# Three kinds of NTS students...



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

"The Catch..."

The real world problem with the goal of "cradle to medal" NTS archers is that NTS is a fairly complex method to teach to raw beginning archers for whom you have no idea how long they will be shooting archery. 

For many of us who've personally taught thousands of raw beginners in this sport (state fairs/scout camps/church camps/4-H and JOAD), the idea of starting someone out from scratch with NTS just doesn't make much sense. I usually don't see this student for more than 30 minutes, and it would take me longer to explain NTS to this person than they are willing to spend just to "try" archery. Not only that, but if they do show up at my 4-H or JOAD program for a second lesson, rarely can I predict if I will see them for a third time, much less a fourth or 20th or 200th time. 

I am happy to teach NTS to my most dedicated students who are eager to learn it. But us on the ground spend 95% of our time working with beginner and intermediate archers. NTS was developed to produce elite archers, by someone who was an elite archer and who has spent their career working with elite archers. It is a top-down approach to producing elite archers and for this reason it weeds out an enormous percentage of archers who don't have the patience, determination, time and talent to make it work for them.

What would help many of us grassroots coaches who work with raw beginners is an acknowledgement of, and guidance for, starting out archers from scratch and getting them through that critical first year in the sport. After the first year, then we need a "transition" plan to guide the more dedicated ones into proven elite shooting techniques that will help them make a successful transition if they choose to later apply to a national training program, or perhaps go to college somewhere that teaches NTS to it's archers. 

Being able to identify where a student is in their progress would also be helpful to coaches who are getting a new student from someone else. If we could tie this progressive instruction to achievement pin colors within our JOAD/AA programs, then an archer could potentially move around and they and their new coaches could have a reasonable idea of where on the scale they fall. 

Belts in Karate come to mind... elite instructors wouldn't teach or expect the same moves from a yellow belt as they would a black belt for example.

IMO, asking a brand new archer, or even just a first year archer, to shoot with an open stance, twist at the waist, create the BOG and use angular draw and anchor is going to only serve to discourage all but the most interested and committed students. Frankly, in the U.S., we just cannot ask that much of a student until we have first created a passion and love of the game. The "Catch" is that creating that passion and love of the game means making the sport easy and fun to begin with, and we need simpler ways to teach for that to happen.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

"The Pickle"

The "pickle" so to speak, is the conundrum most of us JOAD/AA/4-H archery coaches face when we bring new shooters on board, and then coach them up to a certain level. If we could just predict which of our archers were going to stay with the sport long term, have a great work ethic, have the support they need and finally, qualify for the JDT/RA program someday, many of us would start them out with NTS from day one. But we don't get that luxury. 

Grassroots JOAD/AA/4-H coaches go through dozens or even hundreds of students before they get that one who might be in a position someday to qualify for a national training program. I have no idea what the % is, but even if 100 archers were accepted into a national training program every year, that is only a tiny, tiny fraction of all the students who show up for instruction nationwide. 

So that leaves us with the question of who to teach NTS to, and when to teach it to them. Teaching NTS is a very time-consuming process. If you are a full-time professional coach who charges a fee, that may actually work to your advantage. You would probably also get folks who are already invested enough in the sport that they are willing to go through that process with the goal of elite performance. But for most of us coaches, that isn't the case. And that puts us in a pickle, which is why most students who reach RA/JDT programs are #1's and #2's.


----------



## Jalthi (Aug 14, 2016)

I know it's a big ask, but I'd be interested in numbers - even anecdotal - regarding how many top athletes were casual participants in their sport and at some point had a "switch" flipped that turned them into dedicated and committed students. Undoubtedly there are some who fall into this category, I just wonder if it passes the point of critical mass where time and energy spent developing "potential" elite athletes could be better spent focusing on the ones who really want to be there.

I do not mean to be a contrarian, only to open up the discussion so that it moves forward without being based on assumptions. If the original conjecture is proved, then it should be stronger, based on a solid foundation.

From my own experience, rarely if ever have I excelled in anything that I didn't take a serious approach to from the start. Part of me feels that if someone is destined for greatness, in archery or otherwise, they find a way to make it happen. Indeed, that willingness is crucial to persevere through the inevitable difficulties anyone encounters on the road to success. I fully understand the argument that a larger population should result in more prospective candidates, I only wonder how much a difference it really makes when, let's be honest, archery is not a marquee sport in the US. No matter how accommodating US archery instruction is, the majority of even bright prospects will opt to choose another sport or careers, or school, or anything else that presents a dedicated, hard-working individual with greater rewards. 

I have zero experience with Coach Lee, RAs, or the program at Chula Vista. My own coach is an L4 NTS instructor and Olympian, and thus far has taught me only NTS, but has always allowed for individual idiosyncrasies - the base has been NTS, but I'm sure that I don't have the exact same form as (nor am I being pressured to reproduce the form of) Brady or any other high profile archers in the system. Perhaps I have just been lucky to get someone who is flexible enough to incorporate individual differences into the NTS system. If at Chula Vista they make athletes adhere to a strict form even when the athletes tell them "hey, this hurts my shoulder, but if I do X, I can still achieve the same desired result without the pain", then I'm completely with you. That kind of rigidity, the kind that makes them unable to work with willing, thoughtful, and dedicated athletes, is certainly detrimental to the program - it is an individual sport after all.

My question is, for students who fall into your first category, is it really a failure to adapt to NTS (or the corresponding inflexibility of the staff to make even the smallest adjustments) that is the culprit of burnout or simply the natural attrition that occurs the higher up the pyramid of success that one goes? An addendum to that is, even for students who are unable to make adjustments to the system, is that an artificial barrier or simply the (admittedly somewhat controversial) form of weeding out those who are not destined to be champions? Is Brady only successful because he happens to be one of the dedicated prospects who had a mentality and body type that agrees with NTS? At the very best these are hard questions to answer, and though it may seem like it at times, I'm not trying to shoot you down. I just question how much of a difference these changes would make compared to for example, a country where archery occurs on nationally televised competitions between the latest pop culture icons and is not, at best, relegated to the backwaters of CNBC every 4 years.

The Hunger Games came out 5 years ago, long enough that we should be reaping the fruit of such a surge in interest and the resulting population boom of archers. Is it because of NTS that we haven't noticed an enormous swell of talent at the highest echelons?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yours are very good questions. 

Of course there are enough variables that go into the success or failure of an archer that its tough to tease out a specific one.

As for your question about #1 students, burnout is often the result of not being able to transition. I have seen it myself with quite a few archers I worked with on JDT. Burnout or injury because they increased their participation level beyond the point their body and/or mind was prepared for.

If we had a crystal ball that told us which archers would eventually find that "switch" to flip, then many folks would manage their training programs accordingly. The catch-22 is that if a coach sees that potential in one student and then gives them more of their time, they stack the odds in favor of that student being successful and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Meanwhile, the student they walked away from might have had even greater long-term potential, but had just not found that "switch" yet.

But that's getting a bit off-topic. Really I wanted to address the question of why some archers might get "wrecked," some are "wrecked and repaired" and others are never wrecked at all.


----------



## Supermag1 (Jun 11, 2009)

I think the reason that shooters get wrecked is to completely remove all old habits and form from them so they don't revert back under stress. We all have experienced how we tend to go back to what we know worked for us when the pressure is on, even if we already learned a better way but it isn't proven to out subconscious yet.


----------



## Jalthi (Aug 14, 2016)

Is Lee and the rest of the oligarchy that resistant to new ideas? I completely understand the reluctance to spend the time and effort drawing up some kind of proposal that might get shot down without a second thought, but if this kind of development doesn't start from the ground up how is it going to happen?

You yourself acknowledge that "NTS was developed to produce elite archers, by someone who was an elite archer and who has spent their career working with elite archers." It would be wonderful if that leader also had the vision and ability to create a successful on-ramp into that system for casual athletes. However, that is not the case at the moment and I doubt you (or I for that matter) would necessarily choose Lee as the man best suited for that particular job. I think it's clear that while Lee certainly has his strengths, encouraging casual archers has not thus far been one of them. I don't offer that as evidence of his intransigence, but merely that he's a result of his life's circumstances.

You may be saying in a roundabout way that it's simply not your job to come up with the on-ramp training program and are asking the leadership to do their job in that regard. You might be 100% correct in that, but if the results are only more frustration, to what avail? I would venture to guess that Lee, or whoever, would (or at least should) be much more receptive to incorporating a detailed plan devised by a program that sends him the students best prepared to perform at the OTC. 

I get the sense that there is an awareness of a problem, from you, from Chris, from others posting here, and from my own experience. If it is just to vent, I understand, but I believe you want to see meaningful improvements in the system. I simply question whether trying to get the leadership to acknowledge these problems and come up with a solution is the most effective way to go about it, especially when prior efforts have not achieved the desired results. It would seem to me that formulating a plan, testing, and refining it in your own teaching, then presenting it after your students have proven to be more adaptable would achieve better results. This is not to flame or argue with you - just an assessment of the leadership's current attitudes and what it would take to get them to adopt reasonable changes. 

In reading this and my former post, I apologize for their Socratic nature - it's not a reflection on any of your relative merits, just how my train of thought usually goes. And I may have jumped the gun, seeing as you're still making posts to describe the problem as you see it and may already have solutions that I simply haven't let you present yet. These are just the thoughts I have when going into problem-solving mode while reading your post.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

I think you will find the majority of archers will fit into Number 1. A handful will be number 2, (the McLaughlin brothers and Zack Garrett come to mind). . 

I know of only 2 that are number 3, and both of those were previous compound champions. NTS is very suited to compound form. The two are Brady and Crystal Gavin. 


here are a few snips from messages i get routinely....

_"We had a girl who was rapidly improving and winning all the cadet events in our state after about 1.5-2 years of shooting. Last summer she attended a RDT and "learned" NTS. A girl who has not had NTS and switched to BB as a 14 year old 5 months ago posted a higher score on the 40 CM at nationals 458/600 then this RDT girl who went from shooting 510-520 to mid 400s."


"a girl i started coaching a few years ago did well at state and regional shoots and got third in young adult NFAA. She also started seeing a level five coach who has never been much of an archer. He convinced her to go to RDT. She did and completely changed her form 9 months ago.She finished almost dead last with a 202/300 today in NFAA YA F FRSLR today. She tied with a 14 year old girl shooting a FITA BB I coach. NTS has ruined her."

"So many kids are being ruined by this system. i have seen it at the local archer club, XXXX Archery, with one of the girls who got chosen for Dream Team and was made to switch to NTS. She has struggled ever since. "

"I am fearful of posting since the archery world is a small world and I don't want my kid to later be treated unfairly. Coach Lee has a huge influence in the archery world (do not forget the 5 academies his wife runs, Joy Lee). I just want to let you know that you are right on with your insight and commentary. We stay away from the whole NTS thing. 

"My student was a national champ. Shooting the 60 cm target at Nationals, she has gained only 1 point in tournaments since 2014. Two years of growth and archery coaching by NTS /OTC dream team coaches for 1 point."_

reverting our top youth archers to NTS for a complete form rebuild for the sake of pushing NTS is shooting ourselves in the foot. 

I predict one of two things will happen. Either the world and Olympic teams will start to be filled by archers shooting non NTS form and not coming fromt eh JDT?RA/OTC, and USA archery will replace that program and possibly the head coach. Or the USA archery team's poor showings will lose funding from the USOC just like in Great Britain. And the USA archery will have to make a change to try and get the funding back. Look at the USA women's recurve team. How many teams have we fielded at the Olympics since 2004? 

The in between is how many potentially great young archers do we lose in the meantime forcing NTS on them just for the sake of them shooting NTS because thats the only form allowed at the top in the program. 

I think "wrecked" is a perfect description. And how i see the entire NTS system. 


Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Supermag1 said:


> I think the reason that shooters get wrecked is to completely remove all old habits and form from them so they don't revert back under stress. We all have experienced how we tend to go back to what we know worked for us when the pressure is on, even if we already learned a better way but it isn't proven to out subconscious yet.


Excellent point. And the degree of "wrecking" probably has to do with how close one's form is to begin with.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I don't offer that as evidence of his intransigence, but merely that he's a result of his life's circumstances.


Absolutely. I'm not blaming anyone here. We all come at this coaching gig from different places.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I think "wrecked" is a perfect description. And how i see the entire NTS system.


I think it really depends on which specific archer you look at, as to how you draw your conclusion of the effectiveness of this system. For instance, (as I've said for years) young strong men have proven NTS can deliver world class results. I was impressed at the 2012 trials at the level of competitiveness me and some of the older guys were up against. There was no denying that those boys had made it work. I shot better scores that year than I did in '04 and didn't have a prayer of making the team, the field was so strong. 

For some folks, that's good enough. They see the McLaughlin's, the Fanchins, the Kaminski's and Garretts (the #2's) and to them, the juice is worth the squeeze. Like I said, I have had two #2's myself and I think they would agree it was worth it to be able to say they shot the scores they shot after the rebuilding.

Other folks look at the women's program and wonder what happened. 

But overwhelmingly, most archers have fallen into the #1 group and as a fan of the sport, as a lifetime archer, a parent and a coach, that is just plain tough to watch. 

I think each of us will put a different number on the acceptable % of archers that should fall in one of those three categories.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Personally, I think a lot of coaches on the ground would just like to see an acknowledgement from USArchery and Lee that for grassroots programs, NTS may not be the best first solution for recreational programs. Maybe they have, but I don't recall seeing that.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

I agree with everything you say, but i still think our top men are falling short. Zack shoots 660-675, Jake is the same. The Korean's are in the 690's. Thats more than two arrows. Even the Korean ladies average 675s. The world class level has gone up. 650s and 660s dont cut it when the winners shoot 690-700. 

I would say its a miracle our guys shoot as well as they do with the transistion to NTS. I remember Butch, Vic, and a number of other archers putting up competitive scores in the trials for Sydney and Atlanta. I am not so sure NTS system kicked it up a notch at the Athens trials though i have not seen those scores. Plus the trials and scoring was different. 

But i see the national archery program as a whole. Men, women and youth. I do not call the transistion to NTS successful because a few guys shot 660s. Too many others are left out and left way behind. 

I dont understand the why the easy answer isnt just used. Use whatever form you want, from recreational to Olympic team, OTC/RA JDT etc. 

Why is it you are forced to any one system. We all know as coaches there are MANY ways to shoot archery and shoot form. And those are all tools we use for each individual archer. 

That is the easy solution. Then NTS can be a module in the certification just like recurve, linear etc. 


Really trying my best not to bash NTS here and keep the real issue at the forefront. 

I dont care if people want to shoot NTS, coach NTS, shoot linear, shoot crooked, etc. They should have the choice to shoot how they want. And if it wins, they should be able to continue it. Even up to an Olympic team and into the RA program. 

OTC coaches cant teach any other system? 


Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I am not so sure NTS system kicked it up a notch at the Athens trials though i have not seen those scores. Plus the trials and scoring was different.


It wasn't even close IMO. In '04 I was a consistent 320 shooter and made the team. In '12 I was a consistent 330 shooter and didn't even get a sniff. No real point in debating the fact that the level of shooting on the men's side was far higher. 

But I really didn't start this to discuss the ones who made it. I think many of us are concerned about the ones who didn't, and are asking on their behalf if it was worth it.


----------



## iArch (Apr 17, 2015)

chrstphr said:


> Why is it you are forced to any one system. We all know as coaches there are MANY ways to shoot archery and shoot form.


Yup there's many ways to shoot a bow, but as you know the pressure for archers, parents, and coaches to "conform" to NTS is undeniable. Remember that JDT/RDT/RA is a _choice_...and if you wanna play the game you have to play within the rules. AFAIK those rules aren't forced upon us unless we directly/indirectly agree to be "forced" when attending the camps/programs.


----------



## iArch (Apr 17, 2015)

Jalthi said:


> "NTS was developed to produce elite archers, by someone who was an elite archer and who has spent their career working with elite archers." It would be wonderful if that leader also had the vision and ability to create a successful on-ramp into that system for casual athletes. However, that is not the case at the moment and I doubt you (or I for that matter) would necessarily choose Lee as the man best suited for that particular job. I think it's clear that while Lee certainly has his strengths, encouraging casual archers has not thus far been one of them. I don't offer that as evidence of his intransigence, but merely that he's a result of his life's circumstances.


I agree, but isn't the National Head Coach responsible for the development of elite Olympic archers and high performance programs? Surely someone else in USA Archery is tasked with keeping the rest of us in mind - or so we hope LOL! 

While I understand why NTS is encouraged to be taught on Archery Day 1, I appreciate the JOAD Coaches that don't automatically funnel their archers into NTS/the pipeline so early. I think a lot of on-the-ground coaches realize that the value of helping students develop a long-lasting love for the sport through teaching basic good fundamentals is _more_ than the value of "finding the next Olympian" through hitting NTS on Day 1 - which naturally weeds out those who "can't NTS", or those who aren't having fun with NTS on their first day and never come back. If every coach started teaching NTS religiously since Coach Lee came to the US and implemented his pipeline, by now, theoretically we should mostly see Student #3's and not Student #1's. We'd probably have also lost many early-archers in the process. Hmm...maybe it's our fault for not teaching NTS. :wink:


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

A short response to a very complex issue, but I love the Karate analogy. I use it all time when explaining JOAD to newcomers. Higher expectations as they progress. 

A structure of mechanical understanding, and lay alternatives, to coincide with the achievement pin scores is an obvious, yet overlooked option.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I'd see the problem as the late adopter has gotten where he or she has based on something else, both practically and mentally. We're not looking for a solid performance, we're looking for high performance. So it's that it would force you to adapt, and you've been doing something else forever, but also that you're not just trying to be a solid adapter but really a high performance one. Lee might argue the high performer could be more adaptable and has the work ethic to manage the switch, but you could just as well say that the more time and work ethic that has been put into a form that got you to high performance the less reason to fart with it in the first place.

The NTS from the cradle set would of course be an exception but then the whole point is no one is asking them to switch, that they benefit from not being asked to change while others are.

I know you're mentioning this more in ease of conversion on NTS style, but if it's that dramatic a move it's like switching from compound to recurve in the sense that being good at one only buys you so much switching around.

I go back to saying if you're going to have some high MQS to get to RA, which for most of us is asking for a high performance finished product -- then why are you asking people to switch once there like it's developmental. Why not just leave 1 and 2 as is unless a specific rationale comes up where NTS seems suitable. If you're going to use RA to dismantle and rebuild developing shooters then you should probably have a lower MQS that would catch interesting shooters earlier on and make them more like 3 instead of 1 or 2. To me Oly/USAT/Trials covers the "actual" high performer resident, and you should then be picking developmentals with a more flexible scoring eye. I could understand taking someone shooting 280 women or 300 men with potential, but not finished, and saying we think you have promise and will make an experiment of switching you to NTS, knowing their current score wouldn't win them much of anything. But by the time they make MQS and are shooting something highly competitive it's like, why are you jacking with it, unless something specific about them screams this makes sense.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I'm sure some of you have run into employers who have a specific way they want things done, and my experience is those sorts tend to hire people fresh in the field from school with a particular background seen as suitable to the way of doing things, they don't tend to hire experienced people with track records but also their own established modus operandi. The easiest place to push an effective transition that's not fighting with high performers skilled in another approach would be try this on the kids. By the time you're doing this on MQS or USAT people who qualify for RA by excellence, it's like you're trying to rewire your highest performers after their best performances. They might have the best work ethic to attempt it but would be probably less obvious picks for implementing a cultural change.

But I have a feeling the reason the shift is pushed at RA is the archer is out of the grasp of other coaches. If the program was instead done where archers were funded at home and Lee circuit rode, and the archers did these things in front of their coaches, would it fly? And while the grassroots would be the most effective place in theory to implement NTS, the reality is you'd be expecting a bunch of coaches to implement your theories across the country, and as we see there is resistance. So nominally it's national but in other senses it's something truly implemented in his domain, or within the programs of his converts.


----------



## Jalthi (Aug 14, 2016)

I do have one question. I know that the most common track is that if you want to be a world-class archer in the US you likely end up going to Cali to train there, but is it mandatory? Do we have any archers that train somewhere else and simply do their own thing? That's one of the aspects I liked most about archery - If I shoot 10s all day long in competition it doesn't matter if I practice in my basement or in a world class training facility.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Jalthi said:


> I do have one question. I know that the most common track is that if you want to be a world-class archer in the US you likely end up going to Cali to train there, but is it mandatory? Do we have any archers that train somewhere else and simply do their own thing? That's one of the aspects I liked most about archery - If I shoot 10s all day long in competition it doesn't matter if I practice in my basement or in a world class training facility.


I don't believe that either Brady or Jake trains at RA/OTC anymore. I believe that Zach is still there. 

Score amongst the top three, make the team. Don't have to play the politics unless you want to.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jalthi said:


> I do have one question. I know that the most common track is that if you want to be a world-class archer in the US you likely end up going to Cali to train there, but is it mandatory? Do we have any archers that train somewhere else and simply do their own thing? That's one of the aspects I liked most about archery - If I shoot 10s all day long in competition it doesn't matter if I practice in my basement or in a world class training facility.


In '04, not one of the archers - male or female - who made the team, trained at the OTC. That led to a wholesale change and a open door for Lee's arrival and Lloyd's departure. The NAA - eventually USArchery - will never be the same when it comes to supporting and training Olympic team members. The changes took time, but made a difference for the men. Unfortunately for the women, things have gotten worse in terms of being internationally competitive and fielding full teams for the Olympic games. 

But so long as the Olympic trials are open to anyone, then yes - you can train anywhere you please and still make the team.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lksseven said:


> I don't believe that either Brady or Jake trains at RA/OTC anymore. I believe that Zach is still there.
> 
> Score amongst the top three, make the team. Don't have to play the politics unless you want to.


I may be wrong, but Brady and Jake had to leave once they got married. But they can still train there.


----------



## iArch (Apr 17, 2015)

Azzurri said:


> If you're going to use RA to dismantle and rebuild developing shooters then you should probably have a lower MQS that would catch interesting shooters earlier on and make them more like 3 instead of 1 or 2. To me Oly/USAT/Trials covers the "actual" high performer resident, and you should then be picking developmentals with a more flexible scoring eye. I could understand taking someone shooting 280 women or 300 men with potential, but not finished, and saying we think you have promise and will make an experiment of switching you to NTS, knowing their current score wouldn't win them much of anything. But by the time they make MQS and are shooting something highly competitive it's like, why are you jacking with it, unless something specific about them screams this makes sense.


I agree and I know a few folks who share this viewpoint as well, but you didn't mention the JDT/RDT programs. RA is not _supposed_ to be where archers are first dismantled, it's actually supposed to be done in the JDT/RDT programs - before they reach the RA stage. The Student 1 & 2s occur when archers come from outside the pipeline and directly into the RA program.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

In my opinion, I dont think they should be dismantled at all if they are already shooting well enough to qualify for the JDT/RDT programs. 

the dismantling should be done in the JOAD program. That is what is developmental. Its even in the name. 


Chris


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Well in all honesty our current archery program is still in its infancy stages when you compare it to Korea, Chinese Taipei, etc. USA does not as of yet have former NTS trained elite or advanced archers in its grass roots coaching ranks, or at least not enough to make an impact. We're probably still a generation away from that.

That's why there needs to be a greater focus on providing NTS clinics, both coaches and athletes, to the grass root folks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

So then how do you overcome the hurdle of trying to teach NTS to the masses who rarely pick up a bow?


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> So then how do you overcome the hurdle of trying to teach NTS to the masses who rarely pick up a bow?


And to the coaches, who in the opinion of the head coach don't know it and aren't teaching it right?


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

And what do you do if NTS continues to NOT produce elite athletes to teach all acxross the USA in programs? And Coach lee has had 10 years here i believe. Thats all Coach Kim did in Chinese Taipei to turn them into a podium country. 

How many decades do we need for the USA program not to be in its infancy?

chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

bobnikon said:


> And to the coaches, who in the opinion of the head coach don't know it and aren't teaching it right?


Very true. He has said this himself, for years now. More proof IMO that it's a complicated system best taught by high level coaches to very dedicated students.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> Very true. He has said this himself, for years now. More proof IMO that it's a complicated system best taught by high level coaches to very dedicated students.


And following up, that seems to me to beg the question "why NTS in the first place?" Remove Brady Ellison from the equation (who would be 'Michael Jordan the Man' no matter what offense Phil Jackson installed) and it's pretty much Nothing To See as far as results on the world stage.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> So then how do you overcome the hurdle of trying to teach NTS to the masses who rarely pick up a bow?


I'm not sure why you would. System is too complicated in my opinion for recreational archers. NTS is for serious archers, if it is for anybody.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

bobnikon said:


> And to the coaches, who in the opinion of the head coach don't know it and aren't teaching it right?


Having a generation of coaches who have been taught the system, and shot the system in competitions, would fix that issue.

It falls back to the other thread concerning certifications and what is required, to coach NTS effectively you need to be able to shoot using the NTS.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

chrstphr said:


> And what do you do if NTS continues to NOT produce elite athletes to teach all acxross the USA in programs? And Coach lee has had 10 years here i believe. Thats all Coach Kim did in Chinese Taipei to turn them into a podium country.
> 
> How many decades do we need for the USA program not to be in its infancy?
> 
> chris


You are talking two different cultures here, two different level of athletic focus as well. Archery is a state sponsored sport in Chinese Taipei, while here it is seen more as a hobby. Also Chinese Taipei was not a bare cupboard either. Before Kim there was Coach Hardy Ward, who is the one who brought to American system to the orient to begin with, who was hired way back when to setup an archery program in, and helped make it originally into a podium country. So Chinese Taipei already had a solid grassroot system in place, if anything it just needed to be tweaked; Lee did not and still does not have that here.

Not only that we do not have a solid reward system setup here to encourage growth. If your kid becomes elite in football, basketball, hockey, baseball, golf, etc. he/she has opportunities open to them to get free rides to college, and if they are good there a very well paying job in the pros.

What does promising elite archers have to look forward to? Maybe some discounted and, if you are podiuming frequently, free equipment, and possibly become a RA, where no one is ever going to call you wealthy? Partial scholarship maybe?


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> Very true. He has said this himself, for years now. More proof IMO that it's a complicated system best taught by high level coaches to very dedicated students.


I agree wholeheartedly.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Personally I think there is too much focus on the archery form, over the overall archery program. IMO it isn't the archery technique of the Koreans that make them exceptional, heck they pretty much shoot like every one else in the orient, no it's their overall program that makes them special.

The million dollar question is how can USA Archery, make an Americanized program, that can generate elite archers.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

erose said:


> You are talking two different cultures here, two different level of athletic focus as well. Archery is a state sponsored sport in Chinese Taipei, while here it is seen more as a hobby. Also Chinese Taipei was not a bare cupboard either. Before Kim there was Coach Hardy Ward, who is the one who brought to American system to the orient to begin with, who was hired way back when to setup an archery program in, and helped make it originally into a podium country. So Chinese Taipei already had a solid grassroot system in place, if anything it just needed to be tweaked; Lee did not and still does not have that here.
> 
> Not only that we do not have a solid reward system setup here to encourage growth. If your kid becomes elite in football, basketball, hockey, baseball, golf, etc. he/she has opportunities open to them to get free rides to college, and if they are good there a very well paying job in the pros.
> 
> What does promising elite archers have to look forward to? Maybe some discounted and, if you are podiuming frequently, free equipment, and possibly become a RA, where no one is ever going to call you wealthy? Partial scholarship maybe?


Olympic Individual Gold and Silver (men) by Americans .... '72, '76, '84, '88, '96, 2000 ... no national program, no cookie cutter methodology, no complicated esoteric recipe to get to holding. 

During the 10year era of Coach Lee and the BEST/NTS ... one Olympic bronze (2016) by Brady (only partial elements of NTS and not training under NTS coach/system for a year or two now).

I don't believe a 'rigid, structured, decades long culture building, back filling, top down' system is the answer.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> Very true. He has said this himself, for years now. More proof IMO that it's a complicated system best taught by high level coaches to very dedicated students.


....who either want to try something new or perhaps are in a slump and HAVE to try something different.

Problem with the way it's structured is the "very dedicated students" for the most part will come in 1 or 2, in significant part because the major proponent of NTS is a high level coach. If you wanted more 3s you should be teaching it from the cradle so to speak and then you need a bunch of missionaries out where the kids and coaches are, preaching at the state and local level. Otherwise you're stuck in a loop where the archers coming to you are not "students," they are fairly high performers already in their own right, and after the years to get there in some other form you're asking them to switch. It's structured to have a 1/2 problem because you're not creating enough 3s.

And that's setting aside the value judgment whether creating 3s rather than non NTS is what we want, best for them healthwise, etc.

Also, FWIW, Korea has a 1/3 our population. One of the recent examples of a true grassroots effort to get better at a sport was Iceland, where they created a national strategy to make a better soccer team, which then qualified for the last Euros, beat England, and made the quarters. But that's a small country with a fraction of the population of Houston much less the whole US. You can top-down that easier. [Counter argument would be, if a sincere effort was made to teach NTS in at least some chunks of the country, it might get somewhere just based on sheer size of the country. Archery gets x% of the sports involvement in this country, but just with that level, it's the second best men's program in the world now and usually in that area in general. So you don't have to get everyone to be effective, but obviously whatever plan they have isn't really effective if the 1s and 2s way outnumber the 3s. At which point you should either give way to reality or slot it in as a choice alongside the forms people actually arrive with.]


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Extending John's point. one can argue that the very fact of a meritocratic open system upsets the apple cart of trying to implement a particular doctrine, so long as its merits are non-obvious. If it was obviously superior and its adherents began filling the USAT and the trials based teams, then you'd see a shift because it "works." I'm sure their response would be it's not widely popular so you can't scientifically test relative success. Question would then be, how many from-the-cradle NTSers exist and how have they done? What percent NTS is on each team?


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

don't know why I said 1/3, it's 1/4 or less.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

lksseven said:


> Olympic Individual Gold and Silver (men) by Americans .... '72, '76, '84, '88, '96, 2000 ... no national program, no cookie cutter methodology, no complicated esoteric recipe to get to holding.
> 
> During the 10year era of Coach Lee and the BEST/NTS ... one Olympic bronze (2016) by Brady (only partial elements of NTS and not training under NTS coach/system for a year or two now).



Women's side is even worse since 2000. Its rare for the USA to even qualify an Olympic team.

Not the case 88-2000. 

Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Having a generation of coaches who have been taught the system, and shot the system in competitions, would fix that issue.


I agree it could, and I am applying that logic myself in my own JOAD program to some degree. However from what I've seen, a high % of archers who are in the best position to teach NTS - because they learned and trained directly under Lee at the OTC - are too burned out after a few years to teach, or are not in a position in their life to start a JOAD program, or both. And that is very unfortunate. IMO the most qualified people in the US to teach NTS are actually the RA's and former RA's.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

lksseven said:


> I don't believe a 'rigid, structured, decades long culture building, back filling, top down' system is the answer.


Well someone does.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

erose said:


> Well in all honesty our current archery program is still in its infancy stages when you compare it to Korea, Chinese Taipei, etc. USA does not as of yet have former NTS trained elite or advanced archers in its grass roots coaching ranks, or at least not enough to make an impact. We're probably still a generation away from that.
> 
> That's why there needs to be a greater focus on providing NTS clinics, both coaches and athletes, to the grass root folks.
> 
> ...


that's an interesting comment given the USA won the 72, 76, 84 and 88 men's gold medal in Olympic archery and dominated the world championships in the 60s, 70s and most of the 80s and those other countries were studying the US archers in order to figure out how to catch up


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

erose said:


> Well someone does.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes, agree that Coach Lee certainly does, and he is committed to his plan and his solution (and the revenue streams it funnels). But his commitment doesn't validate the plan - results do. Coaches get fired (or asked to 'move on') in every sport all the time.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

lksseven said:


> Yes, agree that Coach Lee certainly does, and he is committed to his plan and his solution (and the revenue streams it funnels). But his commitment doesn't validate the plan - results do. Coaches get fired (or asked to 'move on') in every sport all the time.


Obviously it is more than Lee, there are people above him who wants it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Jim C said:


> that's an interesting comment given the USA won the 72, 76, 84 and 88 men's gold medal in Olympic archery and dominated the world championships in the 60s, 70s and most of the 80s and those other countries were studying the US archers in order to figure out how to catch up


The 80s are quite a while ago. It is comical IMO that the archers from the Orient are using I guess what one would call now the classical American method to kick our tails, while we are using a Korean coach's method in hopes of catching up.

I wonder what the archery landscape would look like if Coach Hardy Ward hadn't accepted the job with Chinese Taipei.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

erose said:


> Obviously it is more than Lee, there are people above him who wants it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Perhaps. But is it NTS and the current structure that they are wedded to? Or maybe some of the people above him just want more success, not NTS per se, and he's done a good job of convincing them that NTS is the best way to get it? 

What I do know is there are people above him who aren't big fans of NTS or the current structure of RDT and JDT and the RAs. There are a lot of politics that get cooked.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

erose said:


> The 80s are quite a while ago. It is comical IMO that the archers from the Orient are using I guess what one would call now the classical American method to kick our tails, while we are using a Korean coach's method in hopes of catching up.
> 
> I wonder what the archery landscape would look like if Coach Hardy Ward hadn't accepted the job with Chinese Taipei.
> 
> ...


I wonder what would happen if archery in the USA was given the sort of support that it gets in places like Korea and China from the government and corporations. I figure Olympic Archery is probably about the 25th most important sport in the USA-while in Korea its one of the top three. How is Korea doing in the stuff we really push-Football, Basketball, track and field, swimming, baseball, softball, tennis, Golf, volleyball, lacrosse, etc. Golf, not bad. Tennis? hmm. Basketball? LOL


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

I would imagine that we would be once again the top archer producing nation .

See that is the problem ain't it? There isn't enough money to attract top athletes and keep top athletes in archery. No one is not going to get rich just shooting arrows. But top athletes can definitely get rich hitting a ball, putting it in a basket, or nailing someone carrying it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

So let's get back to what we on the ground can/should do... Because daydreaming about world class financial support that mainstream sports enjoy isn't anything we have control over.

I'm curious to hear stories from veteran JOAD coaches who have NTC certs, and how they introduce NTS (or not) to their newest students.


----------



## Cuthbert (Nov 28, 2005)

This is a very interesting topic on a lot of levels. 

How do we leverage the strengths of our pool of shooters and develop talent?
IMHO, I think we are as usual, overthinking this. I agree with those who support the idea that medals are not a function of deviation from perfect form. I also suspect that if an elite level shooter is concerned with form, they have in fact built a case against winning. Coaches and archers are supposed to use practice to lock in some kind of form that has shown empirical consistency. If it isn't broken, why fix it? When a coach asserts that conforming leads to victory, they switch off the instinctual/creative part of shooting and turn it into a series of instructions that can never be perfectly executed when compared to a standard. Scores are not measured in form execution. If that's what you want, try figure skating or gymnastics. Archery is about hitting the mark.

Paul


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Paul, after I had been coaching a while I realized that there is a certain % of people who do in fact believe that form is everything and is the only path to elite performance. Right brain / Left brain or whatever it is, there are just some folks who are wired that way, while others believe that any form is acceptable so long as the end result is what they want. And this in my experience, is hard-wired into people. The ones who believe that form is everything will always believe that. No amount of cross training I've ever done has ever helped those students realize that there is more to shooting 10's than perfect form. Likewise, there are plenty of archers who just look at the score and just aren't willing to spend time worrying about their form... Those folks - I've found - were usually pretty good athletes and count on their athleticism more than they do textbook form. 

The key of course is to find a balance between form and function. This is what elite shooters do. 

I can tell you how long someone is going to stick with this sport if the only answer they get as to why they are not shooting better is "work on your form" - after they have spent years working on their form. 

Since I asked the question, I'll go ahead and give my answer...

I don't introduce "pure" NTS until I know an archer is committed enough to have a chance of making it work for them. That is going to vary widely from archer to archer. Some would be in this position in a few months after picking up the sport, some a few years, and others never. 

I'll also admit that introducing NTS immediately has the chance of retaining as many archers as it drives away. Why? Because some folks will like the structure in the same way Karate instruction has structure. They want the "process." Other folks however, want the product and don't really care as much about the process. Those are the ones who will find another coach or another sport. Are we okay with those folks walking away from archery? I don't think so. I don't think that's good for the sport as a whole.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Why can't we separate the RA concept in general from what is taught there. Since we don't have a fully professionalized setup like Korea, with teams who pay people to represent them, RA provides a subsidized place to be trained and to stick with the sport despite the lack of money in it. Comparison I'd make to soccer is IMG Academy in Bradenton. The glory years of US youth soccer feeding the national team, Landon, Beasley, et al., they went through the residential national camp in Bradenton, trained together from early HS years until they signed professionally. That's the spine of the 2002-2010 teams that twice advanced to the knockout rounds. That program went south as the pro clubs took over more of their own youth development, and when the most recent ex-coach tried to shove the playing style in an idiosyncratic direction. But at its peak that's the core of the US Soccer team it would produce, which would then be surrounded by later bloomers who succeeded in the pro ranks.

The problem I see is that it's been over-centralized and allowed to be dragged in a direction. I know someone has to "coach" these teams but the reality is that most of the people at USAT level would probably have not just their own form coming in but probably their own coach. So instead of let's use this residential system to leverage what you bring to the table, with some mix of your own coach and the watchful eye of the program head, you have the coach actively tinkering with what brung you. You have some people actively avoiding what should probably be a useful resource in a semi-pro sport -- free housing and training etc. -- because they don't want their form jacked with. [And you also, side issue, seem to have an issue with family-archers fitting that into the scheme, particularly women but it sounds like even some men.]

If we're not actually going to make a NTS push at the youth level, or if for that matter we shouldn't be doing that, then I don't get picking one form style at the end and linking it as almost a condition of residency. That to me is weakening the value of residency and subsidy in an underfunded sport. People should be eagerly seeking that out for similar reasons to why they pursue USAT or trials in the first place. That's as close as our system gets to pro. If NTS distorts that in the direction of fewer wanting RA, that's suboptimal.

Alternative is some archery company or companies set up a pro team in imitation of the current Korean system, funds indoor season and USAT qualifying for members, USAA then handles the summer outdoor team events. Before soccer fully professionalized here, one World Cup cycle they set up a team to compete in the domestic league, composed of national team pool players not already in pro deals. I think a "pro" setup as opposed to a "RA under a coach who can pick form" would probably shove things in the direction of performance as opposed to ideology. The sponsor(s) would want their money worth and not care as much HOW it was done. The archer and their coach could decide how to get there.

I also think that the whole system kind of begs for some sort of statistical performance analysis of whether it's working. Bluntly, one team second medal and one individual medal tell you there is room to improve. The mere fact we're not cleaning up all medals in both sexes is a strong hint we haven't found a money tree. I don't understand the obsessive focus on NTS when it's not delivering the goods, ie, gold medals. Particularly with the women it reminds me of the faddish implementation of less well organized attacking soccer schemes under Klinsmann, which resulted in regression rather than improvement. US Soccer several years ago went with Klinsmann to see if they could improve an already decent team. 6 years later it was like, not really. At some point the missionary zeal needs to bump up against some hard analysis of whether the results are being delivered from the unorthodoxy. If not, whether the coach gets fired for it or not, the system needs to open back up to ideas.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I also think there needs to be more emphasis on fitness and diet over in SD. Brady disproves that you have to be svelte to succeed (as does Oh) but through a friend who was there I was surprised they weren't more on top of diet and cross training.

Also, do they take advantage of Salt Lake to get altitude work in.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Don't kid yourself - Brady is fitter than most folks might think.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I'm sure he's very fit for what he does. Pulls a ton of weight and probably shoots more practice arrows than 99.99% of us.

I just felt like I could handle more arrow count when I cross trained more, and am trying to return to that approach, within what bounds I can handle, this spring. I just didn't hear much about cross training through the briefly-RA I know, and it surprised me.

I'd also be curious how our fitness regimen matches up with the Koreans.


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

I have seen no mandatory fitness regime for the RAs. The equipment and gym is available, but I have never seen it used. I know one of them is into fitness, but I don't think the others are. I can only imagine the fuss, however, of not only being forced to do NTS but also forced to run laps and do push-ups. I don't think that would be well received.


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

RA's currently have required daily/weekly arrow counts, daily pre-training warm-up sessions as well as strength and cardio training requirements. -Pete


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

j.conner said:


> I have seen no mandatory fitness regime for the RAs. The equipment and gym is available, but I have never seen it used. I know one of them is into fitness, but I don't think the others are. I can only imagine the fuss, however, of not only being forced to do NTS but also forced to run laps and do push-ups. I don't think that would be well received.


Why wouldn't it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



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

Azzurri said:


> Pulls a ton of weight


Brady has been shooting 45# since at least October. Not "a ton of weight" by any standard.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

>--gt--> said:


> Brady has been shooting 45# since at least October. Not "a ton of weight" by any standard.


GT, why the weight drop down from Brady's previous low/mid 50's?


----------



## tooold (Jul 26, 2015)

Is it because he has been shooting a lot of indoor recently and doesn't need the weight?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

The better question IMO is why so much obsession with how much weight he or anyone else pulls? 

I've never understood that, esp. since Ms. Park proved unequivocally that it's not all about weight and draw length.

Brady could beat most of us shooting 35# and aluminum arrows. 

But it is pretty entertaining to read the speculation about what DW some of the more well known archers shoot. I forgot who it was that had Khatuna shooting 55# and Brady shooting over 60. LOL


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> The better question IMO is why so much obsession with how much weight he or anyone else pulls?
> 
> I've never understood that, esp. since Ms. Park proved unequivocally that it's not all about weight and draw length.
> 
> ...


he was

on his hunting compound


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> The better question IMO is why so much obsession with how much weight he or anyone else pulls?
> 
> I've never understood that


I feel the same way when people ask your arrow speed. 


Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I know we're getting off topic, but people have asked me more times than I can remember, how much weight I pull. Unless I had some reason to put my bow on a scale recently (and rarely I do) I usually answer "I don't know." That usually surprises the person who asked me. I'm like "it doesn't matter, I just adjust the limbs to tune my bow and then go shoot..." LOL For some, it's such a shocking concept.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Why can't we separate the RA concept in general from what is taught there.


So, depending on who the new women's head coach is, that might just be the case for the women at least...

I'm anxious to see how things go over the next year.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Azzurri said:


> I'd also be curious how our fitness regimen matches up with the Koreans.


not in the same ballpark, not even on the same planet. 

The elementary archery kids in South Korea have a tougher fitness regimen that the OTC. I can share it if you have dropbox. 

You cant separate the RA concept from NTS because Coach Lee is in charge of both. And its his program. 

I dont mind he wants to teach NTS and further that system. But i think the RA program should not be under that. He has the Joy Lee Academies for NTS teaching and other coaches. 



Chris


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Is there still no women's HC? I remember talking about this with someone last year headed there. I get hire the right person but soon 1/4 of the next Olympic cycle will be done and the idea was to improve the team. 2 years and change it'll be trials again and they'll again be hitting team events that start to rule you in or out.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Not to worry. I think we'll hear something soon.

The basic parts are there - Mac, Khatuna, Park and a few new shooters that are pretty darn good or will be soon. With just who we have shooting now, the right coach could have them in position to qualify a full team for Tokyo. I felt that Mac, Khatuna and Park were a pretty darn good team actually. Just needed a break at the right time.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I shoot low poundage myself so I don't lionize poundage for poundage's sake. However, I figure for someone shooting as well as Brady, while pulling high poundage, that they are "earning" that weight in their training. Not like he's the hunched over trad guy two lanes over indoors pulling 50# but missing the paper every time.

I grant there's "archery fit" and general fitness, just like what was sufficient to get me up and down a soccer field wasn't necessarily going to win me a track meet. I was just surprised there wasn't a more elaborate and built in relatively-daily cross training regimen, bikes, swimming, etc.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Not like he's the hunched over trad guy two lanes over indoors pulling 50# but missing the paper every time.


I really do wish people would stop perpetuating that stereotype. Every discipline has overbowed archers who can't shoot well, and I would dare say that OR may have the highest %.


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> So, depending on who the new women's head coach is, that might just be the case for the women at least...
> 
> I'm anxious to see how things go over the next year.


I concur. It will be very interesting to see.


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> I really do wish people would stop perpetuating that stereotype. Every discipline has overbowed archers who can't shoot well, and I would dare say that OR may have the highest %.


Yes, but the overbowed OR archers still hit the paper. ;-)


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

Cephas said:


> RA's currently have required daily/weekly arrow counts, daily pre-training warm-up sessions as well as strength and cardio training requirements. -Pete


Not forced or enforced.


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> I know we're getting off topic, but people have asked me more times than I can remember, how much weight I pull. Unless I had some reason to put my bow on a scale recently (and rarely I do) I usually answer "I don't know." That usually surprises the person who asked me. I'm like "it doesn't matter, I just adjust the limbs to tune my bow and then go shoot..." LOL For some, it's such a shocking concept.


I pull about 4,000#. (In a practice session, 40# draw, 10 arrow ends, 10 ends.)

My bow is about 6#. (Gillo G2 with the heavy weight cover and internal weights.)

Seriously, I think people are just curious about equipment specs.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> The better question IMO is why so much obsession with how much weight he or anyone else pulls?
> 
> I've never understood that, esp. since Ms. Park proved unequivocally that it's not all about weight and draw length.
> 
> ...


I'm under the impression (I'm not advocating agreement with it) that, Coach Lee is a strong proponent of high draw weights, and that is one of the linchpins of NTS philosophy - to enable higher draw weights at holding - under the current emphasis on elimination matches (as opposed to championships being decided by double FITAs).

I'm curious if Jake, like Brady no longer a fixture at the OTC, has also reduced his draw weight from his past setup.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

His philosophy is that NTS "should" allow an archer to hold more weight. He has used his students like Barnes, Cuddihy and Brady as examples of this. However, it's worth nothing that all three of them - along with others - were physically very strong already. When I first shot OR, I started with a 56# rig. Coming off a 63# longbow, it wasn't that difficult for me. I shot 2004 NFAA indoor nat's with 52# on the fingers. Again, not that big a deal and I wasn't shooting NTS. For strong young men, it shouldn't be any problem to get to 50# - with or without NTS.

Having said that, all my PB outdoor scores were shot with 47# (give or take) and I doubt many Koreans shoot much more than that. I guess it's just human nature to gawk at those higher draw weights, although I doubt statistically one could show a correlation between higher DW and more podium appearances.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Hold more weight in relation to what?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

j.conner said:


> Yes, but the overbowed OR archers still hit the paper.


I know plenty of trad shooters who are pretty good and basically at the level of "barebow." At some point the two are indistinguishable and it's semantics. But those would be the sort who at worst would be no more overbowed than you or I, have strong technique, and be adaptable to notions of aiming. I agree with you, however, that "trad" is unusual in how many people I have seen who are spectacularly overbowed, anti-aiming, and not open to advice. OR might have a fair amount pulling a handful more than they should, particularly outside, but I'm talking people 10-20# over their heads pulling Brady-weight who shoot 30 arrows once in a while, can't hit broad side of a barn, and only x% of them want to hear it if you try to help. It might be somewhat stereotypical but at my old range where there were no OR besides me but routine trad shooters, it'd be a guy or gal like that a month.

It probably comes off like a rip but it was a fair amount of just well meaning frustration......people who were audibly complaining about their own accuracy but wanted no advice whatsoever if it involved losing weight or aiming. The ones I could "reach" felt good but part of what I'd be reacting to is OR people would be more practical, to me. You tell them they'd pick up accuracy and points dropping weight and trying a technique and the next end they might be trying it.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

The men did not seem to have problems pulling their Rio weights. It was Brown that looked a little bit shaky to me and churning out mid-20s H2H ends. Lorig in comparison (during earlier contests) seemed more under control like the men. I don't know who does what form-wise (NTS or not) but it looked to me like Brown was not handling whatever she was doing as well as the men. From our top woman I expected smoother and less shake.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Azzurri said:


> The men did not seem to have problems pulling their Rio weights. It was Brown that looked a little bit shaky to me and churning out mid-20s H2H ends. Lorig in comparison (during earlier contests) seemed more under control like the men. I don't know who does what form-wise (NTS or not) but it looked to me like Brown was not handling whatever she was doing as well as the men. From our top woman I expected smoother and less shake.



You must have missed Jake's shaking elbow at full draw at Rio. It didnt seem to bother his accuracy much. But it was quite visible. 

Park Sung Hyun shot 44 lbs. Hyejin Chang is 42lbs. Dasomi Jung 40lbs. Lisa Unruh 38 lbs. Cheng Ming 42 lbs. Rarely are the ladies outside of #38-#44 lbs. But I think Katuna and McKenzie are above that. 

Chris


----------



## Mombo59 (May 3, 2013)

Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't Oh shoot around 48 to 49 pounds for quite a few months, then 3 weeks before the 2012 
Olympic's switch to 46 for competition? For greater control, I assume!

Tony


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

j.conner said:


> Yes, but the overbowed OR archers still hit the paper. ;-)


Pull those sights, stabilizers and clickers and see what happens though. 

I just grow weary of people in other disciplines always badmouthing the "trad" guys as if they are somehow superior. They aren't. Yes there are some bad examples of guys shooting trad gear, but there are some pretty bad examples in every discipline. Doesn't serve much of a point to talk about them though.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

chrstphr said:


> You must have missed Jake's shaking elbow at full draw at Rio. It didnt seem to bother his accuracy much. But it was quite visible.
> 
> Park Sung Hyun shot 44 lbs. Hyejin Chang is 42lbs. Dasomi Jung 40lbs. Lisa Unruh 38 lbs. Cheng Ming 42 lbs. Rarely are the ladies outside of #38-#44 lbs. But I think Katuna and McKenzie are above that.
> 
> Chris


I think it's pretty clear that this head coach prefers higher draw weights. If I had to guess, it would be because he's convinced that it's an advantage in OR's. Actually, now that I say that I think I recall him mentioning that very thing - that he believes higher DW is an advantage under the current format. 

Higher DW could be an advantage from a pure physics standpoint, but only if an archer can handle it with ease. Setting up away from the body doesn't match anything I learned in physics as far as handling a heavier load. If I had to pick one thing about NTS that I would take issue with - it is the way it asks archers to set up with their draw hand so far from their core. That's taxing muscles for no reason IMO. Once an NTS archer achieves anchor and transfer, then sure - they should be in a very strong position at that point. The setup away from the body should be removed from NTS IMO - and in particular, women will struggle with this more than the men who can simply overpower the move.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> I think it's pretty clear that this head coach prefers higher draw weights. If I had to guess, it would be because he's convinced that it's an advantage in OR's. Actually, now that I say that I think I recall him mentioning that very thing - that he believes higher DW is an advantage under the current format.
> 
> Higher DW could be an advantage from a pure physics standpoint, but only if an archer can handle it with ease. Setting up away from the body doesn't match anything I learned in physics as far as handling a heavier load. If I had to pick one thing about NTS that I would take issue with - it is the way it asks archers to set up with their draw hand so far from their core. That's taxing muscles for no reason IMO. Once an NTS archer achieves anchor and transfer, then sure - they should be in a very strong position at that point. The setup away from the body should be removed from NTS IMO - and in particular, women will struggle with this more than the men who can simply overpower the move.


I completely agree.


----------



## cekkmt (Nov 29, 2013)

I heard Brady turned down his draw weight to high 40s sometime last year during one of the world cups, and if you follow Jake on fb he posted some of his tuning specs for indoor and was around 45-46 lbs otf. As you go higher and higher the additional weight helps you less, so I'm not sure the performance between 48 and 52 is noticeably different. (The amount of control you have at the lower weight is definitely noticeable though)


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

j.conner said:


> Not forced or enforced.


It may be an issue of semantics here. While there may be no one hovering over them while they strength train it is mandatory and it is happening, I've seen some of the the results. The daughter has gained muscle mass and significant increases in draw weight over the last three months.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Why would one be a resident athlete and not train? Doesn't make sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

erose said:


> Why would one be a resident athlete and not train? Doesn't make sense.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That would depend on ones definition of the word "training". And i can tell you just from JOAD archers on our competition club team, that meaning has a wide range. Most of which would not meet my standard of the word. 

Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

erose said:


> Why would one be a resident athlete and not train? Doesn't make sense.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The ones who want to, do. Like Cephas said - the opportunity and tools are there.

And this is veering into RA/JDT bashing and getting off topic, so please keep it on topic.


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> The ones who want to, do. Like Cephas said - the opportunity and tools are there.


Bingo! The value of the program is access to dedicated facilities (and living quarters for RAs) to enable full-time focus, as well as ready access to other world-class athletes, coaches, and staff. It is not like joining the military, tossing you in the brig for refusing to do push-ups (although they can get ejected for conduct-unbecoming). It will be interesting to see how it goes at the CV OTC now that USOC and turned it over to the City of Chula Vista. At least with the Easton Center and the RA apartments they built adjacent, archery has the ability to continue in that location regardless.

Back to your original point, Student 3 is why we are being pushed so hard to teach NTS. Students 1 and 2 are more typical, although it is unclear if NTS is the direct cause of failure. My guess is that the rigid NTS push is an added complication that does not help, and is probably detrimental to others. I view it as tools in the toolbox to be tried for improving results. Weird that it went from biomechanically efficient (a scientific approach) to a national system (a dictatorial approach). Interesting too is the lack of results cited above. It could be that the other countries improved while US did not, however it could also be that using a dictatorial approach popular in certain other countries is not working here (that is not our culture). The best approach, IMHO, is to leverage our freedom and creativity to get the best out of each archer (have alot of tools in the toolbox) and increase the size of the pool by promoting the adoption of archery as a mainstream sport. I think ESDF and ATA are on the right track in this respect.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Not sure I can agree with a "lack of results" on the men's side. Clearly the case on the women's side, based on the numbers, which I'm sure is why we will see a new women's head coach soon. But the results on the men's side have been pretty easy to measure.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Excepting Brady (and he is certainly exceptional), I don't think the USA has had an individual Olympic medal in at least 20 years. And, again excepting Brady, how many World Cup Recurve individual podiums has the USA had since the turn of the century?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lksseven said:


> Excepting Brady (and he is certainly exceptional), I don't think the USA has had an individual Olympic medal in at least 20 years. And, again excepting Brady, how many World Cup Recurve individual podiums has the USA had since the turn of the century?


Valid questions, but what does that have to do with the three kinds of NTS students? One could argue that Brady himself is a #3, since he had very little recurve experience prior to working with Lee. 

I'd really like to hear from some younger archers or coaches/parents of younger archers who fall into one of these three categories.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> Valid questions, but what does that have to do with the three kinds of NTS students? One could argue that Brady himself is a #3, since he had very little recurve experience prior to working with Lee.
> 
> I'd really like to hear from some younger archers or coaches/parents of younger archers who fall into one of these three categories.


You're right - I'd forgotten the original thread premise (had to go back and reread it!).


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

I think we got lucky with Brady - he is an exceptional archer. Mac gives me hope, being an NASP kid who made it to the US Olympic team.

It would be interesting to analyze the actual scores over the years to see the trends of US versus other countries. Has anybody done that?


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> I'd really like to hear from some younger archers or coaches/parents of younger archers who fall into one of these three categories.


Probably wont happen if they are 1 and 2. Most of the parents that message me are afraid to voice thier opinion / story publically. They say Lee has a lot of influence in the USA archery world, and they dont want their kid treated unfairly by OTC coaches or Lee or have repercussions from their statements.

Chris


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/apr/14/james-bunce-us-soccer-world-cup

US Soccer recently split "here and now head coach" from "long-term program performance builder." 

If you don't have a team whose job it is to promote NTS down to the grassroots, separate from KSL working with pupils at HQ, you're going to be stuck in a niche loop where it's a small percentage #3 population showing up to RA eager to take NTS to another level, while mostly #1s and 2s make it there only to be asked to convert. And the conversion request takes place not as kids but at the elevated level, since it's both an elite thing and a difficult thing apparently. So by definition niche and by definition likely friction at the level you're suddenly hit with it.

The niche thing is a structural problem as you point out, and while I know you don't want RA bashing, the structural issues are such that discussing it quickly begs the question of how we want RA organized and what we want it teaching, as well as what the general archer population should be learning. If you want more 3s you have to structure the whole thing different and get mass converts earlier. But then that begs the value judgment question of should you. You seem to say it's an elite thing that requires elite training habits and strength. So you don't quite get out of the loop. I think it's hard to avoid the appearance of "RA-bashing" because it's such an on-off switch, promoted like crazy at top, niche everywhere else. But I was saying that without much in the way of a sustained professional class who does nothing but archery, you need something like RA that allows people to live somewhere off their own books and train like pros even if not paid like them. Close as we get to pros. Question then is what you teach them and with how we have it set up it's like we want controversy.

If you were trying to promote a new way of shooting a soccer ball you wouldn't start trying to teach it to a U-20 player pool already on their first pro deal. But since NTS seems to be packaged as elite teaching you won't get past that conflict of trying to reteach high performers. So you either need to make it one option all around, or you need to drop down and teach it levels earlier more widely. It's structural.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

By one option all around, I mean decide that NTS is just one option among many, for all levels. No longer privileged. Either that or if you want to privilege it with less controversy you have to promote it further down to a broader population of archers.


----------



## ceredikaal (Dec 13, 2021)

Azzurri said:


> By one option all around, I mean decide that NTS is just one option among many, for all levels. No longer privileged. Either that or if you want to privilege it with less controversy you have to promote it further down to a broader population of archers.


Alright, I am also agreed to you.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Man, way to resurrect a thread! 

I look back and barely remember posting this now. It was not long after that I just quit caring due to my 3rd really bad experience with archery parents. 

Some days, I can't believe I cared so much about people who respected me so little. Live and learn.

Sure is nice to just go shoot when I feel like shooting and go play golf or go fishing when I don't.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

chrstphr said:


> I think you will find the majority of archers will fit into Number 1. A handful will be number 2, (the McLaughlin brothers and Zack Garrett come to mind). .
> 
> I know of only 2 that are number 3, and both of those were previous compound champions. NTS is very suited to compound form. The two are Brady and Crystal Gavin.
> 
> ...


some of those stories seem very familiar to me.


----------

