# Coach Locator



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

Here's a link to the USA Archery Coach locator. USA Archery is our Olympic Archery body here in the US.

http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/Certification/Coach-Locator

If you know what state a person lives in, and you want to know if they actually are a certified Olympic coach, here ya go!

I recommend that for any given state, you run it for all 5 coach levels.

Have fun!


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Thanks Bender. As suspected and known, there's no Level V in my state. I'm Level 2 Instructor and plan to take Level 3 Coach in the Spring. The coach who taught that level to me is now recently become a Level 4, and the difference is night and day on that requirement. He had to take his certification at the training center, and of the 18 folks who were there with him, about 95% passed the written exam, but only 3 or 4 students were able to pass the practical in front of the head coach. The rest can retest at a later date. Level 5 from my understanding is very few and far between, understandably.


----------



## mrjeffro (Jul 25, 2007)

Interesting link. From reading the requirements for each level, it looks like if you want individual training, a level 3 instructor or higher is what is needed ???


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

mrjeffro said:


> Interesting link. From reading the requirements for each level, it looks like if you want individual training, a level 3 instructor or higher is what is needed ???


It's a mixed bag. There's no guarantee, as some don't even shoot bows much at all, or at all. It serves a main purpose to insure parents and participants that the instructors have some understanding and that they are insured and background-checked by USAA/NFAA. Many are dedicated to shooting, though, and know their onion per the book and per the bow. So, you could wind up with a Level III that can recite you technique verbatim but can't put it to bow and then have a Level I that is more than fully capable both ways. That's why by Level IV, the weeding process gets a little tougher. Still no guarantee, though.


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

I got interested in this because a friend of mine got his Level I and II earlier this year, and just got his Level III a couple of weeks ago. In his class, everybody passed the written but a few flunked on the practical applied part.

He currently does coaching, primarily JOAD, but his heart is in what you and I would call "Traditional." Actually he started in Compound, but ditched it and became an informal "student" of mine in Longbow. He just wanted to go on and get real credentials and make a stab at making $ with it.


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

> If you know what state a person lives in, and you want to know if they actually are a certified Olympic coach, here ya go!


Being on that list is voluntary; I can think of a few coaches that aren't listed there that are currently certified.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Hmmm....isn't that interesting...the internet sure makes the world a small place, doesn't it?


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Anyone find Anthony (Viper) Camera on that list? Funny thing, I searched and didn't, maybe I missed him.


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

I don't see Kisik Lee either. Or Dick Tone... or some other well-known and unknown coaches.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Don't see them on message boards talking about how they are coaching "top ranked" Olympic archers either...some people need no advertising, and aren't vying for attention they haven't earned...


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

ROFL now we are comparing viper to Kisik Lee? 

Um if you do a search of Kisik Lee on that sight - you will find this:

http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/Search?i=usa archery&q=Kisik Lee He is listed right there as the National Head Coach

WOW! 

As far as Dick Tone - he is likely retired from coaching.

Oh - do a search of Viper's name on that site - oddly enough - nothing comes up.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

That's ok - I coach Olympic Archers as well, I just choose not to be on the list because I am a humble person who does not want to "show off" - so I just tell everyone in Archery Talk's Traditional Forum that I coach Olympic Archers and have hundreds of students, but I wouldn't want anyone to know on the actual Coach Locator site.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Seems like a slap in the face to coaches who have earned their stripes...total disrespect for them and the sport.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I guess what I fail to understand is why someone is allowed in this forum to make claims such as being an Olympic Archery Coach and coaching hundreds of students, but if someone dares to ask for proof of these "credentials" - they are told that it is not appropriate to demand such proof? I was actually slapped on the wrist for demanding proof of these claims and low and behold here someone posts a listing of Olympic Coaches and guess what - no mention of this person anywhere on the site! Imagine my shock!


----------



## archerynooblol (Nov 6, 2010)

The list is voluntary.

You can choose not to have your name/contact information listed.

AN


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> That's ok - I coach Olympic Archers as well, I just choose not to be on the list


You just answered your own question but I'll take a guess your are not on that list because you have no qualifications to teach Target Archery, on the Trad section in the past you have trashed established teaching methods like having a shot sequence, you have said you have never Gapped or used sights, so it makes me wonder how you are able teach something you don't use yourself or believe in?

What exactly are you teaching the Kids about Olympic Archery?


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

steve - you really need to learn about sarcasm and using absurdity to make a point


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

archerynooblol said:


> The list is voluntary.
> 
> You can choose not to have your name/contact information listed.
> 
> AN


Yep and someone would choose not to be on this list, yet at the same time every chance that they get in the Trad forum make the claim that they coach Olympic Archers and have hundreds of students - and this makes sense in whose world?


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> steve - you really need to learn about sarcasm and using absurdity to make a point


An you really need to let go of this obsession on hounding this guys every opinion. I really don't care who or what you teach, I just thought to make a point of what you are doing to others.


----------



## TwilightSea (Apr 16, 2012)

Still no Lv.3 coach in Tampa. It's a shame the Newberry center is so damn far away.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

steve morley said:


> An you really need to let go of this obsession on hounding this guys every opinion. I really don't care who or what you teach, I just thought to make a point of what you are doing to others.


Ummm, I think anyone who has been on this forum for more than a few days knows exactly what is going on.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

What level is Rick Welch?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

sharpbroadhead,

It seems as though you've carried a personal issue over from another forum or situation to this one. Frankly, I have no idea what or whom you are talking about. It may help if you would set the sarcasm and innuendos aside for a moment and just *say whatever it is you have to say.* Otherwise, all you're doing is pooping on this forum and it's not very becoming of you.

I doubt the OP really appreciates it either.

No, the USArchery coach-finder is not complete, as there are many very well qualified coaches in the U.S. who choose to not play the game. They were Level 4's and 5's prior to the reorganization, and were well regarded in the past, so they have nothing to prove. In fact, I would say that some of our nation's finest and most knowledgeable Olympic recurve coaches are not listed. Why? Politics and process mainly. In other words, they know what they know, others know what they know, and they don't need to deal with the expense or frustration of the USArchery coaching credentials to continue to coach at a very high level. 

And Dick Tone - FYI - is still actively coaching. 

I know that if I wanted to go work with a coach, none of the 3 or 4 coaches in the U.S. that I would be interested in working with are on that list.

It is an unfortunate reality that many of our level 3 coaches really have no high-level competitive experience as an archer, and few of them have coached archers to the USAT or Jr. USAT level. However, that's not their fault - the system is set up so that it doesn't require this kind of experience to achieve that level of certification. 

Most level 3 coaches are qualified to help someone to an intermediate level in this sport, and that's about it. Precious few really know that much about equipment, as the certification process does not require a coach demonstrate a working knowledge of equipment setup and tuning, aside from the most basic aspects.

But USArchery has to use some kind of system to certify coaches, and this is what we have. No system will be perfect. There are those who will always seek high levels of certification without regard to their own real world experience. They will pay their money, attend the classes, pass the tests and get the certificate. 

Unfortunately, there aren't any real good universal tests to show that someone has a true working knowledge of the sport and can coach an archer to a high level. 

John


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Is there any truth to the saying: Those who can do and those who can't teach?


----------



## gjlama94 (Oct 11, 2013)

Bender- 
Don't know if you can lock this thread, but you might consider it. It's a useful link for newbies and lurkers and it'd be a shame to have it memory holed because an unrelated discussion gets out of hand.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

target1 said:


> Is there any truth to the saying: Those who can do and those who can't teach?


I think for somebody just starting out that list is a good a starting point as any, if the Archer shows any kind of potential in tourneys I'm sure they will find a better Coach or they will find them.

I'm lucky enough to have access to a level 5 Coach who has shot in the Olympics several times so there are those that can do/teach but some that cannot shoot, may sometimes turn out to be a pretty good Coach as well, you just keep looking till you find the perfect match. :thumbs_up


----------



## jocala (Jan 26, 2013)

TwilightSea said:


> Still no Lv.3 coach in Tampa. It's a shame the Newberry center is so damn far away.


My wife and I make the drive weekly from Ocala. It's 126 miles round trip, but worth it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

jocala said:


> My wife and I make the drive weekly from Ocala. It's 126 miles round trip, but worth it.


I have several students who drive even further than that (in heavy traffic sometimes) to come shoot with our club. They tell me it's worth the drive. Each person has to decide for themselves.

I'd say that if the distance is a problem, then a person needs to really evaluate how much they want to get better. I don't see much logic in traveling 1000's of miles to attend tournaments each year, but not being willing to commit an equal amount of miles to get coaching.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

So, just for folks who are wondering, this thread was originally posted in the trad forum. I think that the title of any moved thread should be changed to reflect the move to avoid confusion, eg "MOVED from Trad Forum: Coach Locator"

Some the more contentious comments reflect ongoing, longstanding personal fights in the trad forum. The forum culture hasn't yet recovered from when one of the most contentious forum members was made the sole mod, something that the new mod and admin are still trying to clean up.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Unfortunately, one reason I don't frequent many of the traditional forums I used to. A real lack of decorum seems to prevail all too often.


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

After taking a 20 year break from archery come back to this thing called traditional, who coined such a thing? At one time we were archers, now the division seems to be factions within the traditional gang as they battle anything perceived to be new, battles mostly contrived of ignorance to the history of archery. It is truly sad that such division exists now. This in turn stifles the true knowledge base of archery from contributing on the trad forums, really thick skin has become a prerequisite.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

W8lon, I don't want to derail the thread too much, but you are spot-on unfortunately. There are a vocal few who give the majority of traditional archers a black eye.

Now, we were talking about locating coaches, right?


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

It's not all bad John, I spend a lot of time on Tradtalk and it's very civilized there, those guys got me interested in the dark art of Stringwalking, It's hard because so few shoot this style around my part of the world, so I got a lot of help from the Tadtalk guys and some of the WA top Barebow shooters, like Bobby Larson from Sweden said he would help me out with some Coaching, some great people around if you take the time to look.

I've been working/training with some of our own top WA target shooters, it's nice to share information and a found a close relationship has built up over the last few years between Target and Field Archers, it becomes a melting pot of knowledge, my time with target Coaching and Archers has been a great benefit to my shooting.

All that's required is an open mind :thumbs_up


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

On the coach locator:

USA Archery has improved on the old coach locator which only returned L3 coaches - which meant that instructors, L2s, who are the most commonly found at archery shops and JOADs, weren't included. Additionally, many qualified coaches only take the minimum USA Archery cert they need even though their coaching ability is far beyond that. For instance, a former national team member who coaches collegiate archery only had an L2 for the longest time, because that was all he needed. And when multi-Olympian Khatuna Lorig taught Jennifer Lawrence archery for the Hunger games, Lorig was an L2. 

I think the biggest area for improvement with the coach locator is that it doesn't have any additional information, such as whether the person actively does instruction, where, with whom, what their interests and other experience is - you know, stuff you'd want to know in deciding to email them. Also, lots of people don't know they are on the coach locator list. I didn't.

And OT, there is something about the trad archery community that seems to lend itself to personal animus in web forums, something that goes way beyond merely being argumentative. I think I know a thing or two about being argumentative (I have to say that before someone points it out  ), but I try to keep posts based on the merits and not make posts personal. In the trad forum, it gets ugly, with personal attacks, or attacks based on personal animus. Frankly, the Religion and Politics sub forum (officially the "Anything and Everything" forum) is much more collegial and less personal, even across contentious political and religious divides. Not sure what the answer is or exactly the best way to clean up a toxic culture is, but it definitely needs to be done, IMO.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

steve morley said:


> It's not all bad John, I spend a lot of time on Tradtalk and it's very civilized there, those guys got me interested in the dark art of Stringwalking, It's hard because so few shoot this style around my part of the world, so I got a lot of help from the Tadtalk guys and some of the WA top Barebow shooters, like Bobby Larson from Sweden said he would help me out with some Coaching, some great people around if you take the time to look.
> 
> I've been working/training with some of our own top WA target shooters, it's nice to share information and a found a close relationship has built up over the last few years between Target and Field Archers, it becomes a melting pot of knowledge, my time with target Coaching and Archers has been a great benefit to my shooting.
> 
> All that's required is an open mind :thumbs_up


Tradtalk has some good stuff going for it, but I've also found, in the past, that it has its own version of PC that can be pretty contentious, too.


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

From my understanding there was a little confusion with the practical portion of the recent L4 certification as to draw wrist form, a very capable friend and coach returned from the class distraught. A person truly blessed with an ability to teach and communicate, perhaps better than anyone I've ever known. I understand there are no gimmies, as there shouldn't be at this level, but the number of passing L4 at such a low percentage allowing perspective instructors to slip through the cracks. I mean, come on, 1 in 9 made it after 95% passed written, something is wrong with the system that passes 11.1% of the students.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

w8lon said:


> From my understanding there was a little confusion with the practical portion of the recent L4 certification as to draw wrist form, a very capable friend and coach returned from the class distraught. A person truly blessed with an ability to teach and communicate, perhaps better than anyone I've ever known. I understand there are no gimmies, as there shouldn't be at this level, but the number of passing L4 at such a low percentage allowing perspective instructors to slip through the cracks. I mean, come on, 1 in 9 made it after 95% passed written, something is wrong with the system that passes 11.1% of the students.


Wow, I hadn't heard that. If those stats are correct, even without knowing more details I would still tend to think such a huge discrepancy sounds like a huge failure in instruction, if they can't teach more than 11 percent of students the information to the level needed to pass the non-written portion then it seems their ability to teach is an utter failure, or the system is too complex, or the testing is arbitrary. 

One of the problems with the certifications, IMO, is that they are taught and tested all at the same time. Real information takes time to sink in, and cramming doesn't lead to good retention. So they should start the process before people get to the program, with material in advance. Not sure how much that would help, though, if people are already passing the written 95%.


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

My bad, 95% passed written with a fore mentioned 4 passing the practical, or 4 of 18 or 22% moving up to L4.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

w8lon said:


> My bad, 95% passed written with a fore mentioned 4 passing the practical, or 4 of 18 or 22% moving up to L4.


Oh, well, in that case, with just an 88% failure rate, everything is good 

Now, this could be a statistical fluke. But, on the other hand, it seems more likely to be largely an educational failure on the part of the instructional program. But, admittedly, I'm speculating.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> From my understanding there was a little confusion with the practical portion of the recent L4 certification as to draw wrist form, a very capable friend and coach returned from the class distraught.


I heard about that class. I'd say there was more than "a little" confusion if only 3-4 passed out of a class of 18, esp. if most of those passed the written portion.

Don't get me wrong, I am glad to know we don't just hand out certificates to everyone who pays to attend, but seriously, 4 out of 18 is most likely a problem with the instruction in my view.

I hope they were at least offered refunds. That would be the right way to handle that.


----------



## Dewey3 (May 6, 2012)

target1 said:


> Is there any truth to the saying: Those who can do and those who can't teach?


No.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Sanford said:


> It's a mixed bag. There's no guarantee, as some don't even shoot bows much at all, or at all. It serves a main purpose to insure parents and participants that the instructors have some understanding and that they are insured and background-checked by USAA/NFAA. Many are dedicated to shooting, though, and know their onion per the book and per the bow. So, you could wind up with a Level III that can recite you technique verbatim but can't put it to bow and then have a Level I that is more than fully capable both ways. That's why by Level IV, the weeding process gets a little tougher. Still no guarantee, though.


There are a lot of excellent uncertified instructors out there. 

TAO


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

w8lon said:


> One of the problems with the certifications, IMO, is that they are taught and tested all at the same time. Real information takes time to sink in, and cramming doesn't lead to good retention. So they should start the process before people get to the program, with material in advance. Not sure how much that would help, though, if people are already passing the written 95%.


In all fairness, it seems that the certification shortfalls are being recognized and addressed. 

Fwiw, what you describe is being done for the L3 that I'll be taking in Feb, and for that, I am truly thankful. Knowing in advance what to expect, what to study in advance, and give oneself a better chance of really absorbing the info is a huge plus. 

I was stunned at how easy it was to get L2, just over two years ago. No fault of the coach who taught it. We learned way more than what was needed for the test, because of the huge wealth of knowledge we had in our midst. But that won't always be the case. I've certified around 18 L1s, and quite frankly, that's laughable with my greeness! 

I *want* to be challenged and improve, for my sake as well as my students. I will and have referred students to better qualified coaches when I've taught them everything I know. 

Hopefully the new standards will sort the wheat from the chaff. Or... Just have everyone step up their game.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Ms.Speedmaster said:


> Hopefully the new standards will sort the wheat from the chaff. Or... Just have everyone step up their game.


Even better, good instruction means that nobody is chaff and everybody is brought up to the standards needed. Not always possible, I know, but that should be the goal, not winnowing, IMO.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

TheAncientOne said:


> There are a lot of excellent uncertified instructors out there.
> 
> TAO


Could not agree more!!!


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

Warbow said:


> Even better, good instruction means that nobody is chaff and everybody is brought up to the standards needed. Not always possible, I know, but that should be the goal, not winnowing, IMO.


Absolutely! It's all in the atmosphere that is set. If we're not made to feel inferior, but encouraged to become better, the odds are greater for victory. (Familiar verbiage from a mom of a 14yo with lots of English literature homework this week!).


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

gjlama94 said:


> Bender-
> Don't know if you can lock this thread, but you might consider it. It's a useful link for newbies and lurkers and it'd be a shame to have it memory holed because an unrelated discussion gets out of hand.


Even if I had the ability to do that I would not take upon myself to do so. That is the Moderators' prerogative. After all is was the Moderators who decided to remove this thread from the Traditional forum and place it here. I was told that it was moved because it was not "appropriate" for that forum.

I guess that it is just considered inappropriate for those who shoot Traditional to have easy access to certain resources and to seek higher levels of instruction. 

Don't rock the boat, and all that.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Even if I had the ability to do that I would not take upon myself to do so.


It's not hard, you just close the thread if you started it. Folks do it all the time...



> I guess that it is just considered inappropriate for those who shoot Traditional to have easy access to certain resources and to seek higher levels of instruction.


That makes no sense to me.


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

I've never closed or locked a thread, don't know how to do it. Can't say that I particularly care either.

And it makes no sense to me either. But then again I'm not the one who decided that this subject, finding coaches, was inappropriate for the Traditional forum.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> It's not hard, you just close the thread if you started it. Folks do it all the time...


First post:



> If you know what state a person lives in, and you want to know if they actually are a certified Olympic coach, here ya go!
> 
> I recommend that for any given state, you run it for all 5 coach levels.
> 
> Have fun!


Folks would typically be searching their state for a coaching resource, not already having a name and searching their state's listing to check qualification. Somehow, I think that's not gone unnoticed, either


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Bender said:


> I've never closed or locked a thread, don't know how to do it. Can't say that I particularly care either.
> 
> And it makes no sense to me either. But then again I'm not the one who decided that this subject, finding coaches, was inappropriate for the Traditional forum.


Not real tough. At the top of the 1st page on the right, you go to administrative, then close thread, then proceed. 

If that's too hard to figure out, at the bottom of the "quick reply" screen, just click on "Close This Thread"... 

Unless of course you don't want to close it, and you wish to have your motives and character on display instead. It's always good to remember how small a community this archery world is, and how those who choose to sling mud, rarely come through without getting most of it on themselves.


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

Look I don't know what you mean by slinging mud. Is your reply meant as some sort of threat? It really doesn't matter to me, but the whole thing is weird.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Bender said:


> Look I don't know what you mean by slinging mud. Is your reply meant as some sort of threat? It really doesn't matter to me, but the whole thing is weird.


Well, you could clarify. What did you mean by telling people to look up coaches in states they don't live in to "have fun"?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Bender said:


> Look I don't know what you mean by slinging mud. Is your reply meant as some sort of threat? It really doesn't matter to me, but the whole thing is weird.


Yup, sure is. Probably should have been closed a while ago.


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

Warbow said:


> Well, you could clarify. What did you mean by telling people to look up coaches in states they don't live in to "have fun"?


In the Trad forum people yammer on about who is and who is not a coach. That is a big fat "Whatever....." Other people want to find coaches. That would be fun. 

I myself think that it was a perfectly appropriate subject for the Trad forum where people are so hung up over it.

But take it how you want.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Wacky!!! :dontknow:


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

this whole thread's conversation makes no sense to me.



Chris


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

TwilightSea said:


> Still no Lv.3 coach in Tampa. It's a shame the Newberry center is so damn far away.


Two of us got our Level 3's this past weekend....

SB


----------



## TwilightSea (Apr 16, 2012)

Shades really Scott. Thats great. Mind sending me a pm when you get the chance so we talk about it? I want to try the coach thing next year after the renaissance faire.


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

Warbow said:


> Wow, I hadn't heard that. If those stats are correct, even without knowing more details I would still tend to think such a huge discrepancy sounds like a huge failure in instruction, if they can't teach more than 11 percent of students the information to the level needed to pass the non-written portion then it seems their ability to teach is an utter failure, or the system is too complex, or the testing is arbitrary.
> 
> One of the problems with the certifications, IMO, is that they are taught and tested all at the same time. Real information takes time to sink in, and cramming doesn't lead to good retention. So they should start the process before people get to the program, with material in advance. Not sure how much that would help, though, if people are already passing the written 95%.


The process was taught well. The information was good. The L5 coaches who were there were consistent, didn't shirk their duties, spent as much time with every person as was needed. They were great.

The issues (in my opinion) were people that were not familiar enough with the system on the way in, and then there were also some people who really struggle standing up and talking/presenting in front of others.

I don't think refunds were appropriate, the issue was simply that most people were not prepared to be there.

The real issue (again in my opinion) lies in the giving out of L3 and L2 certifications if you pay your money.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

spangler said:


> The process was taught well. The information was good. The L5 coaches who were there were consistent, didn't shirk their duties, spent as much time with every person as was needed. They were great.
> 
> The issues (in my opinion) were people that were not familiar enough with the system on the way in, and then there were also some people who really struggle standing up and talking/presenting in front of others.
> 
> ...


What would you propose as a fix?

I don't think we are really on different pages based what you write. If the program can't bring the people it accepts up to the level needed to pass then there is a problem with the program. As you point out, that could be an issue with the prerequisites being inadequate. On the other hand there could also be an issue with the cramming issue I noted, which is that a single seminar is not a good way to learn for the long term. It is better to learn over time for better retention. The reading should all be done in advance. And an on-line test taken and passed before the seminar. Then the seminar can concentrate on the stuff a seminar can do well, which is the in person, physical stuff, and on providing insight to the written material.

A good teacher doesn't blame his students. When everyone in one of my college history (I think it was history) classes did poorly on one of the tests, the teacher did not simply blame the students, because everyone did poorly, even the good students. Instead he said there was a problem with his teaching and the test as well. I don't think the take away from an 22% oral exam pass rate vs. a 95% written pass rate should be "our instruction did everything right".


----------



## Moebow (Jul 8, 2010)

I certainly do NOT know the dynamics of the L4 class in question. And all the above observations have merit. I will say though that it is not always the "system" or the instructors that are at fault. I think we have all sat in classes where some students are just "so full of themselves" that nothing being presented - takes. You know, the class time hogs that never ask or question or try to get clarification. All they do is is "present" their view of what they think or what their (vast) experience shows as fact- over and over. Including stories of theirs that have absolutely not relevance to the subject.

The class I attended had a few of those. As in most classes, small cliques form such as a "lunch group," or the "study group." My clique pretty much identified the question-ables during the week long class. We pretty much had the ones that wouldn't succeed identified. (And yes, many of us tried to "clue them in.") True, some don't stand and present well ( but that is like actually teaching) it takes practice that may not be accomplished in the short time of the class. But there are students that just try too hard and become a detriment to themselves and the class and then fail. The "practical" presentation is nerve racking (I almost didn't even go in due to self doubt). If not for the L5s presenting the class and them assuring me the "I had it," I probably wouldn't have gone in. And, yes, I passed it with flying colors according to Coach Lee.

I'm just saying there are a LOT of dynamics involved and I don't think it fair to say it was the instructors, the student prep, or whatever you can come up with. I do agree that 4/18 is a little steep for a pass rate but trying to nail it down to just one or even a few factors is kind of "Monday morning quarterbacking."

Can the system be better? Most likely. Can the L2 and L3 classes be better? Probably, but here we get into a standardization problem that I think is nearly impossible. How would you "standardize" L2 & L3 classes across the country and assure a consistent level for a "pass" grade? As in all endeavors, constructive criticism and proactive suggestions can help but in the final analysis we are dealing with humans for both the instructors and the students. What could be less standardized than that?

This is in no way meant to suggest that individual disappointment in not passing is not important. It IS!!! (Important!) But every student places themselves in a position that may lead to a "fail" grade and ego busting disappointment. The problem is determining the reason. Is it the student, instructor, presentation, preparedness, what?

A tough problem with no easy answers. The NTS is simple compared to this type of problem -- IMHO

Arne


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Thanks for that. I think it provides some much needed insight and perspective.


----------



## Humdinger (Apr 4, 2012)

After reading this thread from start to finish... Why is Benders character on blast? He is the OP and has only had a few comments.. I only see one person here that was out of hand from the start and getting everyone bent out of shape.

I have only one more Question... Why is this thread not appropriate for the Traditional Forum?( Directed at the MOD that moved this thread) I shoot traditional archery or Barebow and all my coaches have been USA archery certified coaches except one which by the way has just as much knowledge if not more but wont go through all the politics to coach. Just because we are Trad archers doesn't mean we dont use USA certified coaches.. 

Thanks for the link OP. As many of you may not know at this point, Barebow archery is on the rise again. With many new archers entering the scene looking for information, this Link will help in the traditional area as well.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Moebow said:


> Can the system be better? Most likely. Can the L2 and L3 classes be better? Probably, but here we get into a standardization problem that I think is nearly impossible. How would you "standardize" L2 & L3 classes across the country and assure a consistent level for a "pass" grade? Arne


I recieved my Level III certification last year and then promply signed up for the NTS Module taught by Coach Lee and several Level V coaches.

I felt that the Level III course served only as an introduction to NTS and didn't make me an expert by any means. The NTS module was an eye opener, the main benefit was getting explanations directly from Coach Lee on topics I had questions about. 

NTS may not be the answer for everyone but it is good to be able to teach it properly if you have the certification.

TAO


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

Warbow said:


> What would you propose as a fix?


My suggestions were asked from and given to USA Archery on how to improve things. This isn't really the appropriate forum to discuss them because I wouldn't be able to adequately explain the instruction, experience, and overall classroom.



> A good teacher doesn't blame his students. When everyone in one of my college history (I think it was history) classes did poorly on one of the tests, the teacher did not simply blame the students, because everyone did poorly, even the good students. Instead he said there was a problem with his teaching and the test as well. I don't think the take away from an 22% oral exam pass rate vs. a 95% written pass rate should be "our instruction did everything right".


[/quote]

There are a TON of people in this world who may be able to pass a written exam but can't present, nor can they explain to others. Sometimes it simply is the student. Many people can't teach, or explain, and as a L4 you MUST be able to. If not, you shouldn't pass. 

My personal opinion, and I cannot stress how much this is my OWN personal opinion is that Coach Lee has seen NTS armchair quarterbacked and *******ized by a lot of people, a lot on HERE. I think a TON of people (who still to this day, look just a few threads below) don't understand the NTS system and say, "this is the NTS system" and give it a really bad name. I think the pass rate was appropriate. Maybe I'm biased because I'm one of the few who did pass. This doesn't mean I'm a master of the NTS system and that was the first thing that Coach Lee told me. He told me to go home and practice for months before I tried to teach it. To further and deepen my understanding of the NTS so that I can properly explain it to others.

I look a few threads below and see how people have misrepresented the NTS grievously and push it as fact and who make silly arguments that are completely false regarding it, but the arguments look valid due to their limited or skewed understanding of what they are arguing about.

I stopped trying to help on here a long time ago because it is a largely a waste of time, so I don't bother to try to correct it anymore. There is a reason this place is known as the "cesspool"

Is NTS the only way to shoot? No. Is it the wrong way? No. Is it misinterpreted and given a bad name by a bunch of people who don't understand it? Daily.

Andrew


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

spangler said:


> My suggestions were asked from and given to USA Archery on how to improve things. This isn't really the appropriate forum to discuss them because I wouldn't be able to adequately explain the instruction, experience, and overall classroom.


You seem like a decent writer, so I'd think you could explain--as you apparently did to USA Archery. I think it would be interesting and useful, though I can understand if you feel otherwise.



spangler said:


> There are a TON of people in this world who may be able to pass a written exam but can't present, nor can they explain to others. Sometimes it simply is the student. Many people can't teach, or explain, and as a L4 you MUST be able to. If not, you shouldn't pass.


True enough that book learning doesn't automatically translate into teaching ability. And I've not seen anyone, anyone at all, advocate social promotion to L4. However, a wash out rate of 88% is very high, and expensive and a waste of time for everyone. So fixing the issues while maintaining high standards would seem the right approach



spangler said:


> My personal opinion, and I cannot stress how much this is my OWN personal opinion is that Coach Lee has seen NTS armchair quarterbacked


If I may say, in my own opinion, I'd say that's tough. That's part an parcel of being a head coach in a diverse country. Criticism comes with the territory. 



spangler said:


> and *******ized by a lot of people, a lot on HERE. I think a TON of people (who still to this day, look just a few threads below) don't understand the NTS system and say, "this is the NTS system" and give it a really bad name.


USA Archery is certainly working on the issue, but it is to a certain degree because of communication issues. Why is it that so few understand NTS? One issue is that it changes. Another is that it is very complex. I think people want to understand it, but as the 88% wash out rate shows, it isn't that easy. And coaches sometimes learn of changes to NTS from their *students* coming back from a JDT camp or some such. USA Archery lacks on-line updates on NTS or any communication short of flying to a symposium (a cool thing for those who can justify/afford to attend) or their cert seminar.



spangler said:


> I think the pass rate was appropriate. Maybe I'm biased because I'm one of the few who did pass. This doesn't mean I'm a master of the NTS system and that was the first thing that Coach Lee told me. He told me to go home and practice for months before I tried to teach it. To further and deepen my understanding of the NTS so that I can properly explain it to others.


I wasn't there, so you could well be right. But what that suggests to me is a) those people didn't meet the prerequisites and shouldn't have been in the class or b) the class didn't do a good job of bringing the students up to speed. 

It could be that you are just more talented than the others, and are better. But if that is the case, if the class is only good enough to get 20% to pass, then the class isn't long enough or good enough for the majority of students. That is a waste of resources. Maybe an executive level class for folks like you and a longer program for people who aren't--but what ever the case, their should be a way to bring more people up to the level of performance needed to pass.

However, congratulations on passing. It is good to have more qualified NTS coaches in the system.



spangler said:


> I look a few threads below and see how people have misrepresented the NTS grievously and push it as fact and who make silly arguments that are completely false regarding it, but the arguments look valid due to their limited or skewed understanding of what they are arguing about.


And, again, part of that is communication. For a long time BEST was like a priesthood, where special knowledge was only passed down to special people, in person. USA Archery has opened that up by finally making NTS details available to the public in the book Archery, ed. by USA Archery. Until that was published, there was no official USA Archery material available to the public whatsoever.



spangler said:


> I stopped trying to help on here a long time ago because it is a largely a waste of time, so I don't bother to try to correct it anymore. There is a reason this place is known as the "cesspool"


IMO, you calling it a cesspool and saying how much better you are than the forum does more to make it so than the posts you complain about. :dontknow: And I'd say that calling it such is over the top and unjustified.


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

Warbow said:


> IMO, you calling it a cesspool and saying how much better you are than the forum does more to make it so than the posts you complain about. :dontknow: And I'd say that calling it such is over the top and unjustified.


Don't misrepresent what I said. 

There are certain people who really try to help this forum be a useful place, then there are those who do their best to destroy it, I don't even think they know why. I wish they would take an honest look at themselves.

The juice simply isn't worth the squeeze.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

spangler said:


> The juice simply isn't worth the squeeze.


Up to you. But if you think NTS is misrepresented, and especially now that you have the L4, you can give what you feel is the accurate correction.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Andrew, of course you and I are both entitled to our opinion on this, but IMO I could not personally accept hundreds of dollars each from over a dozen students who came to me for instruction, and left without anything to show for it. One of two things should have happened. Either the instructor offers to stay late and keep teaching until the student has it right, or the student gets a refund. Of course, there are always exceptions, but that is a pretty fair way to handle such a high failure rate IMO. How many college professors or high school teachers stay late to keep teaching when they have a student who they KNOW is capable of learning, but just didn't get it the first time? Plenty. I've had instructors do this for me, and my wife does it all the time for her students. It's the right thing to do.

That's just my opinon however.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

John - 

I kinda think the same way.
Once again, we had to go to different schools together...or something like that.

There are some students who will never "get it" no matter what you do or say, and some that will need more than a single seminar. 
I think a 20 % failure rate may be acceptable, a 20% success rate, maybe not - at least with this stuff.

Viper1 out.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Andrew, of course you and I are both entitled to our opinion on this, but IMO I could not personally accept hundreds of dollars each from over a dozen students who came to me for instruction, and left without anything to show for it. One of two things should have happened. Either the instructor offers to stay late and keep teaching until the student has it right, or the student gets a refund. Of course, there are always exceptions, but that is a pretty fair way to handle such a high failure rate IMO. How many college professors or high school teachers stay late to keep teaching when they have a student who they KNOW is capable of learning, but just didn't get it the first time? Plenty. I've had instructors do this for me, and my wife does it all the time for her students. It's the right thing to do.
> 
> That's just my opinon however.


John, going with your college analogy, most of the upper division course work had prerequisites. You don't go into third year calculus or thermodynamics without the prerequisites and pass the course. Many of the folks who have struggled with the level 4 have never shot a recurve. Some argue that you can't even be an effective coach unless you have been a competitive archer in that discipline. It is very difficult to pass the level 4 practical unless your have the context of shooting under your belt. Ron Carmichael and I offered up to USA Archery the idea of doing a better job on the pre-selection of candidates for the level 4 as well as level 3. In other words, just signing up doesn't get you in. You need your bona fides verified before admittance.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TomB said:


> It is very difficult to pass the level 4 practical unless your have the context of shooting under your belt. Ron Carmichael and I offered up to USA Archery the idea of doing a better job on the pre-selection of candidates for the level 4 as well as level 3. In other words, just signing up doesn't get you in. You need your bona fides verified before admittance.


Sounds like there needs to be an additional course or more *before* the Level 4 course, to get people ready for it rather than just assuming people will get there on their own - a coaching for coaching course, test prep, cram school, pre-work, what ever you want to call it. We don't just teach our archers, for instance, for a 3 days or a week, then send them home and say "See you in 3 years!" We know intuitively that would never work, yet that is the model for the high level coaching instruction.


----------



## mcullumber (Jul 31, 2006)

Just want to comment on a few things about the last Level 4-NTS class held at theOTC in Chula Vista this past Oct./Nov. I attend this class. There were 16 participants and 6 passed. I was fortunate to be one of the 6. It was a very difficult class. As Andrew stated, many came to the class unprepared, not because they did not know how to instruct, but unprepared for the NTS at that time. If you did not pass it at the class, you are able to re-test with Coach Lee at anytime. He will be available at all the USAT events in 2014, so you don't just loose you money. All of the Level 5 Coaches are available via Skype or other means if needed. Coach Lee wants everyone to pass, but he also wants everyone to know and understand the NTS, to be able to coach it.

What he doesn't want is someone to take the class so that they can just "Hang the NTS Certified Plaque" and tell everyone they are great. He wants people to coach the NTS and get archers into the system. This means he want Level 4-NTS Coaches to attend JDT Camps, seminars, etc., to be part of the USA Archery Coaching staff.

Now some will not want to do this for various reasons, and that is fine. It does not mean they are any less of an Archery Coach. The Level 4-NTS course is for those who want to coach the NTS and "feed" Archers into the USA Archery pipeline.

I know some of you will start to pick this apart, it is expected. It's Archery Talk.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

mcullumber said:


> Just want to comment on a few things about the last Level 4-NTS class held at theOTC in Chula Vista this past Oct./Nov. I attend this class. There were 16 participants and 6 passed. I was fortunate to be one of the 6. It was a very difficult class. ... Coach Lee wants everyone to pass, but he also wants everyone to know and understand the NTS, to be able to coach it.


Calculus is difficult, too. I wouldn't expect anyone to be able to learn it in a week, for example. Given the challenge of the course material, what do you think could be done to bring more people up to, well, your level? Should the class be longer? Take place over multiple months? Do pre-work so that there will be no need to do any reading or for any of the ideas to be new at the class? What are some other ways the system could be improved?



mcullumber said:


> What he doesn't want is someone to take the class so that they can just "Hang the NTS Certified Plaque" and tell everyone they are great. He wants people to coach the NTS and get archers into the system. This means he want Level 4-NTS Coaches to attend JDT Camps, seminars, etc., to be part of the USA Archery Coaching staff.
> 
> Now some will not want to do this for various reasons, and that is fine. It does not mean they are any less of an Archery Coach. The Level 4-NTS course is for those who want to coach the NTS and "feed" Archers into the USA Archery pipeline.


Given the issues that, say, Spangler has with his perception that people misunderstand NTS, doesn't it seem that we need as many of the coaches in the lower levels to know some of this L4 stuff? And not every archer wants to be a USA Archery target archery competitor, so I don't assume that even an L4 will necessarily "feed" archers into the USA Archery pipeline. Their archers may do NFAA, 3D, hunting or what not, but want to do it at a high level using the techniques of USA Archery.

I think it would be great if more people can be part of the JDTs and the OTC staff, but I've also read Limbwalker talk about how the time and money he *donated* to do that was substantial. Anyways, since you note that it's all good, it doesn't seem to be an issue.



mcullumber said:


> I know some of you will start to pick this apart, it is expected. It's Archery Talk.


Is that necessarily bad? We could have a press release page where no comments are allowed... Of what value is a web forum that is all dittos and hosannas? I think we learn multiple ways, and one of them is to ask questions. Often times, questions bring up new issues, new ways of looking at them, and, on occasion, new insight. Thanks for posting yours.


----------



## mcullumber (Jul 31, 2006)

Warbow, you are the best at what you do! Cheers!


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Oh, who doesn't like classical dialectic? :dontknow:



> Originally, Dialectic (also dialectics and the dialectical method) was a method of argument for resolving disagreement that has been central to European and Indian philosophy since antiquity. The word dialectic originated in ancient Greece, and was made popular by Plato in the Socratic dialogues. The dialectical method is discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject, who wish to establish the truth of the matter guided by reasoned arguments.[1]


-From the wiki.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

mcullumber said:


> What he doesn't want is someone to take the class so that they can just "Hang the NTS Certified Plaque" and tell everyone they are great. He wants people to coach the NTS and get archers into the system. This means he want Level 4-NTS Coaches to attend JDT Camps, seminars, etc., to be part of the USA Archery Coaching staff.


I agree in theory but have an issue with the execution. These camps are only offers at a few locations. For someone on the East coast like myself, it's expensive to travel to Chula Vista or Colorado for these camps. I was signed up for the Oct camp but had to cancel because onsite rooms became unavailable and offsite was going to add $700 to the course price. For someone like myself who volunteers I can't justify airfaire, course fees, additional housing and losing a weeks pay for the privilege. 

TAO


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Andrew, of course you and I are both entitled to our opinion on this, but IMO I could not personally accept hundreds of dollars each from over a dozen students who came to me for instruction, and left without anything to show for it. One of two things should have happened. Either the instructor offers to stay late and keep teaching until the student has it right, or the student gets a refund. Of course, there are always exceptions, but that is a pretty fair way to handle such a high failure rate IMO. How many college professors or high school teachers stay late to keep teaching when they have a student who they KNOW is capable of learning, but just didn't get it the first time? Plenty. I've had instructors do this for me, and my wife does it all the time for her students. It's the right thing to do.
> 
> That's just my opinon however.


I agree John, I tell my students and their parents that I will put in as much effort that they do. If that means staying late or scheduling extra days, I'm open to it.

TAO


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Andrew, of course you and I are both entitled to our opinion on this, but IMO I could not personally accept hundreds of dollars each from over a dozen students who came to me for instruction, and left without anything to show for it. One of two things should have happened. Either the instructor offers to stay late and keep teaching until the student has it right, or the student gets a refund. Of course, there are always exceptions, but that is a pretty fair way to handle such a high failure rate IMO. How many college professors or high school teachers stay late to keep teaching when they have a student who they KNOW is capable of learning, but just didn't get it the first time? Plenty. I've had instructors do this for me, and my wife does it all the time for her students. It's the right thing to do.
> 
> That's just my opinon however.


It should be pointed out that nobody outright FAILED. People were told, you are not ready to pass right NOW. Coach Lee offered to take time out of his schedule to retest students who didn't pass at this time at a major tournament that both the student and the Coach would be at.

It isn't really a failure rate, understand it is just a rate that indicates after a firehose WEEK of instruction, you aren't ready to be certified right now, go home, practice all you were taught, continue learning, and retest in a while.

As for staying late, instruction started at 9am and went until about 9pm. Nobody was a harder worker than Coach Lee and as I said before, all of the assistant coaches who were there were completely available to help.

Personally, I know I practiced for 2 hours every night after classes. Only a couple of students did that. I think that without doing that, I would not have passed that day at that time either.


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

mcullumber said:


> Warbow, you are the best at what you do! Cheers!


^^^

No argument here.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

mcullumber said:


> Just want to comment on a few things about the last Level 4-NTS class held at theOTC in Chula Vista this past Oct./Nov. I attend this class. There were 16 participants and 6 passed. I was fortunate to be one of the 6. It was a very difficult class. As Andrew stated, many came to the class unprepared, not because they did not know how to instruct, but unprepared for the NTS at that time. If you did not pass it at the class, you are able to re-test with Coach Lee at anytime. He will be available at all the USAT events in 2014, so you don't just loose you money. All of the Level 5 Coaches are available via Skype or other means if needed. Coach Lee wants everyone to pass, but he also wants everyone to know and understand the NTS, to be able to coach it.
> 
> What he doesn't want is someone to take the class so that they can just "Hang the NTS Certified Plaque" and tell everyone they are great. He wants people to coach the NTS and get archers into the system. This means he want Level 4-NTS Coaches to attend JDT Camps, seminars, etc., to be part of the USA Archery Coaching staff.
> 
> ...


Mike, I think this is a fair assessment. When I went, I went for the knowledge, almost like I was auditing the class. I debated whether to take the practical or just be content with the knowledge I gained because I had a little different purpose than most there. (more on this in a moment). I decided to take the practical more to see of I had learned it correctly. I was fortunate enough to pass the first time.

The reason I went is I know what I don't know. I have never been a competitive archer, just a recreational one and the parent of a couple of competitive archers. Even though I helped kids make 42 international archery trips representing the USA, assisted a couple of dozen kids earn their Olympian status, and was a part of a couple dozen making Jr. USAT or collegiate all-american, I never felt I had a lot to offer the elite archer. I learn from them as I have never been on the line like John shooting for a medal in the Olympics. There is no way I can convey anything that might help them be an elite archer other than hearsay. My role has been to help beginners and to get them to a certain level. Also, talent identification and passing on to better coaches those that have the drive, parental support and skill set. I submit every major league baseball player had someone in little league or above that made a difference by teaching them the fundamentals, rules, etiquette, and why you play the game in the first place. That was my role in archery. I just wanted to make sure I was teaching the right stuff and what they would hear later on if they happened to find archery their thing and rose to be competitive archers. Some would criticize me for such a low yield process. But, in the final analysis my level 4 certification has helped me make a difference: engineers, wildlife biologists, welders, electricians, pharmacists, teachers and my leverage to help these kids was archery. Yes, Coach Lee and others are not happy that I don't go to the camps and use my level 4 for the elite athletes, but again I know what I don't know and have bigger fish to fry.

What's my point? Some that pay their money and don't pass still came out ahead. USA Archery is not going to take away what they learned. I will tell you what I do when some of the level 3's i have certified tell me they are going for the level 4, I coach them on what they need to know before they go. Sort of a prep course. After all, their performance on the level 4 reflects on me. There are many good coaches not on the coach locator and there are many good coaches who don't have the certification behind their name. Finding them has always been an issue and in my case I didn't find them for my children until it was too late.

Finally, the best part of the level 3 course is the coaching philosophy section. I encourage every coach to reflect on what you goals for coaching are and what you are willing to do to help your students. Are you trying to make a living coaching or are you trying to make a difference? These are not mutually exclusive, but it is difficult to do both.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Coach Lee offered to take time out of his schedule to retest students who didn't pass at this time at a major tournament that both the student and the Coach would be at.


Sounds reasonable. Thanks for the explanation.

Personally I would have said if we can't get together in the next year, I'll refund your money.

But then I probably worry about how much other people spend on archery more than they do sometimes...


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Gents -

Please take this with all due respect and I mean that.

Where does one go to get "certified" if they don't buy into the NTS/BEST system/methodology 100%? 

Viper1 out.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Finally, the best part of the level 3 course is the coaching philosophy section. I encourage every coach to reflect on what you goals for coaching are and what you are willing to do to help your students. Are you trying to make a living coaching or are you trying to make a difference? These are not mutually exclusive, but it is difficult to do both.


Amen to that, Tom.


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

Viper1 said:


> Gents -
> 
> Please take this with all due respect and I mean that.
> 
> ...


You could start your OWN certification program 

I guess the proper way to say it would be to find "USA Archery Certified instructor/coach" But since there aren't a lot of other certification houses out there competing....just saying "certified" seems to take care of it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Here's a little food for thought...

After having been both a USAT team member and a JDT coach (and previously a Lee-appointed "regional high performance coach" - although USArchery chooses to no longer recognize that), I would submit that every Sr. USAT archer should be granted a Level 4 coaching certificate.

"But most of them aren't coaches!" you say... Well, my response to that is that any and all Sr. USAT archers I've ever known have AT LEAST as much knowledge and information to transfer to a student as MOST level 4 certified coaches have.

No, it may not be "coaching" in the sense that they can communicate and nurture an archer the way many gifted coaches can, but then again, as Tom points out, many, if not most level 4 coaches cannot help a future elite archer understand how to deal with certain things that are specific to high level competition, or prepare their equipment well enough to compete at that level. 

So they may offer different things, but I would strongly encourage USArchery to consider granting some sort of high-level coaching certification to any archer who makes a Sr. USAT team, because frankly, if an archer knows enough to make Sr. USAT, they know more than most coaches already, whether they can communicate it or not. And by granting them coaching certifications, it will only prompt them to develop as a coach, and we need more coaches in this country with high level competitive experience and equipment knowledge.

So, if they aren't already, Joe McGlyn, Butch Johnson, Jason McKittrick, Vic Wunderle, Jake Kaminski, Joe Fanchin, Jenny Hardy, Jamie Van Natta, Dave Cousins, etc, etc, should ALL be USArchery level 4 coaches. Period. You cannot tell me that any of them are not at LEAST as qualified, if not moreso, than most level 4's we have coaching right now. 

The other "no-brainer" to me is to make every Olympian and Sr. USAT team member a lifetime member of USArchery, and I'd even waive registration fees for Olympians and current USAT members to every USAT and Nationals event, because, let's face it, it only does USArchery good to make sure Olympians and current USAT members are present and shooting as often as possible at every event they have. But that's another topic for another day...

If USArchery wants their top competitors to "give back to the sport" then they really need to remove any excuse for not doing so.

I mean seriously, why (as an example) should Jay Barrs or Darrell Pace, or Janet Dykman, or Khatuna Lorig EVER have to: Renew their membership to USArchery, Pay to enter a USArchery event, or submit their qualifications as a level 4 coach? 

John


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Here's a little food for thought...
> 
> After having been both a USAT team member and a JDT coach (and previously a Lee-appointed "regional high performance coach" - although USArchery chooses to no longer recognize that), I would submit that every Sr. USAT archer should be granted a Level 4 coaching certificate.
> 
> "But most of them aren't coaches!" you say... Well, my response to that is that any and all Sr. USAT archers I've ever known have AT LEAST as much knowledge and information to transfer to a student as MOST level 4 certified coaches have.


I definitely disagree. There is a definite difference between a coach and someone who is a high-level athlete. Can one be the other? Absolutely. Can every high-level performer in a field be a coach or mentor? No. They shouldn't designated as such.

This is a broad statement but is true for any profession. A high level computer programmer can't necessarily teach programming. A person knowledgeable in high level math can't necessarily teach math. A high level Olympic weightlifter can't always teach strength training. Often time, I think reaching a high level can be a detriment to being able to teach because a high performer can't always remember what it was like to start and it just seems to easy and natural to them now. There is a huge difference between being able to DO something and being able to teach someone else how to do it. Sometimes these lines cross, but it isn't a given.

A person who has reached a high level as an athlete can be an excellent resource for someone like me who hasn't achieved a high level myself but knows when to solicit the advice of a high performer to help a student with experiences that are simply beyond me. 

I would argue that the coaching certifications be reserved for those who are certifiable as COACHES. Specialists in athlete development and have the knowledge to take students from point A to Z.

Andrew


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TomB said:


> Mike, I think this is a fair assessment. When I went, I went for the knowledge, almost like I was auditing the class. I debated whether to take the practical or just be content with the knowledge I gained because I had a little different purpose than most there. (more on this in a moment). I decided to take the practical more to see of I had learned it correctly. I was fortunate enough to pass the first time.
> 
> The reason I went is I know what I don't know. I have never been a competitive archer, just a recreational one and the parent of a couple of competitive archers. Even though I helped kids make 42 international archery trips representing the USA, assisted a couple of dozen kids earn their Olympian status, and was a part of a couple dozen making Jr. USAT or collegiate all-american, I never felt I had a lot to offer the elite archer. I learn from them as I have never been on the line like John shooting for a medal in the Olympics. There is no way I can convey anything that might help them be an elite archer other than hearsay. My role has been to help beginners and to get them to a certain level. Also, talent identification and passing on to better coaches those that have the drive, parental support and skill set. I submit every major league baseball player had someone in little league or above that made a difference by teaching them the fundamentals, rules, etiquette, and why you play the game in the first place. That was my role in archery. I just wanted to make sure I was teaching the right stuff and what they would hear later on if they happened to find archery their thing and rose to be competitive archers. Some would criticize me for such a low yield process. But, in the final analysis my level 4 certification has helped me make a difference: engineers, wildlife biologists, welders, electricians, pharmacists, teachers and my leverage to help these kids was archery. Yes, Coach Lee and others are not happy that I don't go to the camps and use my level 4 for the elite athletes, but again I know what I don't know and have bigger fish to fry.
> 
> ...


I'm not a coach, just an instructor, so I'll never need a level four, nor am I qualified to fly to JDT camps and stuff, since I'm a recreational archer who likes teaching beginning and intermediate archery to people who enjoy it. 

Even though I examine NTS critically (if largely from the outside), it's what the program I work with teaches, and it's the national standard for USA Archery, so I want to be able to do that well and get people started on it correctly. So when I hear Spangler, and others, say that L3 really doesn't teach NTS its a bit frustrating. I think we can all agree that NTS is complex - that may be because it is most advanced and useful archery system ever or because it is the Rube Goldberg device of archery coaching systems, I don't really know. But I'd like to, and it seems there is an opportunity for USA Archery. Rather than see the L4 course as a way to get free help for USA Archery's elite program and try to keep out people who "just want plaques", perhaps they could also see that many people just want to understand this complicated system they've come up with so they can teach it even at the very basic level, but with a deep understanding.

I think it can make sense for "coaching" courses being for people who are competitive minded and have the training ability to do long term strategies and motivations for archers on a competitive track, but I also think there should be a path for learning the NTS system more thoroughly as an instructor. Not everyone is a competitor champing at the bit, nor do you have to have that to want to know more about teaching the US System as best as possible.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> I mean seriously, why (as an example) should Jay Barrs or Darrell Pace, or Janet Dykman, or Khatuna Lorig EVER have to: Renew their membership to USArchery, Pay to enter a USArchery event, or submit their qualifications as a level 4 coach?
> 
> John


It seemed kind of silly to hear that Khatuna Lorig was teaching as a Level 2, on the other hand, if USA Archery wants a national system, giving all senior team members an L4 will create a disjointed system where some of them know the official line in its current state and some don't, so they'd have to go back to having add ons, like L4 and L4 NTS, or L4 (Nat. Team.) and L4 (week long seminar)


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Andrew, we clearly see this topic from different points of view. I imagine that I see this topic from a point of view of about 10% of coaches, and you from about the other 90%, so I have no delusions that the majority will agree with me on this.



> Can every high-level performer in a field be a coach or mentor? No.


Can every highly-certified "coach" teach an archer to be a USAT-level archer? Not on your life. 



> reserved for those who are certifiable as COACHES.


Certified based on what? You and I both know there are many L4's out there who have no concept of how to truly prepare for a high-level competition, how to deal with situations that arise during those competitions, or how to prepare one's equipment to shoot a 590 indoor fita vs. a 580. 



> A high level computer programmer can't necessarily teach programming. A person knowledgeable in high level math can't necessarily teach math. A high level Olympic weightlifter can't always teach strength training.


I'll listen to the programmer, the math expert and the weightlifter first, then draw my own conclusions. 

So you're telling me that if Butch, Jenny, Khatuna, Reo and Braden are sitting on one side of the room, and a group of L4 coaches who've never shot competitively are sitting on the other side of the room, you're going to go sit with the L4 coaches and listen to what they have to tell you? 

I don't know many who would make that choice.

Please understand what I'm saying here. I'm not saying Sr. USAT members are universally more qualified as coaches than all L4 certified coaches. What I'm saying is that they have the potential to offer AT LEAST as much value to an archer as any L4 I've ever met, but most likely in a different way.

Frankly, there are a lot of Sr. USAT caliber archers that are not going to take the time to attend the necessary courses because they feel they already know what they need to know, and they already have all the students they want. I know this is true with a number of very accomplished coaches across the U.S. - some of our MOST accomplished coaches in fact. They know what they know, and don't feel the need to go get some new certification to prove it. USArchery needs to recognize that knowledge and stop being so stubborn that everyone needs to go through the certification process AGAIN, even when they have already proven they are a highly qualified coach or an extremely knowledgeable archer, or both.

Tell me this. What harm would be done if USArchery granted all Sr. USAT and Olympic archers a Level 4 certification? And what benefits could come from it? From a cost/benefit analysis, I can only see much greater benefits to the organization than potential risk/cost. There are no doubt a number of archers out there who are not currently coaching, BUT WOULD if they were granted some certification based on their DEMONSTRATED knowledge of the sport.

And with that - I am through with this topic - Rick McKinney was right, and I'm going to take his advice.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Andrew, we clearly see this topic from different points of view. I imagine that I see this topic from a point of view of about 10% of coaches, and you from about the other 90%, so I have no delusions that the majority will agree with me on this.
> 
> Can every highly-certified "coach" teach an archer to be a USAT-level archer? Not on your life.
> 
> ...


You both make good points. And you both make them, I note, from your differences, you, as a former Sr. National Team member and former Olympian, and Spangler as a newly minted L4 from a seminar with the national head coach, each arguing from their experience. :dontknow:


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Can every highly-certified "coach" teach an archer to be a USAT-level archer? Not on your life.


I would hope that the highly-certified coach would know when to seek additional help for a student reaching that caliber. That is part of being a coach. A large part.



> Certified based on what? You and I both know there are many L4's out there who have no concept of how to truly prepare for a high-level competition, how to deal with situations that arise during those competitions, or how to prepare one's equipment to shoot a 590 indoor fita vs. a 580.


Again, just as above. Part of being a coach is knowing when to hand students off and when to solicit further advice for areas you aren't as knowledgeable about.



> I'll listen to the programmer, the math expert and the weightlifter first, then draw my own conclusions.


And by and large, if they aren't a good instructor, which very few are, they will be speaking so far above your head you won't get anything out of it. Either that, or will focus on esoteric, advanced issues when you need to be working on basics.



> So you're telling me that if Butch, Jenny, Khatuna, Reo and Braden are sitting on one side of the room, and a group of L4 coaches who've never shot competitively are sitting on the other side of the room, you're going to go sit with the L4 coaches and listen to what they have to tell you?
> 
> I don't know many who would make that choice.


While I only know the above list from tournaments and shooting with a couple of them a few times with a few of them I honestly don't know if any of them could help a beginning student. That doesn't mean they can't, but their elite shooting status doesn't mean they can.

I would imagine each of them has amazing insight to aspects of archery, and would be excellent resources to draw on. That doesn't make them insta-coaches.

I know where you are coming from, and why John. I just don't agree. 

Andrew


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

Warbow said:


> You both make good points. And you both make them, I note, from your differences, you, as a former Sr. National Team member and former Olympian, and Spangler as a newly minted L4 from a seminar with the national head coach, each arguing from their experience. :dontknow:


In actually, you know nothing about my experience as a coach, in any of the sports I have coached.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

its amazing - there is this whole little archery coaching/ US Archery politics kinda thing I never knew existed before I joined this forum. A whole new world filled with the same old stuff... Exciting!


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

spangler said:


> In actually, you know nothing about my experience as a coach, in any of the sports I have coached.


True. If you could point out where I said otherwise, I'd be grateful.

But the fact remains, I agree with many of the points made by both John and yourself - I'm interested in good arguments (argument as in "claim" not as in yelling) and facts, and I don't dismiss them arbitrarily based on who stated them.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

spangler said:


> I definitely disagree. There is a definite difference between a coach and someone who is a high-level athlete. Can one be the other? Absolutely. Can every high-level performer in a field be a coach or mentor? No. They shouldn't designated as such.
> 
> This is a broad statement but is true for any profession. A high level computer programmer can't necessarily teach programming. A person knowledgeable in high level math can't necessarily teach math. A high level Olympic weightlifter can't always teach strength training. Often time, I think reaching a high level can be a detriment to being able to teach because a high performer can't always remember what it was like to start and it just seems to easy and natural to them now. There is a huge difference between being able to DO something and being able to teach someone else how to do it. Sometimes these lines cross, but it isn't a given.
> 
> ...


Usually i agree with you Andrew, but I would respectfully have to disagree here. Who would i want to coach me ... Park Sung Hyun or a level 4 coach who doesnt really shoot? Level 4 coach who can shoot 1100 FITA or Brady Ellison? Level 4 coach or Daryl Pace? 

Everyone here knows the answer to that. hands down. We need coaches all over the US, as there are not enough top level archers to cover, but in my opinion, the best coaches are the archers who made it to the top. Sure you can go get a Tennis lesson from the coach of Andre Aggassi, but Andre's Tennis camp is full every year and draws more interest. My son will learn from Andre himself, not the coach of Andre. 

Why didnt they get a level 4 coach to teach Jennifer Lawrence instead of Katuna? Who would you want? level 4 coach you never heard of or 5 time olympian? 

If you are going to say that all top level archers wouldnt be able to coach, then i say all certified archery coaches should be able to shoot archery in a highly skilled manner and shoot a minimum qualifying score. Especially if you are level 4 or above. 

sometimes you dont have to be able to express the skill in words, just you doing the skill teaches. That is why video of elite archers is so good for teaching. I watch Korean archery videos where the instructor is teaching in Korean. I am not fluent so sometimes i have no idea what is said, but i know exactly what they are teaching based on the visual. 

You will notice that alot of the Korean coaches are previous top level archers. Last year in Vegas Korea (LH Corp) sent 2 girls to shoot the World Archery Festival. The coach? Lee Eun Kyung (1992 Barcolona Gold Medalist). 

I have watched high school and college matches this year in Korea and the coach behind the line??? Park Sung Hyun.


Chris


----------



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

chrstphr said:


> I have watched high school and college matches this year in Korea and the coach behind the line??? Park Sung Hyun.
> 
> 
> Chris


Mrs. Park also coached one of the Korean team women at London 2012 but kept a very low profile. I didn't realize she was even there until she came over to say hi at Lord's.


----------



## UKNick (Apr 20, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> I would submit that every Sr. USAT archer should be granted a Level 4 coaching certificate.


I agree, if they were active members who were selected to compete and did well at the highest level. If they were never good enough to make the selection, thats very different.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

>--gt--> said:


> Mrs. Park also coached one of the Korean team women at London 2012 but kept a very low profile. I didn't realize she was even there until she came over to say hi at Lord's.


Yes, i saw some cell phone video of her in London in a staging room working with some of the Korean team shooters. She was very low profile but i was happy to see her still involved in archery during her retirement to have a family. 


Chris


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

Not to be critical of NTS, but did a search on the web last night looking for a video series to better inform myself. I downloaded what was found and thoroughly read what was available as well as looking through the question/answer area of Kisik Lee's site. Although I understand the principals of the system and agree with them as well as used them for many years prior to the adaptation as a training method, I could see where more literature or a video series would be helpful. Or am I wrong and just did not look hard enough?
As a non-traditional college student (age 50) I see where varied teaching methods either work or fail students as we learn differently. Some struggle with reading comprehension and flourish with a more hands on approach working with tutors or a peer SI type learning atmosphere. Others excel as visual learners, not that reading comprehension is a barrier but it would translate better to the hands-on approach. Communication is the key to adaptation of a process with the mode of delivery as the key to success. For example a general meeting is called at work with a description of new policy, does the speaker just read the policy and adjourn the meeting, or does he read, study the faces of the workers and settle any questions that have arisen as each item is read. In the mind of the nay-sayer worker the words will be twisted and they may not have a full uptake of given information. Others will show either a blank face of whatever, more change. An interactive rich communication mode in which Videos/Powerpoints answering the 5W's can and will be much more successful.

NTS should be part of every level of training starting at L2 that works in stages as to advancement if it is to be successful. But what do I know as a backyard champion who occasionally volunteers to help kids explore archery?


----------



## Moebow (Jul 8, 2010)

Jake and Jacob were both in my L4 class in Indianapolis two years ago and they were GREAT assets to those of us that are not competitors and took advantage of their presence. It was great getting their viewpoints and they were very accommodating in giving their "competitive" experiences to us. They are or will be great coaches when they decide to do that!

I am pretty much in TomB's camp when it comes to reasons for someone to get an L4 rating. Knowing that I'm doing it right (or as right as it is possible for ME) and enough knowledge to pass it on to my students. I also think that I'm smart enough to know when I've reached my "Peter Principal" level and it becomes time to pass a student off to other coaches that have the desire and experience to take those students to the next level.

I do not agree that all L4s need to be the tuning experts (at the highest level), or experienced National or Inter National (successful) competitors that John is so focused on. There is a place for that, of course, but that level of experience and success REALLY seems to me to be the definition of a Level 5 coach. I for one have NO desire (or resources) to travel all over the country and world, trying to get the "podium" results required for L5 but for those that do want to do that, I will support in every way possible. I just want to give the best instruction I can and I pursued L4 for that reason. How folks elect to USE (the archery games they want to play) their skills is strictly up to them. I know now that I can point them in the right direction.

I feel that the L4 (I may be right, I may be wrong) is a "masters degree" and L5 is the PhD. There should be room for both WITH specializations. Not all will have the same desires and goals, AND USAT level competitors are a really small subset of archers in general. We can't all be first violin players, some of us have to play the trombone.

Arne


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

chrstphr said:


> Usually i agree with you Andrew, but I would respectfully have to disagree here. Who would i want to coach me ... Park Sung Hyun or a level 4 coach who doesnt really shoot? Level 4 coach who can shoot 1100 FITA or Brady Ellison? Level 4 coach or Daryl Pace?
> 
> Everyone here knows the answer to that. hands down. We need coaches all over the US, as there are not enough top level archers to cover, but in my opinion, the best coaches are the archers who made it to the top. Sure you can go get a Tennis lesson from the coach of Andre Aggassi, but Andre's Tennis camp is full every year and draws more interest. My son will learn from Andre himself, not the coach of Andre.
> 
> ...


I understand all that, but do have a few things.

First, I didn't actually say that high-level athletes can't coach, I said that the mere fact that they are high-level athletes doesn't mean they CAN coach.

There is a very different skillset involved in being able to teach and develop an athlete, seeing why someone can't come to a final position due to something small wrong at the starting position, and being able to correct that. It is a skillset I'm sure that a certain number of high-level athletes have, but that skillset doesn't exist in each high-level athlete simply because they are high-level. In addition, I believe a high-level coach most likely has a larger sample set and experience set of working with many many archers over years. That isn't of course set in stone and isn't always true.

As far as coaches being able to compete at a high level.

I believe we should, it would make us better coaches. As soon as I can quit my 2 jobs and devote a lot of time to practice and development of the skill, it isn't going to happen for me though. I'll most likely never make a USAT, but I don't believe every USAT member can "outcoach" me simply because they are good shooters.

As an aside, I don't think I'm a good coach because I recently completed an L4 class. I've been a good coach well before I became involved in archery. I honestly believe it is a skillset I have, to instruct (to most people). 

Andrew


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

w8lon said:


> Not to be critical of NTS, but did a search on the web last night looking for a video series to better inform myself. I downloaded what was found and thoroughly read what was available as well as looking through the question/answer area of Kisik Lee's site. Although I understand the principals of the system and agree with them as well as used them for many years prior to the adaptation as a training method, I could see where more literature or a video series would be helpful. Or am I wrong and just did not look hard enough?


I think videos are absolutely necessary. It is very hard to learn a motion sport from static pictures and text. At the very least, USA Archery should upload some exemplars of NTS model form (as opposed to the individually adjusted form seen used by prominent "NTS" archers) as a supplement to the book "Archery".

The Easton Sports Foundation made a DVD, called BEST Beginnings in Archery in cooperation with USA Archery and coach Lee, but it was obsolete (in regards to USA Archery, not necessarily obsolete in terms of *archery*) before it was released because BEST/NTS changes. 

Brady Ellison made a short series of videos teaching how he shoots. It is about 24 minutes of actual instruction in total. Sold through Next Level Archery. I don't know if what he teaches is 1:1 NTS because I don't know NTS at that level.



w8lon said:


> As a non-traditional college student (age 50) I see where varied teaching methods either work or fail students as we learn differently. Some struggle with reading comprehension and flourish with a more hands on approach working with tutors or a peer SI type learning atmosphere. Others excel as visual learners, not that reading comprehension is a barrier but it would translate better to the hands-on approach. Communication is the key to adaptation of a process with the mode of delivery as the key to success. For example a general meeting is called at work with a description of new policy, does the speaker just read the policy and adjourn the meeting, or does he read, study the faces of the workers and settle any questions that have arisen as each item is read. In the mind of the nay-sayer worker the words will be twisted and they may not have a full uptake of given information. Others will show either a blank face of whatever, more change. An interactive rich communication mode in which Videos/Powerpoints answering the 5W's can and will be much more successful.


There have been interesting studies in terms of how to teach more effectively. One of the ideas that has come up is that lectures are the worst way to teach and largely a waste of teaching time. Lectures were used extensively back when printed books were non-existent or very expensive, so a lecture was the most efficient way of disseminating information, as everybody could make their own notes, etc.

Some things that can prove useful include having students read in advance, and even have to do an on-line test before coming into class, and the class is for working on concepts, rather than the details you can read about or watch a video (even a video of a lecture) in advance.

Another thing is that power points can help or hinder. Powerpoints with photos, illustrations, graphs, etc. that give insight are helpful. PPTs that use text are not. They *reduce* retention because people are splitting their focus between the spoken lecture and the written text of the power point. 



w8lon said:


> NTS should be part of every level of training starting at L2 that works in stages as to advancement if it is to be successful. But what do I know as a backyard champion who occasionally volunteers to help kids explore archery?


Indeed, it is hard to teach or even tell people the virtues of NTS as an L2 if I don't know or understand them, and even Spengler notes he doesn't fully understand it, and he not only just took the absolute latest and greatest L4 course, he also passed it when most didn't. I'd say NTS is the string theory of archery systems, except that I know string theory is based on sound science, something I don't know is true of all of NTS.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

spangler said:


> First, I didn't actually say that high-level athletes can't coach, I said that the mere fact that they are high-level athletes doesn't mean they CAN coach.
> Andrew


I know you didnt mean that they cant coach. But i differ in i think they all CAN coach, even if its just by doing. To reach that high a level, you really have to have disected the skill and owned each tiny part of it. Verbalizing it or seeing it in others to correct is not any great leap. 



spangler said:


> As far as coaches being able to compete at a high level.
> 
> Andrew


I didnt say they should be able to compete at a high level, I said they should be able to shoot in a highly skilled manner, which is to have very good form. They should lead by example and be able to show the form, and shoot a decent score. 


Chris


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

chrstphr said:


> I didnt say they should be able to compete at a high level, I said they should be able to shoot in a highly skilled manner, which is to have very good form. They should lead by example and be able to show the form, and by having very good form, shoot a decent score.
> 
> Chris


I don't disagree with that, and I believe (my belief, not speaking for Coach Lee) that is part of the reason for the practical exam.
I do believe there is a difference between being able to show good form, and complete a tournament using that form however. That requires a good amount of practice. I can shoot a few shots with good form, but without a lot of practice wouldn't be able to shoot 144 in a tournament situation with that same good form.

Since I've come back from the OTC I've tried to shoot 100+ most days focusing on learning what I was taught, so I would hope that at some point I'd be able to score well with it also.

When I'm coaching, I demonstrate often, use video often, and do my best to ensure that the student doesn't just mimic movements, but understand the reasons behind them. I also use my students to help teach other students, as this often increases their own learning. I'm confident many of my students will develop the skills to be good teachers. I only mention that because I have known some archers (yes some who have made USAT teams) who can shoot lights out but couldn't coach someone else. They know what works for them, and it works for them. *shrug*

Andrew


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

As an aside, but only somewhat because the conversation is, for good reason, very focused on NTS, are coaches decertified (or more likely required to get re-accredited) when there is a major change to the system? It seems to be, and rightly so, a very dynamic and evolving system, but it could quickly leave coaches teaching outdated technique.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bobnikon said:


> As an aside, but only somewhat because the conversation is, for good reason, very focused on NTS, are coaches decertified (or more likely required to get re-accredited) when there is a major change to the system? It seems to be, and rightly so, a very dynamic and evolving system, but it could quickly leave coaches teaching outdated technique.


That's why the recerts for L3s and, IIRC, L4s were going to be annual with required continuing ed., but every three years for L2s. I think that USA Archery got a lot of push back on the expense and inconvenience that would cause, and made everything 3 years for everybody.

Seems that USA Archery should post the latest info on line, with version histories and change logs so coaches can know what has changed and why. If they can't write it down, then it isn't really a "standard".


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

*Nts*

More than anything I would consider myself a student of the art, not competitive, just an old guy who loves to shoot his bow and who thinks US Archery has done a great job these past few years, especially for bringing in Coach Lee to launch a National program. I would like to thank Spangler, Moe, Terry especially, as well as others who have taken the time to explain the principles of the NTS. Posts like the recent discussion of loading-transfer-holding, for example, have been immensely informative. 

I would like to recommend that Archery Talk open a forum dedicated solely to NTS simply titled “NTS”. A place where those with NTS training can help us understand its principles with detailed explanations of the various steps, without hyper-critical attacks by those who prefer casting aspersions over wisdom. A no-fly zone for poisonous trolls if you will. It would be a forum not unlike the FAQ section of K. Lee’s site, but more suitable for long narratives and more. 

I would also strongly recommend that an NTS certified individual be established as moderator. “NTS” would not be the place to create controversy. If you don’t like NTS, you should be invited to take your toys and go home. A pretty simple concept and no doubt difficult for some to accept. AT should not let that be a deterrent. 

Those of us who actually want to learn NTS have had to endure years of relentless attacks on US Archery and Coach Lee. Not one word of which has been beneficial to, well, anyone eager to learn. AT, we need a safe place to play.


----------



## TwilightSea (Apr 16, 2012)

I understand some of NTS form but some I still have trouble with (even though it's self-taught.) Such as open-stance and body position. I've tried it but felt I was now aligned. :/


----------

