audience.

If you had large numbers of potential archers to throw at a system, you will naturally find a larger number one rigid system works for. In the U.S.A, you don't have this.

A good coach or teacher in any subject learns to adapt their lesson plan to the student. One who is rigid will lose the interest of the student and that means the student will also reject the lesson being taught. People have many ways of learning and as a teacher or coach, you must know how to use all methods, not just one to be sucessful. I am sure there is more than one way to teach one technique. I am also positive there is more than one technique that will achieve the desired result.

The Swami says...

If a team has a coach that teaches only one technique and uses only one method of teaching it, then maybe only one learns.

I don't know if this is the case concerning USA archery but the above statement is true in any case.

No matter the body type, good fundamentals should be taught and used as a solid foundation in order to specialize in any technique used to achieve consistent repeatable results under pressure. A good coach should know how to tailor several techniques for a individual to acheive those types of results. A good coach should know how to teach an archer to find consistency, no matter the technique.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

perhaps an analogy to golf might be helpful here.....golf is very similar to archery in that it requires a repetitive action to excell..........you can perfect a slice or a hook and if you can repeat it consistently you can become a pretty good player BUT if your perfect hooks or slices do not have enough POWER you can never become a world class player..........in archery you can also perfect your OWN form thru the "cherry picking" method i mentioned earlier but if this is not enough to reach the highest levels then you will need something more.....hope that makes sense.....


----------



## FITAchick (Feb 8, 2004)

Perhaps Razor refers to the Nobles.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

FITAchick said:


> Perhaps Razor refers to the Nobles.


Good kids-good family-not olympic class archers 

yet


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Just another small help to the discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxQiUhCQCXQ

It's the Gold medal match between Italy and Korea for Recurve Cadet Teams World title in Antalya last month, won by Korea by 1 point only. 
Supposing that both Korea and Italy has sent their best Cadets there, it is quite interesting having a look to the way of shooting of the 6 boys. 
In the Italian team, the second one is Luca Maran from my club, who is the Italian Cadet champion 2008. For instance, surely he is a pusher not a puller, as I have teached him how to shoot, , but his technique is quite far from Michele's one.... And the 3 Korean boys and well as Luca Pianesi, the third Italian, are surely almost pure pullers. The first Italian, Mattia Vieceli, can be instead considered a tentive of applying the BEST technique, at least the Italian way to do it.
Different techniques, different countries, different coaches, different adjustemetns to the techniques...


----------



## Jurasic Archer (May 23, 2002)

*Bravo*

First of all Bravo for having a non heated discussion on the internet that has been interesting to read. Thanks to all the contributors in that the spread of positions has drawn out some great info. 
I consider my own shooting style to be a soup sandwich of techniques that I tried and that worked for me from a great deal of different people. All of whom I admire and have called my coaches over the years even though none of them actually were. 
I lived near John Williams and you can't argue with any of his methods (even though few of them applied to me), I have read stuff from all over, Al Henderson, Len Cardinalli (spelling?). McKinney and Frangilli's book, the list goes on and on. I have been lucky to stand next to a number of greats and watch them perform their magic and have always considered that opportunity more than entertaining and educational. Oh the stories. Anyway, I read the best method a bunch and gained a specific point from it that I had always struggled with. As I read about this particular method, both Darrell and Glen Myers came to mind because it seemed to me they both did a version of this item that I had never explored. When I tried it and applied it to my shooting, some pain I always had went away. I was instantly thankful that having had this communicated in a way that allowed me to apply it even though obviously not new, gave me a tool for my tool box. I like the thought that Juan Carlos had that above level two the rest is all secrets. They are internal secrets that each and every one of us have. It seems few are shared and are individual. In reality one method of coaching does not replace another, but instead compliments it. (My wife comes to mind, I might be a mess without her). 
Take whatever you can get from the information available and take the advice of Bagger Vance. You each have one perfect shot that is yours and yours only. When you do yours, nobody elses is better! 
We are lucky that we not only have all of the old great information, but also that more and more new material surfaces that some of which just may become a tool for your tool box! Be open and keep playing!!


----------



## James Park (Jan 4, 2003)

An interesting discussion.
I too have found that BEST is never twice the same, although if it were based on strict principles one would perhaps expect it to be reasonably stable. certainly in Australia I was occassionally stunned to see some of the things that the archers were asked to do - some made no sense to me and I occassionally wondered if they were simply experiments.
Yes, I agree that you do need to tailor a technique to suit the attributes of a particular archer. However, within that you need to use a few basic principles. For example, the technique should minimise muscle use, it should minimise the influence of outside disturbances, it should minimise the likelihood that the archer will be injured, it should be readily repeatable.
I have always felt that the best (not BEST) approach is to base whatever you do on a sound scientific aproach. That is: know why you are doing something and be able to explain it to others. Do it in such a way that others can test it and either verify that it is good or that it is lacking. Where others are able to show that it is lacking (with evidence) then move on to the better technique. That is: let us never say that something is the best, but merely a step along the (scientifically sound) path of betting better. (Otherwise, what we end up with is in fact WORST).


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

*How about a BEST Change Log?*



James Park said:


> An interesting discussion.
> I too have found that BEST is never twice the same,


If they are going to keep changing BEST it would be nice if they'd keep a change log, a list of changes along organized by the date they were implemented, the way software or other collaborative projects are tracked. 

Because the BEST system is taught by an inefficient trickle down method rather than at some massive annual conference with all coaches at once, that means that various newer and older versions of BEST are being taught around the country--and that as long as they keep changing BEST that will always be the case, that there will never be the homogeneity that they are striving for, even if everybody agreed to embrace BEST completely. I realized that USAA is trying to push out the HP classes, but that doesn't happen overnight, which is my point.

Also, there seems to be a a bit of a debate over the adaptability of BEST, with some saying it is an inflexible cookie cutter approach, withe others countering that KSL is adaptable in person--but it doesn't seem like that adaptability has been encoded into the system in nor is it mentioned in the KSL literature AFIK, instead only the idealized goals are mentioned rather than the acceptable range of variations. I'm not sure which is the case but this seems like a problem with the way BEST is disseminated, going back to the issue RM mentioned, where BEST is still, in some part, in the head of KSL and not encoded into a free-standing system that works without KSL--kind of like trying to build a identical houses across the country without printed blue prints, instead relying on the oral dissemination of the plans from KSL (with different improved versions described to people as the system is changed) through down through a hierarchy of several iterations of people, and expecting the houses to all match perfectly, regardless of the materials used on site.


----------



## Mr. Black Magic (Sep 13, 2007)

Warbow said:


> If they are going to keep changing BEST it would be nice if they'd keep a change log, a list if changes along organized by the date they were implemented, the way software or other collaborative projects are tracked.
> 
> Because the BEST system is taught by an inefficient trickle down method rather than at some massive annual conference with all coaches at once, that means that various newer and older versions of BEST are being taught around the country--and that as long as they keep changing BEST that will always be the case, that there will never be the homogeneity that they are striving for, even if everybody agreed to embrace BEST completely. I realized that USAA is trying to push out the HP classes, but that doesn't happen overnight, which is my point.
> 
> Also, there seems to be a a bit of a debate over the adaptability of BEST, with some saying it is an inflexible cookie cutter approach, withe others countering that KSL is adaptable in person--but it doesn't seem like that adaptability has been encoded into the system in nor is it mentioned in the KSL literature AFIK, instead only the idealized goals are mentioned rather than the acceptable range of variations. I'm not sure which is the case but this seems like a problem with the way BEST is disseminated, going back to the issue RM mentioned, where BEST is still, in some part, in the head of KSL and not encoded into a free-standing system that works without KSL--kind of like trying to build a identical houses across the country without printed blue prints, instead relying on the oral dissemination of the plans from KSL (with different improved versions described to people as the system is changed) through down through a hierarchy of several iterations of people, and expecting the houses to all match perfectly, regardless of the materials used on site.


Ah the gruesome truth arises BEST is modeled on Reganomics

In all seriousness Warbow I really believe you have a brilliant idea about maintaining a changelog. (Maybe we ought to point them to SourceForge). I would go even further with the collaborative effort and suggest that something which would track an archers progress with changes made and results garnered from each change could in fact evolve a system quite rapidly and be of benefit to the archer. Something like the way SAP has been used in Formula 1 racing

The issues that are arising seem to be 

1) Questions about the _method of shooting_ itself.

2) Questions about the way the method is distributed and the _quality of the distributed matter_

3) Questions about the _*maintenance and development*_ of both of the above.

When I sort of diagram this out and look at it. It begins to have all the classic elements of rushed implementation without a plan.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Mr. Black Magic said:


> When I sort of diagram this out and look at it. It begins to have all the classic elements of rushed implementation without a plan.


Although I realize that high level instruction takes place at coaching seminars and not websites, it still seems odd to me that there is so little information on the USAA site about BEST, instead you have to go to KSL's site **somehow**--because there don't seem to be any links to the KSL site from the USAA site, and, of course, he doesn't call his KSL system "BEST" so you might not even realize that they are the same thing (er, well, to the extent they are or aren't...)

KSL's site has some nicely put together pages on the KSL method, and not the USAA branded "BEST Method" or "High Performance" coaching. To an outsider such as myself that makes it seem that there really is no "BEST Method" but only a sub-licensed version of KSL that has been branded "BEST Method"--and I don't know if BEST Changes every-time KSL changes. So who really is the keeper of BEST? Especially since that isn't what KSL calls it? Do we really have USAA training system or do we just have the the KSL system on loan from him? As an outsider, I have no idea.

As to a changelog, KSL kindly provides a link to a PDF of the minor changes between 2nd edition of Total Archery and the new 3d edition--that is almost like a change log, but not quite, and only for the book, not the full range of instruction taught vis-a-vis coaching. And KSL does version his "KSL Shot Cycle"--or so I thought when I misinterpreted the number after the shot cycle--with his website showing the KSL Shot Cycle II, but the USAA site "High Performance" tab as a useless disembodied link to a single page PDF of the "KSL Shot Cycle IV," copyright 2006. I presumed KSL's website was the correct and current one but what is this PDF on USAA? You'd think a higher number means more current, but, oh, never mind. And, of course, it turns out those aren't versions, they are different stages, with the PDF seemingly a random artifact on the USAA site. Sigh... The USAA site just doesn't contain the kind of info you'd expect, especially since they have farmed out the L1&2 coaching and JOAD program.

They need a changelog--or they need to keep their literature current with what they teach at Chula Vista, or something.


----------



## Mr. Black Magic (Sep 13, 2007)

Warbow said:


> Although I realize that high level instruction takes place at coaching seminars and not websites, it still seems odd to me that there is so little information on the USAA site about BEST, instead you have to go to KSL's site, where he has some nicely put together pages on the KSL method, and not the USAA branded "BEST Method" or "High Performance" coaching. To an outsider such as myself that makes it seem that there really is no "BEST Method" but only a sub-licensed version of KSL that has been branded "BEST Method"--and I don't know if BEST Changes every-time KSL changes. So who really is the keeper of BEST? Especially since that isn't what KSL calls it? Do we really have USAA training system or do we just have the the KSL system on loan from him? As an outsider, I have no idea.
> 
> As to a changelog, KSL kindly provides a link to a PDF of the minor changes between 2nd edition of Total Archery and the new 3d edition--that is almost like a change log, but not quite, and only for the book, not the full range of instruction taught vis-a-vis coaching. And KSL does version his "KSL Shot Cycle," with his website showing the KSL Shot Cycle II, but the USAA site "High Performance" tab as a link to a PDF of the "KSL Shot Cycle IV," copyright 2006. I presume KSL's website is the correct and current one but what is this PDF on USAA? You'd think a higher number means more current, but, oh, never mind. They need a changelog--or they need to keep their literature current with what they teach at Chula Vista, or something.


And hence me much earlier comment of using the University resources available in the US to establish an overall method teaching and managing information flow. But hey, this is archery and re inventing the wheel seems to be de rigueur.

Whether I agree with BEST or not, a fair and reasonable implementation is owed to the archers and coaches in the U.S.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Mr. Black Magic said:


> And hence me much earlier comment of using the University resources available in the US to establish an overall method teaching and managing information flow. But hey, this is archery and re inventing the wheel seems to be de rigueur.


I think that is a good point. Much has been made about fancy biomechanics studies and such, but I've heard less about advanced studies of effective pedagogy vis-a-vis archery.


----------



## Mr. Black Magic (Sep 13, 2007)

Warbow said:


> I think that is a good point. Much has been made about fancy biomechanics studies and such, but I've heard less about advanced studies of effective pedagogy vis-a-vis archery.


Would not "advanced study" imply basic study has already been done?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Mr. Black Magic said:


> Would not "advanced study" imply basic study has already been done?


I suppose so...I just assumed that there was some foundation for the basic instruction that goes on these days--but that was an assumption.

I was talking to an acquaintance who is studying the pedagogy of teaching undergrad physics. In that field there is a fair amount of research and dissemination of teaching methods for lower level classes, but none for the upper levels. I was thinking the same might be true for archery--but that is pure speculation on my part, including the idea that some research has been done on the lower levels rather than just the subjective experience of qualified coaches.


----------



## Mr. Black Magic (Sep 13, 2007)

Warbow said:


> I suppose so...I just assumed that there was some foundation for the basic instruction that goes on these days--but that was an assumption.
> 
> I was talking to an acquaintance who is studying the pedagogy of physics as a post grad. In that field there is a fair amount of research and dissemination of teaching methods for lower level classes, but none for the upper levels. I was thinking the same might be true for archery--but that is pure speculation on my part, including the idea that some research has been done on the lower levels rather than just the subjective experience of qualified coaches.


 I would be interested to hear if in fact there had been any basic work done. I have seen some work done with regards to professional cycling, which in fact has delved into basic learning behaviors from childhood on, but have seen nothing archery related. Once again I think the sport itself is it's own worst enemy with regards to not looking to other disciplines fro synergies.


----------



## pencarrow (Oct 3, 2003)

It would be nice to hear the thoughts of someone that has actually trained under Coach Lee. How does the " apparent " ever evolving system, effect long term training." Forget what we taught you yesterday, we want you to do it this way now."


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

pencarrow said:


> It would be nice to hear the thoughts of someone that has actually trained under Coach Lee. How does the " apparent " ever evolving system, effect long term training." Forget what we taught you yesterday, we want you to do it this way now."



"Forget what we taught you yesterday, we want you to do it this way now."

That's not what shot evolution is all about. It's about slight changes to the shot cycle. Now those changes can be significant to the archer employing them, but it is not a matter of changing the foundation of the shot.
Warbow and Magic have highlighted something that would be very positive, which is to document how BEST is evolving. 
Any methodology, evolves as it ages. I think that is a positive thing. Let's record the changes and benefit from the documentation.


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

*Missouri kid*



Jim C said:


> Hmm-who was that kid from MO?


Jim,

I had to go back through some old records, which would make the gentleman around 30 now, but the only super-shooter "Olympic" hopeful I ever knew of from Missouri was Robert Sieg, Jr. He was from the St. Louis area and was quite good, even breaking 1300 his last intermediate year, or his first adult year. FYI

See ya sometime,

JCL


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

pencarrow said:


> It would be nice to hear the thoughts of someone that has actually trained under Coach Lee. How does the " apparent " ever evolving system, effect long term training." Forget what we taught you yesterday, we want you to do it this way now."


I was fortunate enough to have been able to train under Coach Lee via email for about a year then for a few sessions at the training center between 2005 and 2006. There were quite a few things that I have seen changed. 

A classic example would be a renowned Australian archer who told me that if he had a dollar for every time coach lee had changed his form he'd have been a millionaire 

With that said, I don't think it would be beneficial to go through all those things and the reasons for them here. They might be of value to discuss in a coaches developement committee, but the direction we need now is for the common ground at the base to be defined and developed for all coaches to work from.

There are pieces of this great archery puzzle that every coach in the world would agree to hang their hat on. In most cases these are concepts not rigid forms. Some of them are spacially based and others are execution based.

If we go away from the idea that there is a single "form" and go with the idea that there are correct concepts to always be moving toward, we allow for a greater variety of body types and individuallity, yet have agreement across the board.

To say that our best method is one coaches form, leaves no room for a Dick Tone, Lloyd Brown, Rick McKinney, Alexander Kirilov, Ruth Rowe, Sherri Rhodes, or any of the other equally great coaches we have across the country. To see that continue at the expense of our sport in this country would be a great travesty.

I'll suggest that a curriculum based on solid concepts would be highly preferable to one that is based on ridged forms that very few would be capible of conforming to in the long run.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

Seattlepop said:


> Rick, I am among those who are grateful for your participation in these discussions.
> 
> I also think some of your criticism here gives visibility to what I think touches on some common problems folks have with Lee's system.
> 
> ...


Well said. However, the high grip should not be an issue. The grip can be adjusted under the BEST system. Also, the reason for Coach Lee's grip design is to stabilize the high grip is it is used. Every Korean shooter uses the high grip, but as with them Coach Lee allow grip variance.

Frankly I think you hit on most of the problem with BEST. Many of the critics have very little insight to what they are actually being critical of. Maybe some read the book, but I doubt they have been coached in the system because if they had they would know Coach Lee does take into consideration a persons body type and the limitations they have physically. 

Rich McKinney's glaring error in assuming his over draw would have been a problem with Coach Lee when in fact it would have been encouraged is a prime example of lack of understanding.:mg:

The BEST system allows room for adjustments. It is not a shooting system cast in concrete and to say it is, just shows a persons lack of understanding of the whole system.

The critics should seek some actually coaching. Until then they are making a bit of fool of themselves.

Art


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

Mr. Black Magic said:


> Well gee, if we are going to be quoting Albert here.
> 
> "The only real valuable thing is intuition." Something the environment of BEST seems to stifle.:wink:


I'd like you to explain your definition of "intuition" regarding the archery shot. And, if the "only real valuable thing is intuition" you must mean the hours and hours of practice learning to get a consistent shot off are useless. 

And, how do you think the BEST method stifles it. backatcha. As compared to other coaching methods or shooting styles?

Thanks


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

c3hammer said:


> I was fortunate enough to have been able to train under Coach Lee via email for about a year then for a few sessions at the training center between 2005 and 2006. There were quite a few things that I have seen changed.
> 
> A classic example would be a renowned Australian archer who told me that if he had a dollar for every time coach lee had changed his form he'd have been a millionaire
> 
> ...


Excellent post Pete. I, for one, would really like to see a curriculum for teaching in the current structure. There is nothing in the current level 2 instruction about teaching. There is a discussion about what to teach. As such, it is based on "T" form and very perfunctory. I tried to start a PM discussion about this with a very passionate backer of USA Archery and Kisik Lee, as it has been a very divisive topic, but got no response.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

titanium man said:


> Jim,
> 
> I had to go back through some old records, which would make the gentleman around 30 now, but the only super-shooter "Olympic" hopeful I ever knew of from Missouri was Robert Sieg, Jr. He was from the St. Louis area and was quite good, even breaking 1300 his last intermediate year, or his first adult year. FYI
> 
> ...


Thanks Jason-13 or so years ago I was only shooting 3D -I started back into FITA Recurve in 97 or so. I was getting some of the target magazines in 1994 (I went to 95 Oxford Nationals to look into getting back into the FITA game) but I don't recall that name.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

ArtV said:


> Rich McKinney's glaring error in assuming his over draw would have been a problem with Coach Lee when in fact it would have been encouraged is a prime example of lack of understanding.:mg:
> 
> Art


I must apologize for my lack of communicating my point properly. I frequently use Darrell and myself as prime examples of extreme form differences and yet similar accomplishments. I know that some if not most of you understood that I was trying to use myself as the problem, but you may have missed that Darrell's alignment would have been a sticking point which Lee would not have allowed, since it was in front of line and not inline or behind line. Now...I don't know about you, but here is a guy that used to set new world records by one or two points and then set it again a week later by one or two more points. I wonder what would have happened if he was required to "get in line". Me, defending my alignment issue was just a matter of fact since a slight past line is not what I was. It was just an egotistical defensive posture and I apologize. 

Since I used a poor example of myself with the alignment, let's correct that and use my stance. If you do not know how I shot, just try shooting with both feet on the shooting line. That's a 90 degree stance by the way. That's the way I shot and did fairly well with it. I am sure that Lee would not have allowed it. What would have happened? I would have shot a lot lower scores creating a VERY angry archer. I have had to deal with conflicts with coaches who see my form as not normal from 1975 to 1996 by some very well known coaches. This is not a resistance to change, but more of an understanding of what I can do with what I have. The feel of a shot is something that has to come from within. But I am getting off topic. 

Again, the importance is setting up a solid form coaching system that is understandable to follow and implement. Lee can make his small modifications to each individual archer as he sees fit. That is not the point. We, as coaches, have to have a starting point that allows all archers to have a solid form base and THEN we make the slight "biomechanical" deviations that help the individual archer establish a better consistency of the shot. 

....and Art....it's Rick not Rich...


----------



## Greg Bouras (Nov 17, 2006)

c3hammer said:


> Yes Greg it's a step by step process, but we don't grill a steak the same way we make a salad
> 
> There are alot of ways to cook an egg, but in the end of the day I'll bet it's unlikely you and I will like it done the same way :tongue:
> 
> ...



Therein lies the irony, isn’t that exactly what our friend Einstein observed?
The analogy to food was a feeble attempt to spoon feed individuals like Warbow who obviously do not have a pallet for intuitive thought.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Greg Bouras said:


> Therein lies the irony, isn’t that exactly what our friend Einstein observed?
> The analogy to food was a feeble attempt to spoon feed individuals like Warbow who obviously do not have a pallet for intuitive thought.


Hmm...so you are agreeing that your analogy was faulty but seemingly criticizing me for finding fault with it?

My comments in this thread, I should think, have been pretty reserved and uncontroversial. Is there something specific you take issue with?


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

Rick McKinney said:


> I must apologize for my lack of communicating my point properly. I frequently use Darrell and myself as prime examples of extreme form differences and yet similar accomplishments. I know that some if not most of you understood that I was trying to use myself as the problem, but you may have missed that Darrell's alignment would have been a sticking point which Lee would not have allowed, since it was in front of line and not inline or behind line. Now...I don't know about you, but here is a guy that used to set new world records by one or two points and then set it again a week later by one or two more points. I wonder what would have happened if he was required to "get in line". Me, defending my alignment issue was just a matter of fact since a slight past line is not what I was. It was just an egotistical defensive posture and I apologize.
> 
> Since I used a poor example of myself with the alignment, let's correct that and use my stance. If you do not know how I shot, just try shooting with both feet on the shooting line. That's a 90 degree stance by the way. That's the way I shot and did fairly well with it. I am sure that Lee would not have allowed it. What would have happened? I would have shot a lot lower scores creating a VERY angry archer. I have had to deal with conflicts with coaches who see my form as not normal from 1975 to 1996 by some very well known coaches. This is not a resistance to change, but more of an understanding of what I can do with what I have. The feel of a shot is something that has to come from within. But I am getting off topic.
> 
> ...


OOP's, sorry for that... Must have been alignment problem with the key board.:embara:

Rick, your post is spot on. I think Coach Lee is trying to do exactly what you suggest....creating a solid base first, then make the adjustment for the individual. Currently, from what I am reading, most critics seem to think a hodge podge of teaching/coaching methods is ok to start young archer's. Then somehow they will intuitively migrate to the shooting form necessary for international competition. I read a lot of heart break and frustration in that line of thought. The success of the Koreans, I feel, is they are all taught a base, the same base and then it is continued through their shooting career with adjustments for the individual needs. But, until they reach a certain level of maturity in shooting they stay with the same base form. I think that is what Rick is suggesting. Perhaps I'm wrong. 

The bottom line. Coach Lee is the coach and should have the latitude to instruct the young shooters in his charge the way he feels best. He also has a proven track record. The only other Coach in American that has brought Gold to America is Tim Strictland. He doesn't use sights on bows anymore.
Art


----------



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

ArtV said:


> The only other Coach in American that has brought Gold to America is Tim Strictland. He doesn't use sights on bows anymore.
> Art


Presuming you mean Olympic gold, who's the first?


----------



## Jurasic Archer (May 23, 2002)

Bud Folks, John Williams, Al Henderson, Dick Tone, and Lloyd Brown. How did I do?


----------



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

Sorry dude, looks like you're wrong. There's only one answer, not the five you provided. 

Art appears to have been reading the Kisik Lee International page-


> He has led five teams to the Olympic Games and seen his athletes win a Gold medal every time.


Must be him.

Also, Coach Lee doesn't appear in your answer at all. Minus five points for guessing (it's like the SATs).


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

i believe they were referring to a coach OTHER than kisik lee....IIRC when archery was brought back to the olympics in 1972 the gold medalists were john williams and doreen wilber so it must have been their coaches who gave the americans their first olympic gold....unfortunately i do not know who their coaches were.....


----------



## Mr. Black Magic (Sep 13, 2007)

Rick McKinney said:


> I must apologize for my lack of communicating my point properly. I frequently use Darrell and myself as prime examples of extreme form differences and yet similar accomplishments. I know that some if not most of you understood that I was trying to use myself as the problem, but you may have missed that Darrell's alignment would have been a sticking point which Lee would not have allowed, since it was in front of line and not inline or behind line. Now...I don't know about you, but here is a guy that used to set new world records by one or two points and then set it again a week later by one or two more points. I wonder what would have happened if he was required to "get in line". Me, defending my alignment issue was just a matter of fact since a slight past line is not what I was. It was just an egotistical defensive posture and I apologize.
> 
> Since I used a poor example of myself with the alignment, let's correct that and use my stance. If you do not know how I shot, just try shooting with both feet on the shooting line. That's a 90 degree stance by the way. That's the way I shot and did fairly well with it. I am sure that Lee would not have allowed it. What would have happened? I would have shot a lot lower scores creating a VERY angry archer. I have had to deal with conflicts with coaches who see my form as not normal from 1975 to 1996 by some very well known coaches. This is not a resistance to change, but more of an understanding of what I can do with what I have. The feel of a shot is something that has to come from within. But I am getting off topic.
> 
> ...


One might go so far as to say that's intuitive


----------



## fitadude (Jul 15, 2004)

*Wow I can't believe it*

Man I have been gone for awhile and we are finally agreeing with me. I do not care what magic system you have. If the body does not relate to the system it wont work. As most of you know I am not built like a Korean and therefore a can not shoot like one. I am a cowboy American and I do not have or want to have that style. My coach was smart enough to take what I had and make it repeatable over and over again. He made it easy for me to pick up the bow and shoot well after a vacation. 
Glad to see that we are not all getting sucked into a idea that has not worked. The training center has ruined more great archers than it has ever produced....Just my two cents.....You know me never can keep my mouth shut....Have a great day all...:darkbeer:


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

No harm Art... 

I think what has happened is that Lee and his group are trying to get this cart going before the horse. He is trying to implement many new programs and ideas before there is any organizational, managerial and leadership programs established to help him. So we are really spinning our wheels until this is all in place. Once there is a solid program in place then most coaches will get a better handle on just what Lee is expecting of us. 



Jurasic Archer said:


> Bud Folks, John Williams, Al Henderson, Dick Tone, and Lloyd Brown. How did I do?


Now, about this Gold Medal coach issue. Let's clear up a few things. Here are the team coaches of the US since 1972 and the individual coaches as best I can recall:

1972 - Bud Fowkes (came home with two medals)
John Williams - His dad
Doreen Wilber - Skeeter I believe but Ed Martin would be able to verify that. Ed was our NAA President back in the late 70's
1976 - Al Henderson (came home with two medals)
Darrell Pace - Bud & Mildred Pierson
Luann Ryon - John Williams
1980- Dwight Nyquist and thanks to our naive president Mr. Carter we did not go
1984 - John WIlliams (came home with two medals, I took a Silver behind Darrell and Sheri was my coach)
Darrell Pace - see above
1988 - Sheri Rhodes (every team member came home with a medal. Jay, Darrell and I took a Silver in the team and Denise, Melanie and Debbie took a Bronze in the Team) and this is the only time we all came home with a medal.
Jay Barrs - Dick Tone
1992 - Dick Tone (First time we ever came home without a medal)
1996 - Mike King Head coach, Assistant coach was Lloyd Brown 
Justin Huish - Not sure, I think Lloyd takes credit on this one
Rod White, Butch Johnson and Justin Huish - Team Gold - Rod was coached by Tim, Not sure if Butch was coached by Tim but they were close friends. 
2000 - LLoyd Brown - Men, Nancy Myrick - Women
Vic Wunderle took a Silver - Larry Skinner
Men's team took a bronze. I think it was Vic, Butch and Rod
2004 - Frank Thomas - Men, Sheri Rhodes - Women
2008 - Lee

That's it for our Gold Medals. Now about head team coaches. Most of the time they are there for leadership and guidance. They usually are not the "personal" coach of the individual archer. Some head coaches like to claim that they are the reason for the win, but realistically the work should have already been done way before the archer gets there. There were a few coaches that used to state that the ones who listened to them were the ones that won and the ones who didn't did not win. Great CYA attitude....

The one thing that you should realize is that if the personality of the coach and the archer do not jell...it's not going to happen or at least it will be a huge hurrdle to clear.


----------



## Jurasic Archer (May 23, 2002)

Rick McKinney said:


> No harm Art...
> 
> I think what has happened is that Lee and his group are trying to get this cart going before the horse. He is trying to implement many new programs and ideas before there is any organizational, managerial and leadership programs established to help him. So we are really spinning our wheels until this is all in place. Once there is a solid program in place then most coaches will get a better handle on just what Lee is expecting of us.
> 
> ...


Now that's about as complete as it gets!! Nice Job. Who was your coach before Sheri? You and your brother both were as good as I had ever seen back in the 70's even before moving to the desert.


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

*Back?*



Jim C said:


> Thanks Jason-13 or so years ago I was only shooting 3D -I started back into FITA Recurve in 97 or so. I was getting some of the target magazines in 1994 (I went to 95 Oxford Nationals to look into getting back into the FITA game) but I don't recall that name.


Thanks for the reply Jim, although I was a bit puzzled when you said get "back" into FITA. You're not much older if not the same age as me, and I failed to see your name on any of my old "weep" sheets, here around the midwest, from around 1975 on. Even National results, did I just overlook that? I'm sure I'd have remembered you, no matter what part of the continent you were on. Luckily, I've got "nearly" every weep sheet you've shot in, remember, I'm "King of Ohio". Doth thou hast proclamest? :teeth:


----------



## James Park (Jan 4, 2003)

When I look back at the many years I have watched archery in the USA a couple of things really stand out:
- The best equipment has always come from the USA (and still does).
- The USA has always had excellent archers (both recurve and compound).
- The USA has always had excellent coaches (just look through Rick's list).
- For as long as I can remember, you would always expect the USA to figure prominently in the results of any international tournament.
- I know that we all seem to get a bit phased by the Korean performances for recurve, but nevertheless the USA is right up there (still).

Why then would the USA see it necessary to import a foreign coach?
I would have thought (and do think) that there is plenty of coaching talent still available in the USA, and having a local coach comes with the very important attributes of no language problems and a good understanding of the culture of the country (how the people work).

(Before anyone comments: I know you could say exactly the same things about Australia, and you would be correct).

(That is: has the USA developed an inferiority complex? It does not seem like the USA to have done so, but I find it difficult to explain otherwise.)


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Usually in sports, everything cycles, it will come back to USA #1...someday.


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

James Park said:


> Why then would the USA see it necessary to import a foreign coach?


The current culture dominant in this country right now thinks you can buy success. If coach X won for country Y, then hire (buy the services of) coach X and we will win. The consternation you are seeing is (in my opinion) partly because no medals showed up for the money spent. Not entirely fair to Lee but he's an adult and he took the job.

Dave


----------



## James Park (Jan 4, 2003)

However, it seems to me that (for example) a KSL would not be better than (for example) a Lloyd Brown, and the local guy would have a much better understanding of how USA archers think and work (he would understand the culture better), and would speak the language well. Most of the skill of the coach is centred around getting the best out of what you have as an athlete, and a major part of that is not equipment or technique but mental, so communication and understanding how the archer works is pretty fundamental.
It also seems to me that there are not going to be any remarkable technique or equipment revelations just because there is a foreign coach - any decent American coach would understand them anyway. And in any case, just about all good equipment development has come from the USA, so the USA should understand that end of things better than most.


----------



## James Park (Jan 4, 2003)

Dave T said:


> If coach X won for country Y, then hire (buy the services of) coach X and we will win. Dave


So, it really is an inferiority complex? Stunning.


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

James Park said:


> So, it really is an inferiority complex? Stunning.


LOL James!!!! That's a good one, yet very true.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

*"Its easier to ride a horse in the direction its going"*

Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Please and thank you.


----------



## Mr. Black Magic (Sep 13, 2007)

James Park said:


> So, it really is an inferiority complex? Stunning.


Not so much as a shining example of "Fast Food Archery" We didn't win gold FIXIT FIXIT FIXIT now, mentality and try and buy some instant gratification.

Once again a solution was implemented for a problem which IMHO didn't exist.


They traded in the car 'cause it stopped running when they forgot to put gas in it


And look _who_ wrote the forward to Total Archery:embara:


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

*"Its easier to ride a horse in the direction its going"*

Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Please and thank you.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

titanium man said:


> Thanks for the reply Jim, although I was a bit puzzled when you said get "back" into FITA. You're not much older if not the same age as me, and I failed to see your name on any of my old "weep" sheets, here around the midwest, from around 1975 on. Even National results, did I just overlook that? I'm sure I'd have remembered you, no matter what part of the continent you were on. Luckily, I've got "nearly" every weep sheet you've shot in, remember, I'm "King of Ohio". Doth thou hast proclamest? :teeth:



I shot some indoors as a kid with the pierson group of kids 1971-1975. I wasn't a formal member of the CJO then but Mildred invited kids from my HS archery club to shoot with her joad kids at their range a few times a year. The only outdoor tournaments I shot were at various camps where archery was just another activity.

When I was living in Ithaca, I got back into archery (1981-1985) Mostly bow hunting but there was a bit of target archery up there and I broke out the old Bear C handle, had the local shop make me up some 2014 target arrows and shot along with the compound guys on their target range and ad hoc field course


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

James Park said:


> So, it really is an inferiority complex? Stunning.


Hi Jim,
It's been a long time. You got my 'dander' up on this one... 

I respectfully disagree with thinking we have an inferiority complex. I believe we still have the best archers in the world but unfortunately we are not able to prove it. :embara: Vic's 115 at the Games, taking down the number one archer in the world, is just the tip of the iceberg of his capability. But unfortunately there is little effort in mental training. As a coach, I would love to have had the team we had at the Games for a couple of months. Butch Johnson is one of the most remarkable shooters I have ever had the privilege to shoot with but his international mental game sucks! Sorry Butch....  Brady has so much talent he reeks with potential domination! But he is fighting the perception that nobody supports the RA program. All the RA's were kept informed of the political bickering over the last couple of years which they did not need to know about. They felt betrayed and felt there was no moral support. However a couple of people wanted to use them for their own purpose, so they kept the RA's informed (disgusting!). Jenny Nichols is as good as any American female archer we have ever produced. Khatuna has proven she has so much talent hidden but again she has had to fight for every point due to prejudices, bias and just plan fear. Karen Scavoto has the talent to win Gold without a doubt, but her mental game is about as good as Butch's. However, there has been so little support from the USOC, NAA and the membership for these people, it disgusts me! I am not talking money here, I am talking good old heart felt verbal and moral support. Every direction these arches turned they have had to deal with roadblocks. They have been given little if any respect by our own organization. They have had to fight for support which should not be their job. They have had so much to deal with I am amazed that they have performed as well as they have in the past four years. 

As for why do we have a "foreign" coach. The past couple of coaches the NAA had down at the Olympic Training Center got about 1/3 the amount of money that Lee is getting. Lee has had full reign on how to coach the archers, who will stay, who will leave, where they will travel to compete with no strings attached. The past American coaches literally had their hands tied behind their backs. They were held to a very tight budget, had to ask permission before they could bring in an archer or ask an archer to leave, thus were restrained of what they could do. You are talking night and day of what the American coaches were allowed and what Lee has been allowed. 

Now I am not against Lee. He comes with good credentials and a good understanding of shot execution. But you are right when it comes to dealing with cultural issues. That's why there has been so much controversy. In time we will get back on track and hopefully Lee with do the job he was hired to do. But the foundation has to be built in order to support his efforts.

Mike, Before Sheri coached me, my dad was the one who helped me with my form and the understanding of trying to find my own style and technique. Sheri was able to help organize my thoughts, my training regimen and how to prepare mentally. Of course, she's a woman, so most guys would have a hard time thinking she would be able to help them....


----------



## James Park (Jan 4, 2003)

Rick,
I was stirring. 

I do agree, the USA certainly has sufficient talent and know-how.
I have watched US archers do wonderful things (compound as well as recurve) from when I started in 1960, and I am sure the capability is just as strong now as ever (if only the environment will let it prosper).

I agree that the trick is (mostly) the mental approach. Yes, technique and equipment do matter, but they are the easy bit and we tailor those to meet the archer where necessary.
The difficult bit is the mental approach, and I agree the last thing you need is local dissatifaction and fighting, especially if the archers are involved.
I have always felt that US archers were particularly strong mentally, so long as they were allowed to operate in an encouraging and supportive environment. Certainly I have seen them to be mentally stronger than most others.

It has always struck me that when US archers go to big tournaments they do so with the objective of wining, which seems to not always be the approach from Australians (which disappoints me).

I see many similarities between the situation in the US as in Australia (although we have far fewer archers to draw upon and hence fewer at the top).

I know that in Australia we do not give sufficient attention to the mental side of our sport (although I do try to do so for those I assist - however not always in a way that would necessarily be apparent to the archers).


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

*Clarification*



Jim C said:


> I shot some indoors as a kid with the pierson group of kids 1971-1975. I wasn't a formal member of the CJO then but Mildred invited kids from my HS archery club to shoot with her joad kids at their range a few times a year. The only outdoor tournaments I shot were at various camps where archery was just another activity.
> 
> When I was living in Ithaca, I got back into archery (1981-1985) Mostly bow hunting but there was a bit of target archery up there and I broke out the old Bear C handle, had the local shop make me up some 2014 target arrows and shot along with the compound guys on their target range and ad hoc field course


Thanks for clarifying. The one thing I've learned through the years shooting, is that all of us that are "bitten" with the archery virus, you just don't forget anybody. It may take some jogging of the memory on names at times, but we're such a small group, you can't help to eventually remember.See ya!!


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

James Park said:


> So, it really is an inferiority complex? Stunning.


Perhaps I am wrong but it seems the Aussies did just what Dave T suggested. Is this part of the lack of mental game you observe?
Art


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

Rick McKinney said:


> Hi Jim,
> It's been a long time. You got my 'dander' up on this one...
> 
> I respectfully disagree with thinking we have an inferiority complex. I believe we still have the best archers in the world but unfortunately we are not able to prove it. :embara: Vic's 115 at the Games, taking down the number one archer in the world, is just the tip of the iceberg of his capability. But unfortunately there is little effort in mental training. As a coach, I would love to have had the team we had at the Games for a couple of months. Butch Johnson is one of the most remarkable shooters I have ever had the privilege to shoot with but his international mental game sucks! Sorry Butch....  Brady has so much talent he reeks with potential domination! But he is fighting the perception that nobody supports the RA program. All the RA's were kept informed of the political bickering over the last couple of years which they did not need to know about. They felt betrayed and felt there was no moral support. However a couple of people wanted to use them for their own purpose, so they kept the RA's informed (disgusting!). Jenny Nichols is as good as any American female archer we have ever produced. Khatuna has proven she has so much talent hidden but again she has had to fight for every point due to prejudices, bias and just plan fear. Karen Scavoto has the talent to win Gold without a doubt, but her mental game is about as good as Butch's. However, there has been so little support from the USOC, NAA and the membership for these people, it disgusts me! I am not talking money here, I am talking good old heart felt verbal and moral support. Every direction these arches turned they have had to deal with roadblocks. They have been given little if any respect by our own organization. They have had to fight for support which should not be their job. They have had so much to deal with I am amazed that they have performed as well as they have in the past four years.
> ...


Jim, only likes it when he is give it.....they have a very hard time down there when it is being given to them. Unlike most Aussies there is a segment of the archery community that is a little sensitive.....:wink:

Art


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

It has always struck me that when US archers go to big tournaments they do so with the objective of wining, which seems to not always be the approach from Australians (which disappoints me).


Is there any other reason for going to a "big" tournament.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

ArtV said:


> It has always struck me that when US archers go to big tournaments they do so with the objective of wining, which seems to not always be the approach from Australians (which disappoints me).
> 
> I think you could be off track on this one Art. The Aussies are some of the toughest archers I have come across. They are few in number, live on the edge of the world, lack financial support and yet still come up with some incredible archers; compound and recurve. They are a very respected country. Hans Wright caused FITA to eliminate the peep sight since he shot so well with it back in the 60's?
> 
> Jim, I think you and I agree that the mental game is one that is hard to teach and yet few people work on. I recall that the Korean team every day used to sit in front of the target and worked on their mental game for a minimum of 45 minutes. I bet most archers in the US don't even work on their mental game for 45 minutes in a week!


----------



## Jurasic Archer (May 23, 2002)

A lovely woman as well.  The one thing that really stands out about my college years was the fact that our team coach (Marge Callahan) was not from an archery background. She understood little more than the basics and was moved over from being the coach of the Golf Team. The qualities that you mentioned (that Sheri helped you with) were similar to the things Marge Callahan was good at, even if she knew little about shot execution. 
She was outstanding at getting us as a team to play for the moment. Not work for the moment or be regimented technically for the moment, instead to just plain give it your best play. In a tournament, there was no time for work, it already had been completed before hand. The tournament was time to play and get the most out of it you could. Even when life was busy and competing was not going real well, she taught me to enjoy the moment regardless and keep it fun, because it was not going to get any better than that. Earlier on when I had more time to shoot, she did a great job of giving each of us a routine. We were required to be with the team during the team practice time, even if we did not shoot. You could study or work on your stuff, but you had to be there and support the team. Even if injured. It was interesting to look back on and never lacked in the good time factor. I know people that cannot have a good time unless everything is going well. When I see that I am thankful to have been taught differently. 
With regard to the Woman thing, one of my favorite things about this sport is the mix between men and women and the different viewpoints that get brought to the table because of it. I know allot of women that are way more organized than I am and work at it less than I do!!  
I'll shut up, I just liked the notion that Sheri being a woman could have been tough on some sensitive male egos. :embara:


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

Rick McKinney said:


> ArtV said:
> 
> 
> > It has always struck me that when US archers go to big tournaments they do so with the objective of wining, which seems to not always be the approach from Australians (which disappoints me).
> ...


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

ArtV said:


> Frankly I am at a loss reading all the comments.
> Art


Which comments specifically? 

How could you not understand the frustration of coaches who have been bannished to outter darkness because they don't agree with the philosophy of the ruling elite. How can you not see the angst against the idea that it's "my way or the highway". How can you not see that the promotion of coaches who've only been at it for a few years and have been suck ups to the powers that be, raises the ire of those who've devoted dozens of years to the betterment of archery in our country.

I'm astonished to see your hero worship has blinded you to what is really going on out there


----------



## James Park (Jan 4, 2003)

c3hammer said:


> How could you not understand the frustration of coaches who have been bannished to outter darkness because they don't agree with the philosophy of the ruling elite. (


It was the same in Australia (but has changed).


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

c3hammer said:


> Which comments specifically?
> 
> How could you not understand the frustration of coaches who have been bannished to outter darkness because they don't agree with the philosophy of the ruling elite. How can you not see the angst against the idea that it's "my way or the highway". How can you not see that the promotion of coaches who've only been at it for a few years and have been suck ups to the powers that be, raises the ire of those who've devoted dozens of years to the betterment of archery in our country.
> 
> I'm astonished to see your hero worship has blinded you to what is really going on out there


It’s a timely reference that we lose valuable people every time the Administration and/or Congress changes party. The embedded employee doesn’t like hearing new directives and learning new processes even when they share similar objectives such as, in this case, growing a sport. This is especially true if we thought we were doing just fine. 

We don’t like new people coming in and taking away our window seat, upsetting our comfort zone. Problems such as poor communication magnify the difficulties inherent to change. Some adjust and some don’t. It won’t be painless. There will be mourning. 

It is extremely unfortunate that we may lose valuable coaches in the process of change, but we can hope there are valuable coaches who can make the change and aid the process.


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

Seattlepop said:


> It’s a timely reference that we lose valuable people every time the Administration and/or Congress changes party. The embedded employee doesn’t like hearing new directives and learning new processes even when they share similar objectives such as, in this case, growing a sport. This is especially true if we thought we were doing just fine.
> 
> We don’t like new people coming in and taking away our window seat, upsetting our comfort zone. Problems such as poor communication magnify the difficulties inherent to change. Some adjust and some don’t. It won’t be painless. There will be mourning.
> 
> It is extremely unfortunate that we may lose valuable coaches in the process of change, but we can hope there are valuable coaches who can make the change and aid the process.


Spot on Seattlepop

It's a tough thing for sure, but as you say most progress or at least the hope for progress is seldom painless.

I have no hero worship for Coach Lee, but I do know that anyone leading a program cannot be wishy-washy and expect success. They have to be a firm believer in what they are doing and, that it is the correct path to follow.

When a football team isn't winning they don't keep the same coaches around that led the loosing team....there out. And, if they were worth their salt they turn up on other team rosters. They can and do come back. Also, the step from college football to the pro's requires a major transformation of the player, new coaching brings new abilities not taught by college level coaches....Olympic level shooting is the major leagues.

Mr. Park's comment just means the old regime is back in place since Lee left for America.....we'll see how that works. If given a serious chance we'll see how it works for America also.

My question above to Rick McKinney was simply to see if past programs with Olympic Archery have been as politically charged as what is going on now. Has it been the same, were coaches displaced because of a new coaching ideal?

I've read several make a comment about the "communication" problem..not sure what that means. Is it just a language barrier or are you talking about the governing body not communication the direction of the program clearly?


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

ArtV said:


> Mr. Park's comment just means the old regime is back in place since Lee left for America.....we'll see how that works.


This is just another example Art, of how you don't really know what is going on out there. Your assumptions blind you to what the facts really are.

Right now Oh Kyo Moon is the head coach in Austrailia. I would consider him to possibly be the greatest in history and far from the "old regime". Have you been to any of the national tournaments in the US much less in the world to see what is really going on? From your comments I doubt that to be the case.

The international archery community is a pretty tight knit group. They are all pretty incredible folks from what I've seen. Coach Lee is a very good fellow, he has some great ideas, but there are other folks in the world who also know how this game is played.

I'm not a believer in the concept that when a new party arrives it throws out everyone before it. We don't have to be like politics where it's a purge every 4 or 8 years. I believe we can sort out the best of the best and move forward with all the best we have together. The current system hasn't approached it that way which was a shame.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

ArtV said:


> Rick McKinney said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to ask you a question Rick. In your years of experience and being around the archery game for a long time have you seen this much in-fighting, bashing of the current Program, and discontent. It seems there is just a lot of discontent going around and I really am not sure why. It's about as bad as the last Pres Election. Frankly I am at a loss reading all the comments. Has US Archery always been like this when it came to the International Level?
> ...


----------



## ewan (Aug 28, 2007)

How depressing.


----------



## south-paaw (Jul 3, 2006)

OK... i've been following this thread since the beginning. A lot of information, and facts, and opinions. My question is .... where does a newbie start ? Look for a coach whom has the latest and greatest info on BEST( how do i confirm that ? ) ... a coach that has almost or most of the latest info... or a coach that can get me squared away with _a _form and function to postiton, draw, anchor,aim,release-follow through. 

i want to learn and be good at it, and practice and keep learning, but i want to have fun also .... advice is free and i'm buying all that i can get !...:tongue:

thanks for the forthcoming info..:thumbs_up


----------



## Archer 4 Life (Oct 27, 2008)

I agree with BEST. I really do it. It's a sound method, and has been proven successful when performing it correctly.

But haven't other methods done the same thing? What about V. Ruban at the Olympics? From what I understand, he didn't shoot BEST, and he took 1st in Mens Individual.

Why does BEST have to be thrust upon us even though there are other styles that are just as great? I'm not saying Kisik's method is bad, but just because he made it, doesn't mean it's the best. 

Archers shouldn't be made to work for one method; the method should be made to work for the archer. I for one never could work with BEST, and prefer to shoot what suits me _best_.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Archer 4 Life said:


> But haven't other methods done the same thing? What about V. Ruban at the Olympics? From what I understand, he didn't shoot BEST, and he took 1st in Mens Individual.


Sometimes this seems like an argument of which martial arts style is "superior", except that archery is objectively quantitatively measured in head to head match ups.. Until BEST shooters sweep all of the international championships BEST will just be one of many successful programs. And even if BEST coached archers were to sweep the championships that would not necesarily be proof that it is better, only, perhaps, that it was more popular with talented archers. As with martial arts, the drive and talent of the competitor is key. Without that, no coaching system can help a whit. You can't polish a turd (well, except under special circumstances as seen on Mythbusters).


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

c3hammer said:


> This is just another example Art, of how you don't really know what is going on out there. Your assumptions blind you to what the facts really are.
> 
> Right now Oh Kyo Moon is the head coach in Austrailia. I would consider him to possibly be the greatest in history and far from the "old regime". Have you been to any of the national tournaments in the US much less in the world to see what is really going on? From your comments I doubt that to be the case.
> 
> ...


I stand corrected.
Thanks for explaining things.
Art


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

Rick McKinney said:


> ArtV said:
> 
> 
> > Rick McKinney said:
> ...


----------



## spotted54 (Nov 18, 2008)

The only coaches that were put out by Coach Lee's system in Australia were the ones who thought they were good but unfortunately had little results to put on the board. They were always good on the mouth but application was a problem. Lee's record speaks for itself in Australia (compared to what there was- nothing). Regretfully there are a few people in OZ who thought the system would look after them but didn't. Take a peek into the OZ system now and see where it is. You might be surprised


----------



## James Park (Jan 4, 2003)

spotted54 said:


> (compared to what there was- nothing).


And you are who? Or are you hidding behind an alias because you are scared to use your real name?

You obviously do not know the archery history of Australia and the many international successes over many years.


----------



## spotted54 (Nov 18, 2008)

So convince me, and let's not go back to the sixties when all archers were in white.


----------



## James Park (Jan 4, 2003)

Use your real name or you are of no relevance.


----------



## spotted54 (Nov 18, 2008)

I'm waiting to be convinced!!!!!!


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

James Park. I have a question for you. In Australia, was the program the only program allowed in the organization? Were all coaches required to start teaching this method in the schools, youth, clubs, etc? or was it a program that was mainly for those with Olympic aspirations? 

Mike. Sheri actually did more than just be a manager. She was also my video camera. She could tell me when my front half was a bit out or rising. My set up on the clicker was a bit off or my head was out of position. When you are in the heat of battle, sometimes you do not think clearly about your form and she was there to make sure it stayed right while I managed the mental battle from within. I won two national titles and one world title before Sheri and with her help I was able to get a few silvers at the Games, a couple of more world titles. A couple of those events came down to the last arrow. She knew what to say and when to say it. I can only think of one other coach who had similar capabilities and that was Al Henderson.


----------



## Mr. Black Magic (Sep 13, 2007)

Rick McKinney said:


> James Park. I have a question for you. In Australia, was the program the only program allowed in the organization? Were all coaches required to start teaching this method in the schools, youth, clubs, etc? or was it a program that was mainly for those with Olympic aspirations?



+1, I'm curious to hear about the gestation and implementation in Australia as well.


----------



## Jurasic Archer (May 23, 2002)

Rick,
Sheri has all the stuff, no doubt. Quite possibly the best ever in the College program as well as any other programs in the US. When talking about the managing stuff, what I was thinking is that few are very good at it in a practical way. To have as many tools in your tool box as Sheri is rare. The coach at the school I went to had fewer tools but was good and powerful with the ones she had and made them work for her in spite of the tools she was missing. My thoughts were in support of those outside of the core abilities that Sheri was able to accomplish with you. 
To all the coaches out there: 
I have listened to a number of coaching routines (especially lately) that have this start at point a and get to point b and it is very canned or lacking personal tailoring. To me it is the personal tailoring that separates the great coaches from the good ones. As an example, I heard a JOAD coach recently telling one of the kids they must shoot x amount of arrows a day and x amount a week. I was thinking to myself, I shoot more when I'm working on stuff and less when I have it together. When things are going well, I did not want to shoot a whole bunch, I just wanted the highest quality I can get. In fact since I tend to start slow, I wanted to shoot for short periods of time and try to get to full control sooner and not have to warm up for so long. The issue about the best system changing and people being upset by it brings a suppressed chuckle. The most powerful ability a really good coach is knowing when to change directions and work on a different key area of a persons package (not that package). When I think of my own weaknesses, they migrate around from day to day. They keep me on my toes wondering which one will surface and wreak havoc on me today. 
As you conquer the demons, one by one you move on the next one. In that way, shooting changes, coaching changes, needs migrate. As you wrap your hands around another technique or method that works and get a grip on it, time to move to the next issue. Good coaching follows the needs or weaknesses and therefore migrates as well. I guess what I'm saying is don't get too pent up about the info today, retain the best of it and grow another branch tomorrow with new material. 
Our head coach is the leader and really the filter of the material as well as the head guinea pig. You must have thick skin and clear vision in order to not be tainted by the masses. 
Cheers,
MG


----------



## James Park (Jan 4, 2003)

Rick McKinney said:


> James Park. I have a question for you. In Australia, was the program the only program allowed in the organization? Were all coaches required to start teaching this method in the schools, youth, clubs, etc? or was it a program that was mainly for those with Olympic aspirations?


There was no requirement to follow the KSL approach and no requirement to do so to retain a coaching accreditation.
However, there was a general desire amongst coaches to try to follow whatever approach the Institute of Sport was using (and that is still the case).
It was generally aimed at those with Olympic aspirations with a view to lessening any radical change an archer might need to make if they were admited to the program.
The coaching manuals used by Archery Australia were written by the Coaching Committee (of which I am the chairman). We always sent them to the National Coach (KSL) to get feedback from him to try to avoid us having alternative ways of doing things (or to at least do things compatibly). However, he did not write the manuals themselves but just commented on various parts.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

James Park said:


> There was no requirement to follow the KSL approach and no requirement to do so to retain a coaching accreditation.
> QUOTE]
> 
> So essentially you could follow the program if you wanted to as a coach or you could continue to do what you have done in the past. Interesting. It appears that if we still want accreditation in the US we have to comply with Lee's program. I am a bit concerned with that. I fully understand that to make a program successful you want to support it as much as possible, but as they say, it is not good to "throw the baby out with the bath water".
> ...


----------



## James Park (Jan 4, 2003)

Rick McKinney said:


> Next question Jim. Did the archers at the Olympic training center have physical injuries? Such as shoulder, finger, wrist issues? Here in the US there have been some problems discussed which leads me to believe that the physical trainers are not fully aware of the archer athlete, only a "typical" athlete.
> 
> Also, do you guys have a mental program or a sports psychologist available?


Yes, there have been injuries. Mostly shoulder.
It annoyed me intensely back prior to 2000 when two of the women I was coaching (Kate and Michelle) were injured through physical trainers not knowing about archery (that was as a result of advice through one of the institutes of sport). I promptly stopped them having such activities.
As far as I can tell there is not much of a mental program although in the past a sports psych was available. It is certainly an area I give attention to (but outside the AIS program) as it is temendously important..


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

James Park said:


> Yes, there have been injuries. Mostly shoulder.
> It annoyed me intensely back prior to 2000 when two of the women I was coaching (Kate and Michelle) were injured through physical trainers not knowing about archery (that was as a result of advice through one of the institutes of sport). I promptly stopped them having such activities.


I'm curious as to what specifically you put a stop to. Certain strength exercises? What are some contra-indicated things for archers?


----------



## James Park (Jan 4, 2003)

Warbow said:


> I'm curious as to what specifically you put a stop to. Certain strength exercises? What are some contra-indicated things for archers?


The Sports Institute trainers (not the AIS) wanted them to do strength training for their lower bodies. They both ended up with leg injuries. So I got them away from that sort of thing very promptly. I have found that that type of trainer has little idea of what to do for an archer.

I am very mindful of wanting our archers to have techniques that absolutely minimise the possibility of injury. Aside from damaging the prospects of those archers it alsoi scares people away from the sport.
Consequently I am very cautious in the technique I have my archers (and me) adopt). For example, I want a technique that minimises muscle use (and especially small muscles like the rotator cuff), aligns forces along bones, and avoids as much as possible moving joints when they are under load. This is particularly important for the bowarm shoulder joint. However, I do see a number of archers at top-level tournaments not doing what I would do in some of these areas and can only think that their coaches have not thought too much about injuries. For example, I would never have the archer draw aimed down low and then raise the bowarm to the target - poor biomechanics and promoting the possibility of shoulder injuries.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

James Park said:


> For example, I would never have the archer draw aimed down low and then raise the bowarm to the target - poor biomechanics and promoting the possibility of shoulder injuries.


That's something I was wondering about. One of the key tenets of BEST, as it is handed down, is the long pre-draw set up--essentially a mini-swing draw-- to facilitate proper shoulder alignment when performing the final draw to anchor/transfer/holding rather than what coach Lee calls brace-height set up, which he says doesn't create proper shoulder alignment.

This is one of those areas where the BEST Method, as it trickles down, gets muddled. One HP L4 coach emphasized the absolute importance of the long pre-draw, even though his own style was completely different. Whereas an L3 coach told me that coach Lee was flexible in person about the long pre-draw as long as the archer ultimately got his shoulders into proper alignment.

People speak well of coach Lee's abilities in person, and his flexibility in person--at least that is what I generally hear. However, the BEST system as as formally promulgated doesn't seem to have that same flexibility built in, and I wonder if that is the case or not.

Now, back to injuries. James Park, are you saying you don't advocate the long preset, or are you referring to something different? Such as coming to full draw aimed low and then lifting the bow arm up to come to proper aim?


----------



## Mr. Black Magic (Sep 13, 2007)

Rick McKinney said:


> James Park said:
> 
> 
> > There was no requirement to follow the KSL approach and no requirement to do so to retain a coaching accreditation.
> ...


----------



## James Park (Jan 4, 2003)

Warbow said:


> Now, back to injuries. James Park, are you saying you don't advocate the long preset, or are you referring to something different? Such as coming to full draw aimed low and then lifting the bow arm up to come to proper aim?


What I am saying is:
Make sure that the bowarm shoulder joint is not being moved while it is under heavy load. Otherwise you are risking shoulder injuries.
That is: put the bowarm shoulder joint and bowarm where it will be at full draw or near to there and draw the bow in a manner that does not require any or much movement of that joint.
Also, orient the upper arm such that the rotator cuff muscles are not being used.
Otherwise, think about how you are going to deal with injuries.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

James Park said:


> What I am saying is:
> Make sure that the bowarm shoulder joint is not being moved while it is under heavy load. Otherwise you are risking shoulder injuries.
> That is: put the bowarm shoulder joint and bowarm where it will be at full draw or near to there and draw the bow in a manner that does not require any or much movement of that joint.
> Also, orient the upper arm such that the rotator cuff muscles are not being used.
> Otherwise, think about how you are going to deal with injuries.


Seems to me that such caveats, if they are grounded in sound science, should be a key part of coaching down to the lowest levels, yet I only hear about them as anecdotes in the forums. I wonder if this is something covered in the FITA "Sports Medicine and Science in Archery" book?


----------



## James Park (Jan 4, 2003)

This sort of stuff is covered in the Archery Australia coaching material.
I cover it in my books ('Mastering Archery').
I agree - important for all levels, not just the elite. We never want to have archers running an increased risk of injury (although I suppose we could just have them sit in their lounge rooms watching archery on the television, rather than doing it and risking injury).


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Jim, Thanks for sharing your experience with us so we can learn how to deal with Lee's program. 

The front shoulder appears to be a sticking point with a lot of coaches and archers. I personally feel that you should start with the bow raised above your shoulder by a fair amount. Like close to 10". This allows the shoulder to fit into the socket correctly as you draw the bow back, and it is much easier to get through the clicker. When you put pressure on the front half when when the bow hand and arm, this literally wedges the shoulder into place. I have never noticed any shoulder issues with this method. I have watched some of the best Koreans do this which helped to solidify my efforts to work with archers this way. When you start at even position or below, this allows the front shoulder to rise which puts the shoulder out of the socket which will cause potential strain. Also, it is so hard to get through the clicker when the front shoulder is rising. 

The method that the archers were using at the training center may work for some, but many will not be able to do it right. The amount of strength and stamina required would only work for full time archers at best. This is the set the shoulder at predraw with the arrow airmed at the ground. 

I agree that using smaller muscle mass allows you to execute a more finite shot and give you a lot more accuracy.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

James Park said:


> This sort of stuff is covered in the Archery Australia coaching material.
> I cover it in my books ('Mastering Archery').
> I agree - important for all levels, not just the elite. We never want to have archers running an increased risk of injury (although I suppose we could just have them sit in their lounge rooms watching archery on the television, rather than doing it and risking injury).


Good to hear, though now I have yet _more_ material I may wish to add to my under-read library of archery tomes...  I'd be curious to compare the Archery Australia coaching manual to the US equivalents, but seems the postage might cost more than the publication...though I'm not sure since the "INTRODUCTION TO ARCHERY" manual isn't actually listed on the order from at publications section archery.org.au.


----------



## James Park (Jan 4, 2003)

Rick,
I agree.
The way Miss Park from Korea draws the bow is in accord with the way I like it and with how you describe it, both for the reasons you give and for minimising injury.
That way of drawing is also covered in the book 'Archery Anatomy'.
I cannot think of any good reasons to do it differently to that.
The seminars that the Archery Australia CEO (Jim Larven) and I have given widely around Australia promote exactly this method and for those reasons.


----------



## James Park (Jan 4, 2003)

You can find some of the Archery Australia material here:
http://www.archery.org.au/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService=ASP0009/ccms.r?pageid=10282

My writing on the topic is in my book:
http://www.archery-forum.com/showthread.php?t=20917
(Although the Archery Australia material was assembled by Jim Larven from what I presented in our seminars and is pretty similar).


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Jim, You mean Wombat is running your organizaiton? Lord help you!


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

*The sports medicine book says...*

Having had shoulder problems for years, including surgery, I am also interested in the proper mechanics. Telling someone what NOT to do, BTW, is not very helpful. Don’t use your rotator muscles in a way that will lead to injury. Duh! 

Also, I think it would be helpful if commentors would actually view the Easton DVD to see what Lee is demonstrating for teaching new archers. Say, maybe an AOL type promotion would work, you know, six in every mailbox!


The sports medicine book:
Much of the book is indigestible for a layman like me, but in regard to the proper draw sequence:

"The different aspects of the draw must occur in the correct sequence to be effective.

First - the rhomboid muscles must retract, or pull the scapula in toward the spine. This ensures good posture and puts the scapulo-thoracic joint in correct mechanical position to start the shot. The mid and lower fibers of the trapezius then rotate to scapula around to lift the acromion and the glenoid cavity upward (Figure 4). This clears the sub acromial space to allow room for the tuberosity on the humeral head to elevate as the arm is abducted.


Second – the arm is lifted into the draw position using the lard deltoid muscle and the rotator cuff muscles contract as a group, pulling the ball into the socket securely and stabilizing the humeral head in the socket. If the scapular rotation has not occurred, the space is too narrow and these little muscles become impinged under the arch and injury occurs.

Third – the external rotators (infraspinatus) turn the head of the humerus to clear the insertion of the Rotator cuff and the sub acromial bursa out from under the acromial arch.

The archer then retracts the entire complex with the rhomboids to reach full draw before releasing the arrow. 

If any timing errors occur in the set up, or if there is any muscle weakness or imbalance, the archer is at increased risk for injury. A common fault associated with impingement syndromes in athletes is poor scapular stabilization. The shoulder girdle is then not anchored or positioned correctly putting the sub acromial structures at high risk for impingement.”

In regard to the bow arm:

“The muscles of the bow arm are less often injured but also can be subject to repetitive strain if the scapula is not strong and stable. Without the rhomboids and lower/middle trapezius muscles securing the scapula to the rib cage, the entire shoulder complex is elevated when the strong deltoid group contracts.

The archer ends up with his shoulder tucked up towards his ear giving him much less strength in the bow arm. He can not then push the arm out into the strong position he needs to hold the bow and withstand adverse conditions such as wind”.

From: "Sports Medicine and the Science in Archery", Ergen & Hibner


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

Seattlepop, posting it twice didn't make it any clearer. (just kidding)

Dave


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

*oops!*

That's the second time I've done that recently! Admin was kind enough to delete the dupe, I'll ask again. I must be doing something wrong with the back-key, sorry.


----------



## strcpy (Dec 13, 2003)

James Park said:


> Rick,
> I agree.
> The way Miss Park from Korea draws the bow is in accord with the way I like it and with how you describe it, both for the reasons you give and for minimising injury.
> That way of drawing is also covered in the book 'Archery Anatomy'.
> ...


That is also how I start my draw even in the older T method (though not quite as high). It also seems to me to be about the best way to engage the back muscles for the draw and keep the weight off smaller less strong muscles (along with a higher draw elbow).

The amount of pre-draw that I saw in the Olympiads that were shooting KSL's method varied considerably. In fact there was much that people are griping over that varied by quite a large amount so I can not see it set in stone. I also see in the videos of the younger students of Lee's that are coming up - individual coaching.

The only thing I worry about is that, for long term shooters, that it is moving stress too much into the joint/bone. While it creates a strong platform to shoot from those areas are not known for fast healing and the amount of repetitions many of us do (including people like me that have no desire to be anything but an amateur) I think will result in shoulder problems whe we get older. As much as I prefer to keep tension away from those rotator muscles I like to keep it in the big strong ones too - they can handle it better than almost anything else in the body. I think that the standard T method of bone-on-bone alignment and keeping the tension in the large muscles of the back is superior for long term non-injury over the bone-to-bone alignment advocated in BEST. But then, as I've said before - time will tell and I will be happy to be wrong.

As for the certification process I can choose to use what I learn there or not. I think the top down approach of certification is only a good thing - any other "big" sport does that for a reason. I never really took anything in any of it to be "this way or the high way" - in fact from reading Lee's website he is quite flexible as far as I can tell. The few I have talked to that have actually done some training under him say the same thing.

Personally I do not see the difference between what was going on a few years back - you had to learn the T method - vs what is going on now - you have to learn BEST. In either case there was a rigid set of rules that you were given to teach. If simply being forced into something is the bad thing then it is no different. I was never taught how to be flexible with my students and tailor anything to them - what I know how to do I know from experience (with both failures and successes). If I had my own style and had a student go to the OTC then the coaches there (just as they now do) would have tried to talk to them about the T method instead of my own developed method. And, now just as then, the choice of who goes to the olympics is based on merit on the line - none of that has changed. 

The only real difference I see is that BEST is newer and many are resistant to change. Though I can understand why those that were the ones in charge and locking others out do not like it when they are no longer in charge and getting locked out in the same fashion. Give BEST 10 years of acceptance and when the next great thing comes out this will be repeated all over again.


----------



## mbu (Oct 22, 2003)

Just ran across an article in today’s New York Times “USA Archery Stands by Its Coach”: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/sports/othersports/19archery.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper


----------



## simon f (Aug 26, 2008)

Rick McKinney said:


> Jim, You mean Wombat is running your organizaiton? Lord help you!


 Not many people here would remember that name Rick haha... but yes:shocked:


----------



## Canjapan2003 (Jun 3, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> Also, I think it would be helpful if commentors would actually view the Easton DVD to see what Lee is demonstrating for teaching new archers.


Easton DVD? With Coach Lee? Let me see!! 
Is that a DVD availible for the public?


----------



## mainline (Aug 26, 2008)

I don't know why there is so much attention given to the coaches. Without athletes the program is a complete failure!!!!!!!


----------



## Archer 4 Life (Oct 27, 2008)

Canjapan2003 said:


> Easton DVD? With Coach Lee? Let me see!!
> Is that a DVD availible for the public?


I think he's talking about the B.E.S.T. Beginnings, which yeah, is public; but it's only recently gone public I think. My coach picked it up and had the team watch it yesterday. I'm not sure where to order it though. I think I saw a mention of it on Texas State Archer Association, but I can't remember. =/

If you're going for B.E.S.T., pick it up. Great demonstrations and info for learning it.

I, for one, would rather sell my bow than shoot B.E.S.T.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

canjapan2003 said:


> easton dvd? With coach lee? Let me see!!
> Is that a dvd availible for the public?


Note that the dvd is not with coach Lee except for a short intro section. Don Rabska actually does the presentation.


Order form available at:

http://www.usarchery.org/usarchery/html/Merchandise.html

Or copy from here:


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

mainline said:


> I don't know why there is so much attention given to the coaches. Without athletes the program is a complete failure!!!!!!!


You are right partially. A good coach is a valuable tool, however it takes an archer who gets it to make it work. The two together can make champions out of just good archers. 

What I am wondering is why not find one that can do both. Take Dee for instance. His winning ways sure have helped his boys do some amazing things. John Williams worked with Luann Ryon and Lynette Johnson. Dick Tone was a top archer in the 60's and he did some great stuff with Jay Barrs. Obviously it is not always the case but if you have it why not use it?  

So Jim Park, I am wondering why you guys have Oh Kyo Moon or whomever he is, coaching the archers in Australia when you have Simon Fairweather who has not only the understanding of what it takes to win but learned a lot from Lee himself? Just having him work with the archers will inspire them to higher levels. Since he speaks the language and understands the culture I would think that Australia would really develop a very solid and sound foundation. Or is it similar to our Olympic Organizing Committee thinking that you have to have a foreigner do what your own can do but the mystic is well worth the extra cost? Or is Simon not interested in coaching?


----------



## James Park (Jan 4, 2003)

Rick,
Simon has certainly 'been there and done it'.
He would be a fine coach.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

James Park said:


> Rick,
> Simon has certainly 'been there and done it'.
> He would be a fine coach.


Well it just seems a bit strange that with your full knowledge of the game and Jim Larven's international experience and understanding of the game and Simon's World and Olympic Gold Medals, you guys would be able to form an amazing team that could build a foundation that would be envious all over the world. 

I have noticed that when you get outside help it gives you a different perspective and sometimes you can improve a program that needs to be revived. But you guys have had all of that reviving and now all you need is some good leaders which you already have. 

Here in the US, the board tried an outsider to help run the NAA for the past 10 years and we have had nothing but absolute chaos and massive loss of control of our own organization and huge financial loss. Now that Denise Parker has taken charge I expect to see things turned around in a fairly short time. Her vast knowledge of the US archery industry, NAA organization and international competitiveness over the years will show that she has what it takes and I am sure she will get the NAA back on track. What she doesn't know she has the understanding of getting those who do know to help her.

I know that champion archers are not always good leaders but when you find them, you should take advantage of them!


----------



## Canjapan2003 (Jun 3, 2006)

> I, for one, would rather sell my bow than shoot B.E.S.T.


I'm only hoping to learn to shoot W.E.L.L. (_What Ever Lets _me _Learn_ to shoot good scores ??) But I'm pretty open minded.


----------

