# Why I support coach Lee and the RA/Dream Team program



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Good post John. its a difficult line to walk between all the stuff going on
know lots of people I respect who have different views on this


----------



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

John,

Once again a great post. I agree the RA and Dream Team programs are great opportunities for shooters. I especially like the Dream Team concept because it allows shooters that are not at the RA level yet to get some much needed high level assistance. I know Amanda loves it and is very appreciative of the opportunity it is giving her.

Terry


----------



## TexARC (Mar 5, 2003)

John, perhaps the most important aspect of BEST and Coach Lee, is that anyone hoping for success MUST leave their baggage at the door. 

I think that the problem with those who don't "get it" and at as obstructionists or contrary-nists is that they have a boatload of baggage that gets in the way of acquiring a new skill set.

At this point I do think that it is not just a way of shooting an arrow - it is indeed an entire concept or system that one needs to accept and buy, lock stock and barrel, for success....and the word, "invest" is pretty much accurate. Invest right and you get a great return.


----------



## GoBears (Feb 22, 2007)

I've read this board for a while, but I finally registered just now solely to compliment your post, Limbwalker. Couldn't have said it better myself and I agree (especially as a new archer) down to the letter.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Oh, so many thoughts. Where do I start.

First, I agree with:


> I support coach Lee. I support the RA program as it is being run under coach Lee, and I support our High Performance program and Jr. Dream team concept.


I still think this is the best thing that has come along in a long time. For the first time since I have been involved with archery, we teach pretty much the same thing. I can work with a kid and then hand them off to another HP coach or send them to Chula Vista to the dream team and they will hear the same thing.

But, I have one major caveat to total acceptance to the High Performance Plan: NOT at the expense of the non- RA, dream team archers. I cannot accept a system that is an either or. As has been said by others, most notably Mike Gerard, in another thread: if we are successful in the RA/dream team program they should be winning hands down without an uneven table, i.e. home field advantage, trials that only RA's can afford to attend, etc. Like Mike I had this vision of thousands of competitive archers all vying for those three spots on the olympics. We wouldn't have a hand full of 1300 FITA shooters, we would have a hundred. As Jim Lovell said we would never have reached the moon without the Russians pushing us. I believe that good, fair competition brings out the best we have. I just cannot believe that being an RA or a dream team kid is a necessary and sufficient condition for winning olympic gold.

Will sacrifices have to be made? Absolutely, by everyone involved. As TexARC said baggage has to be left at the door. But to ask an archer to give up his livlihood, education plans, family, or even the equipment he or she currently uses to be part of the "system" is too much.

The real issue is where does one go to air their grievances? We shouldn't have to go to Archerytalk to have a healthy debate. Who is the arbiter for NAA policy decisions? Who mediates differences of opinion between the high performance program and other stake holders? I see a car speeding downhill with no driver. Every now and then someone from the backseat grabs the steering wheel but we have no driver. I fear when we have the inevitable crash the policeman (USOC) is going to take away all of our driver's licenses. Unless some common ground is found on this, decertification of the NAA as national governing body is going to result.

I reject zero sum arguements. We cannot let our selves settle for an either or solution. We have to find an "and" solution so we accommodate all that want a chance, especially when we have so many willing and able particpants who feel so passionately about the issue. I also reject the arguement that we should do "A" because this is what Australia or Korean or Italy or whomever does. We are not teaching the same biomechanics because we think we have an improvment. We need to develop what the American system is, because we have a different culture than what is done in those other countries. It is not going to be acceptable to have the road lined with casualties of those that didn't make it in their reach for olympic gold. This cannot detoriate into the US Archery version of Survivor. This will require creative and purposeful effort to find alternatives. I believe those creative and purposeful people exist. Do they trust each other? Not yet.

I also agree with Jim's statement:


> its a difficult line to walk between all the stuff going on I(sic)
> know lots of people I respect who have different views on this


----------



## inno300dude (Feb 21, 2007)

Well spoken JimB. I think most people want to just look at the positive side of this new program. I agree that this program has a lot of great things going for it but it must survive on the quality of the program and not by the blatant abuse by a few to make sure the program succeeds. I don't think anyone disagrees that Lee is a good coach. However, I question that one should be slapped around or hit in the back of the head with a stabilizer to make sure they get the point is a good approach. A few laps around the track or lots of push ups could give you the same results without the "fear" tactic. 

Good comments limbwalker. Ask your two boys about the "brain game" or the hazing required when you first come to the camp. Unfortunately, I doubt that Lee knows about this. 

There appears to be a few bad apples in the program and if that were cleansed the program will continue to grow and prosper. I don't think anybody wants the program to fail. They just want it run appropriately without the manipulations, physical and mental abuse that appears to be going unpoliced.


----------



## wmt3rd (Oct 20, 2004)

Does anyone else notice that Inno300dude and Eastonarrowdude sound like the same dude?

Mack


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

inno300dude said:


> Well spoken JimB. I think most people want to just look at the positive side of this new program. I agree that this program has a lot of great things going for it but it must survive on the quality of the program and not by the blatant abuse by a few to make sure the program succeeds. I don't think anyone disagrees that Lee is a good coach. However, I question that one should be slapped around or hit in the back of the head with a stabilizer to make sure they get the point is a good approach. A few laps around the track or lots of push ups could give you the same results without the "fear" tactic.
> 
> Good comments limbwalker. Ask your two boys about the "brain game" or the hazing required when you first come to the camp. Unfortunately, I doubt that Lee knows about this.
> 
> There appears to be a few bad apples in the program and if that were cleansed the program will continue to grow and prosper. I don't think anybody wants the program to fail. They just want it run appropriately without the manipulations, physical and mental abuse that appears to be going unpoliced.



Do you know for a fact that RA/Dream Team archers have been "slapped around or hit in the back of the head with a stabilizer?" What exactly do you mean by hazing and do you know it definitely happened? Who are you and why should anyone believe you? It's hard to take you seriously because your post is worded in a trollish rumor-mongering manner.


----------



## inno300dude (Feb 21, 2007)

wmt3rd. Sorry you feel this way. There is no trolling except for getting people to search for the truth. Exposing myself would serve no purpose. But if someone would just get the truth out you would find that the program just needs to be cleaned up. 

You guys remember "deepthroat"? He never was exposed but the truth came out because of his effots. Don't shoot the messenger, just get the US Archery Board get at the truth. 

Also, contacting an RA will probably not help since they have been informed to keep everything quite. Scare tactics work well. 

There are more serious issues here than what has been said.


----------



## wmt3rd (Oct 20, 2004)

Your posts, so far, serve no purpose. You've done nothing but try to spread...er...start a rumor.

This is my last feeding of the troll.

Mack


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

TomB said:


> ..... I also reject the arguement that we should do "A" because this is what Australia or Korean or Italy or whomever does.


...

... not Italy, for sure...:zip:


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

John, 
I again have to agree with the side of this program that you bring up. Undoubtedly the most complete program to hit the US yet.

However, even you say there must be a way to keep both the inside and outside program shooters on the same playing field. I see that as the debate that has raged here for so long, so I also have to also endorse what TomB is posting as well. The program started off on the right foot, then went mysteriously astray some how. The reigns need to be pulled back some, and we need to get a driver in the drivers seat that won't make everyone else get out and walk.


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

*Reasons for lack of info*

In the 90's I was unhappy about the programs of the NAA and the NFAA. I was into the Compound first and I got involved with the politics. I got nowhere through a lot of work. I got involved with the recurve and its programs next. I stayed outspoken. I decided to run for the BOG to try to be deeply involved. I asked and received the NAA's Constitution and Bylaws. I spent alot of time with them. I found out, by the way I read it, if I was elected( which I was not ) I had to accept a gag order which allowed the NAA to come after me for not being a team player. If I did not agree with what was going on and spoke out on it to the general membership it would be against the interest of the NAA. This would be justification for expulsion from the NAA. Problem was how the top of the fence to walk on was up to the NAA. *Maybe* I just read it wrong.


----------



## sundevilarchery (May 27, 2005)

I am sitting in my chair applauding you Tom B for an excellent post.


----------



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

I keep trying to read this stuff and it is getting harder and harder to do. People keep posting examples of things they don't like which sounds awfully trivial in nature and they then say there feelings are based upon a number of things they won't say. Why don't we all just put it on the table so everyone is talking from the same page. It is hard to comment on a hidden problem. 

Someone please telll me where a neutral site is located. Is it considered neutral if it is anywhere other than where the RAs or Dream Team are located? If so, why are they being singled out and punished? Keep in mind, the Dream team doesn't stay at the OTC like the RAs. They come down for a week or two then go home to train with their normal coach for three or four months then return for more help.

Coach Lee is headquartered in Chula Vista. What do folks expect him to do while he is there? Is he supposed to travel around the country non stop and coach everyone that is interested? The USOC provided him with an opportunity and a location where folks can train. Since you can't addequately train hundreds of people at the same time with a limited staff, they had to pick a number that was manageable. Once that number was chosed, they then had to figure out how to fill those slots. They chose a method. Anyone can apply to fill one. There are openings, just apply.

I'm sure things will eventually settle down to some uniform process. I just don't know what it is or what it should be because I don't know what all the problems are if they exist.

Terry


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

> Nobody likes to watch sausage being made but we love it when it’s finished. We cook it, we embrace it, and we eat it. And we forget the revolting process that produced it.


I think this issue with the High Performance Program, the RA and trials is like making sausage. I think it is going to turn out all right but it will be a tough process. I think if everyone stays focussed on the task at hand a) earning our slots in the olympics and then b) bringing home some medals, folks will leave their baggage at the door and work towards a common goal. We just can't afford to throw out the baby with the bath water because we are doing so much good. Time will tell how much good. My hope is that everyone focuses on the systems and processes and it doesn't get personal. I hope all the players give the other players the benefit of the doubt that we all want the same thing in US Archery.

My take on the home field advantage of the RA's likely missed the point. If others bid on hosting, I bet that other venues will be considered, like Mason in '04.

I also misspoke on the issue that anyone cares what brand of equipment you shoot.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Well for all those crying about the system, keep this in mind. 
Athens Olympics 2004 US Archery Medals: 0

So perhaps a change is a good idea. 

If the US wants to be successful in international recurve archery in the future you can't just sit back and rely on home made talents like Darrell Pace, Vic Butch Johnson and Limbwalker to stroll into your sport. These guys are talented and worked hard to get good, but they are only a few, you are up against countries that are training from day one dozens if not hundreds to be better. 
Any good coaching system needs the athletes to do what the coach says. How good would an NFL team if the athletes ran around doing their own thing and training how they chose? 



> However, I question that one should be slapped around or hit in the back of the head with a stabilizer to make sure they get the point is a good approach.


If you did what you were told and were paying attention this wouldn't happen. If you can't take a tap on the head you don't have it to be an Olympian. If I was a teenager again I would trade a few whacks on the head to be a 1350 shooter. No different to going out and doing tackling drills. 

BTW I know Mr Lee and I know his Aust students and he treated them very well.


----------



## inno300dude (Feb 21, 2007)

Marcus,
I think you are missing the point. I don't think anybody wants to get rid of Lee and his efforts. They want to see it grow properly. However, a whack on the back of the head, a slap in the face, etc. is not really necessary, but I am sure that can be fixed. However, the people around him are doing things that are totally unnecessary to make the program successful which does make Lee look bad. Fixing the problem will not be that hard. Get the right people to work with Lee and you will see lots of good support.

Oh, by the way: US Archery Olympic medals since 1972: 8 gold, 3 silver, 2 bronze. There have only been two Olympics we did not medal in (1992 and 2004). We still have lots of good people to bring home the medals if we can find a good solution for those who want to be in Lee's program and those who want to train on their own.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> We still have lots of good people to bring home the medals


Really? Who?

Where are these internationally competitive archers in the U.S.? I've looked around, and I only know two. And one of those is not getting any younger.

We have some good archers alright, but there is a wide chasm between good and internationally competitive. All you have to do is look at our individual and team world rankings to see this.

Looking back at our past success is a sure recipe for failure IMO. We've been incredbily fortunate to have some archers over-achieve at Olympic games. Go back and review the tapes of the team round in Sydney. Very fortunate indeed. We have relied on too few for too long, and our luck is not going to last forever. A proactive, aggressive approach is my preferred course of action.

John.


----------



## Guest (Feb 23, 2007)

Boy this is heading south fast.....it's so very unfortunate.

What a bunch.

I'm outta here.

Art


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Really? Who?
> 
> Where are these internationally competitive archers in the U.S.? I've looked around, and I only know two. And one of those is not getting any younger.
> 
> ...


Gee! What happen to positive thinking and no pessimism.:wink:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I am positive and optimistic about the future, but the scores of the past speak for themselves...

You can put whatever spin you want on the U.S. individual and team performance, but there is little doubt that our scores have done nothing but drop on the international scale for two decades.

We have no more consistent 1300 shooters today than we did when folks were still shooting aluminum. What does that say about us when the international standard is well beyond 1300 today?

John.


----------



## mbu (Oct 22, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> We have no more consistent 1300 shooters today than we did when folks were still shooting aluminum. What does that say about us when the international standard is well beyond 1300 today?
> 
> John.


Perhaps it says that they did not have Internet and ArcheryTalk and spent more time practicing archery …:wink:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Okay Mike, I get it. I'll get back to work...

Thunk...

Thunk...

Thunk... 

:wink: 

John.


----------



## IM2BZ2P2 (Oct 7, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> We have relied on too few for too long, and our luck is not going to last forever. A proactive, aggressive approach is my preferred course of action.


You're right but don't forget match play already has a huge component of luck over talent, consistency and ability. The influence of luck on medalling at Olympic and other events has simply increased with all rounds having 12 arrow individual matches and 24 arrow team matches.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

IM2,

I am well aware of the luck factor, but I prefer to make my own luck as much as possible. They say the better you are, the luckier you get 

Great example to me in Athens was Vic's first individual match. He shot a 145, but the boy he shot against failed to launch his first two arrows because he was confused about shooting order. So Vic won with that score. Very lucky to get through that round, and he went on to finish 8th. But Vic is so good, that he makes a lot of his own luck, I think. 

John.


----------



## Guest (Feb 23, 2007)

Oh let us not bash the young 'uns.... lets go after the old ones... let us pretend we dont have good coaches, lets pretend there arent any good archers, lets pretend the magic pill has to be delivered as opposed to being within us-- let us blindly follow that monkey.....


the system certainly wasnt perfect in 04 and it certainly needed improvement and it certainly is nice to get a system going that will take care of some of the needs of others --- but to pretend your failure in 2004 lies at the feet of the archery community is quite unfair. you failed to properly prepare yourself== you barely competed in usat events=== you attended one grand prix==== you cannot lay this at the feet of others without taking your own role into consideration. its amazing that vic wunderle can shoot a damn arrow at all given how badly the system has failed him. and how bout those nichols girls== failures? I think not. You know while the usoc is all about the medals--and boy are they nice--- to pretend there is a magic pill that can get on a boat, train or plane and deliver us to the medal podium is foolishness. We need a program---and we need to remember, we aren't australian, we aren't korean, we are AMERICAN's... we're known for figuring things out rather than being told to sit down shut up and swallow that magic cyanide pill

hearing no evil, seeing no evil, speaking no evil.... oops... forget the last part--- all the blathering on certainly is disparaging=== dumbdedumbdumbdumb...thats a song==== and a mindset=== and its not a bad one if you dont mind being the monkey


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> but to pretend your failure in 2004 lies at the feet of the archery community is quite unfair. you failed to properly prepare yourself== you barely competed in usat events=== you attended one grand prix==== you cannot lay this at the feet of others without taking your own role into consideration.


Failure? I hardly even know how to respond to this nonsense.

I don't see what I did in '04 as a failure, my friend. If anything, it just revealed how poor the current state of affairs was at that time. Prepared myself? I did everything I knew how, and obviously I was better prepared than all but two of our archers, with no outside help. 

I've never considered that shooting a 107 average over the course of a week to be a major competitive accomplishement. Fact is, I should have been so overtaken with talented and competitive archers that I didn't have a chance.

Should have been totally blown out of the water by superior archers from both the RA program, and the beloved AMERICAN SYSTEM you speak so highly of. But why wasn't I?

Was it me that was unprepared, or the rest of the U.S. archers? And the same can be said for the women's side. For goodness sake, I managed to rank 4th in the U.S. by the end of '04 with only a 159 match average! That's ridiculous! And far from internationally competitive. (And if you'll go back and check the record, I managed to shoot my average on foreign soil, so I remain very proud of that fact.) But I certainly don't have to justify anything to you.

All that Stephanie and I did was reveal the serious problems we had in the U.S. for preparing internationally competitive recurve archers.

I make no apologies in saying that, and that has always been my position on this issue. I should NEVER have had a chance to make that team, nor should Stephanie. Not based on our scores. We were not internationally competitive archers then, and yet we made the Olympic team. Now, who's fault is that? Certainly not ours...

Joanna, you have posted that your goal is to make the '08 Olympic team. From someone who has that experience, I would strongly suggest you take a break from AT and go "prepare" yourself. You're going to need it. And Lord help you if you do achive your goal. Because along with that comes a lot of comments from the peanut gallery here on AT... 

John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

John you certainly do not need to defend yourself against charges made by someone I have never ever heard of * The fact is you shot GREAT at Mason and Terry Wunderle noted to me by TUESDAY that you were going to make the team because you "had your head in the right place". That the USA beat ITALY which featured

1) the Defending World Target Champion and perhaps the best all round recurve archer since Pace

2) The Defending world Indoor Champion who has been a top flight Match shooter for more than a decade

3) the guy who just won the Olympic Gold medal

is hardly the signs of a bad team. Face it-If you had to pick a dream team on paper made up of the best Head to Head shooters in the world its hard to think of something better than what Italy had



*Your search - "Joanna Mittingly" archery - did not match any documents.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Thanks Jim.

And look, I've been second-guessed for years by more seasoned archers and coaches and spectators than Joanna. At this point, I couldn't care less.

And just because Joanna is still yet an unknown doesn't really mean a thing either. Had you done a search for John Magera in '03, all you would have seen were some of my photographs and work related documents... 

Steph and I proved that as long as the trails are an open competition, everyone has an equal chance to make the team. But preparing oneself by visiting AT and posting negative, even slanderous, comments 8 months before the trials isn't my idea of a great training technique.  

I had to talk for a while last night with some of the RA's that are following the crap that is being posted on this forum. If anyone here thinks it's not taking it's toll on them, they are mistaken. It is. And that is the real crime here. Those fine young men and women should be able to train with the knowledge that they have our unconditional support. I know they have mine.

John.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jim,

It just dawned on me that this is starting to sound a lot like congress "supporting our troops, but not the president."

What's next? Are we all going to vote on a non-binding resolution opposing coach Lee and the RA/dream team program? ha, ha, ha.

I guess it's the same mentality, so we shouldn't be surprised.

John.


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

John, I believe you have talent. Not many have it. To me the jury is out right now on the new program. Your excitement over each small improvement you have learned is great. On the otherhand, I do not think statements about our past archer's overall scores back to the aluminum days will create good feelings. You are, from what I gather, pretty new to paste opinions in that area. We have had other talented younger archers who have dropped out of archery. Some loss interest and others gave up because they could not pay for it all. In the 90's I was paying over $10,000 a year for my daughter to compete.
If you looked at the Korean National program these archers started very young. They worked their way up through levels or were dropped. At the high levels they got the best coaching. That system does create over 1300 average score shooters. What it has not done is create all pressure shooters. Pressure separates trained shooters from great shooters. 
Does our RA program start at 12 years old? Do we have a program to recognize talent now and in the past? Did we do our best to keep this talent in the past? The answer is NO! We want them to pay to prove themselves over and over again. We want them to wait until they get old enough to maybe be selected to the RA program. By that time most change direction in their lives because archery has lost its fire. What we have now are a few of the young archers that have weathered the wait. Not all are the talented ones but they do have a fire for archery. 
As an adult with a fire for archery you can choose your life direction. A young teenager wants to belong to something they can relate to before outside per pressure takes over.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> On the otherhand, I do not think statements about our past archer's overall scores back to the aluminum days will create good feelings.


Archerone, please tell me how I am wrong about this. If I have my facts straight, we had men shooting 1340's, and a fair number of 1280+ scores with aluminum When I looked back at scores from the 1980's and early 90's (and I realize ACE's improved the average scores), I see a lot of the same scores that I saw in '03 and '04, when I began to reserach this sport, and my contemporaries. One of the first things I did notice when I did my research in the spring of '04 was that scores really had not improved much over the previous 10 years. That was something obvious to me even then. So if facts are enough to upset some folks, then I cannot control that. If my statement is not factual, then please feel free to set the record straight.



> Does our RA program start at 12 years old?


In at least one case on the Jr. Dream Team, yes it does. The whole purpose of the Jr. Dream Team and some of the other new initiatives is to identify young talented archers, and get them advanced coaching and training so that they can be internationally competitive someday. JOAD has been great, but this is a more aggressive, professional step I think. I have talked to a LOT of JOAD coaches like myself that just didn't know where to go with an advanced young archer in the past. The opportunities and coaching available to them was difficult, if not impossible, to figure out or obtain. Now, as a JOAD coach, I know that there is an excellent program in place to deliver my students to when they are ready. I am not yet capable of coaching them beyond a certain level, and I'm very honest with them and their parents about this. The new system we are working to develop gives all of us mid-level coaches a place to direct them to that is universally understood. Sure, there have always been level 4 and some level 5 coaches, but do they have the facilities or time to take on JOAD students who have reached the Olympian level? What would those students and their parents have to do to choose the right one, or make the student available to the coach? And then finally, what would they have to pay that independant coach, and would they be guaranteed that their son/daughter is getting the right information?

This I think is the greater reason for the breakdown you describe with our teenage archers. Taking that step from JOAD to "who knows what" was too great for them or their parents to overcome alone. Now we have a better option, and a larger goal for our teen JOAD's. Recurvers anyway, I hope we can eventually provide the same programs for our compounders. I have two excellent JOAD compounders that are faced with this very issue right now. I've done all I can do for them, and they don't have the Jr. Dream Team or RA program to move into. They are looking at me for the next step, and all I can do is make an educated guess about who to send them to next.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but looking through your post, I see a lot of excuses but not a lot of answers. From my perspective, we have made excuses for having the rest of the world beat us for too long now. I guess I won't be satisfied until I look at the world rankings, and we have 3 men in the top 10, and team USA is ranked #1. Is that too much to ask  

Surely my views are not always the most popular. Noone that has been doing things for a long time likes a new person to walk in and ask about the "elephant in the room." Kind of an "emporers new clothes" deal... And anyone who was perfectly satisfied with the way things were being done and the state of our competitiveness will obviously think I'm wrong. That's okay with me. 

John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Jim,
> 
> It just dawned on me that this is starting to sound a lot like congress "supporting our troops, but not the president."
> 
> ...




LOL-by the way true in 03 a search of you and archery would not have revealed much but I sort of doubt you would be here second guessing say Butch Johnson for how he shot in Sydney. I also don't think that is a real name just like the name used by PSEXFACTOR-Robert James or James Robert Fischman etc is anything more than a fraud.

IF a google search cannot find someone having any association to archery I suggest they are not qualified to either debate someone like you and certainly not qualified to suggest you somehow underperformed.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Excellent points Jim.

That's why you're the AT master... 

John.


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

Excuses and not enough answers? A young Denise Parker was tearing through the recurve and then later my daughter with the compound. The NAA knew about young talent with Denise. Still they did not get their system ready. I told the coaches at the first NAA Outdoor shoot that my daughter would shock them if she shot with the adults. I put her in the JR World Trials at 12 and she tied the adult OR world record. The NAA/coaches were not ready to deal with an Elite young archer. I fought the NAA system for change which was geared to the older archer. This constant pressure with her winning only with the compound did not get the required results. Only when she changed over to recurve and then made the next world team without using their program it opened their eyes. She also placed higher than the other USA recurve girls. It also started other younger compound shooters switching to recurve. In 1996 and 1998 my daughter had lost all interest because it was not fun being different. The same problem she did not fit in and rebelled all the time. Coaches in 1996 at ARCO wanted me to fix the problem. They had a Sports Psychologist there but, the Psychologist was used for picking her brain trying to find what she thinks about when she shoots. She quit the compound after. She started the recurve which was a new challenge. I picked another coach to coach her. After a while he also began to struggle with her lack of focus and used different ways of psychology to fire her up. She quit archery after Sweden in 1998 at 17 years old. During this time I was constantly pushing the NAA to do more for young archers. At this time the coaches committee was formed. I was also working on new National sponsors for archery and working on the joint NAA/NFAA compound and field commitee.
I was busy working on archery and not making excuses 1993-1998. Some of the list of changes for the youth you see today were somehow influenced by the past history of events. I had illness and deaths in my family in 1999, 2001, 2002, and 2004 which took me away from archery.


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

John, I also respect your point of view after reading your post. As for higher scores they do work on paper. It was talked about in the 1990's that we probably never will match the Koreans or nationalized archery team in top scores. But we would win in the OR where nerves are the great equalizer. I also feel that we will get better in the scoring area again.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> But we would win in the OR where nerves are the great equalizer. I also feel that we will get better in the scoring area again.


That's the only reason I think we've been as fortunate as we have. We continue to outshoot better archers from different countries out of sheer confidence. I know that being team USA alone helped us in Athens to achieve a much better result than our ranking. No reason "on paper" that we should have beaten the Italians, or come within a point of Taipai, but we did. I won't even mention the Ukranians. All of us (including them) shot like crap in that one...



> The NAA/coaches were not ready to deal with an Elite young archer.


Isn't this exactly what we're trying to overcome? I think it is...

I commend your efforts. I hope to able to contribute as much someday. Thank you.

John.


----------



## Hoytemgood (Aug 19, 2006)

John, I agree. I also support Coach Lee and the RA program. We have a friend in the program and he is very excited about the whole thing and my daughter is now fired up about it as well. Her goal is to make that program as a stepping stone to an Olympic Medal. 

The only question I have is this: How are they going to get changes in the form, etc...out to the high performance coaches? I know of several changes that Coach Lee has made since the October HP Coaches clinic and that information has not been pasted down to the HP coaches. My daughter's HP coach was told to come to Colo Springs in March to get that information. Not everyone can take a week off several times a year and travel across the US to get updates. It seems there needs to be a better way to get this info out. I'd like your thoughts on this. 

Thanks for being so up front and direct about your thoughts on the program. I really like your support the troops but not the president, that puts it on the line.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yours is a very good question. I struggle myself to keep up, and to fully understand what we've already learned at the seminars and camps. Because I am still shooting, at least I'm able to put the instruction into practice and work through some of the questions. Unfortunately, this often raises more questions! ha, ha. But it is still early in the process...

I believe that getting the information down to the regional HP coaches would be the job of the HP coordinator for that region. At least, I hope that's how it will work. I know I cannot afford to take more time off work and eat the cost of more travel to do this several times/year.

For those RHP coaches that are charging for lessons and have the time, I guess they could apply those fees toward periodic trips to seminars or the OTC to learn more. I don't charge (never have), so that's not an option for me.

Sorry for the non-answer, but yours is a very valid question right now.

John.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Found this tonight on Wikipedia.

Next year will mark the 20th anniversary of these scores in the men's 1/8 round of the Olympics... 

1 Jay Barrs United States 334
2 Chun In-Soo Korea 334 
3 Richard McKinney United States 332 
4 Park Sung-Soo Korea 329 
5 Vladimir Echeev Soviet Union 328 
6 Martinus Reniers Netherlands 324 
7 Pentti Vikstrom Finland 324 
8 Hiroshi Yamamoto Japan 324 
9 Darrell Pace United States 322 

And maybe the most remarkable of all was 31 years ago:

Darrell Pace United States 1264 1 1307 (OR) 1 2571 (OR) 

And 35 years ago:

John Williams United States 1268 (OR) 1 1260 1 2528 (OR)

John.


----------



## Hoytemgood (Aug 19, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Yours is a very good question. I struggle myself to keep up, and to fully understand what we've already learned at the seminars and camps. Because I am still shooting, at least I'm able to put the instruction into practice and work through some of the questions. Unfortunately, this often raises more questions! ha, ha. But it is still early in the process...
> 
> I believe that getting the information down to the regional HP coaches would be the job of the HP coordinator for that region. At least, I hope that's how it will work. I know I cannot afford to take more time off work and eat the cost of more travel to do this several times/year.
> 
> ...


We have been blessed with a coach much like yourself. He gives of his time freely and often times his money as well. He loves the sport of Archery and wants to give back to it. Thank you to you and to him, for what you are giving to the youth of this sport. If it were not for the time he has spent with my daughter, she would not be where she is now. If he had required pay for his time, we could not have been able to afford to get her where she is now. My hat is off to those who give back to this sport freely. :clap:


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

inno300dude said:


> Oh, by the way: US Archery Olympic medals since 1972: 8 gold, 3 silver, 2 bronze. There have only been two Olympics we did not medal in (1992 and 2004). We still have lots of good people to bring home the medals if we can find a good solution for those who want to be in Lee's program and those who want to train on their own.


I am well aware of the US's Olympic history but thanks anyway. 

However I am sure when the future US archers are standng there on the line against Mr Full Time Training From Korea watching him drop a 118 on your guys that all that history won't help you on the scoreboard. 

Suck it up princess, if you want to win you have to make sacrifises. If you can do it on your own I hope you have heaps of support around you because it aint easy. It's taxing on the familes and requires full dedication from many people.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> However I am sure when the future US archers are standng there on the line against Mr Full Time Training From Korea watching him drop a 118 on your guys that all that history won't help you on the scoreboard.


Exactly Marcus. 

When Tim was faced with a score that tied the Olympic record, he rose to the challenge because he was properly prepared. That's all I want our guys to be.

And I probably didn't need to point out the obvious in my last post, but today, we have fewer men that can consistently deliver 330+ scores than we did 20 years ago. That needs to change. I hope it already is.

John.


----------



## LongTime (Feb 17, 2005)

We simply need to promote more recurve archery. The talent is out there.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Longtime, 

You could make an argument that Olympic medals are one of the best promoters of recurve archery you can get. When they want someone to come in and speak to young archers, it is often Olympic medalists who are asked to come and inspire them. The coverage Justin got in '96 is still talked about today, even by non-archers that I meet. That's what got Geena Davis shooting recurve, and then she garnered more attention for a little while...

Lots of moving parts in this machine, but to me, that's an important one.

John.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

LongTime said:


> We simply need to promote more recurve archery. The talent is out there.


What do you plan on teaching them? "doesn't matter what you do, just do it the same everytime" which is essentially the compound teachings coming out of the US.


----------



## shootist (Aug 28, 2003)

*...*

"Oh, by the way: US Archery Olympic medals since 1972: 8 gold, 3 silver, 2 bronze. There have only been two Olympics we did not medal in (1992 and 2004). "

I am not so sure the NAA is seeking Olympic medals. It almost appears they are seeking a successful RA program at the OTC. By hosting the World Trials, as well as limiting competitors to those that can attend 6 weeks of international tournaments, they should achieve a world team that is made up of RA's. Unfortunately, this probably won't be the United States' best archers.

I think a strict program at the OTC is fine, if it works, that is even better, but I don't see the point in giving an advantage to anybody. I doubt that will help the situation on an international level when there is no competitive advantage given.


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

shootist said:


> "Oh, by the way: US Archery Olympic medals since 1972: 8 gold, 3 silver, 2 bronze. There have only been two Olympics we did not medal in (1992 and 2004). "
> 
> I am not so sure the NAA is seeking Olympic medals. It almost appears they are seeking a successful RA program at the OTC. By hosting the World Trials, as well as limiting competitors to those that can attend 6 weeks of international tournaments, they should achieve a world team that is made up of RA's. Unfortunately, this probably won't be the United States' best archers.
> 
> I think a strict program at the OTC is fine, if it works, that is even better, but I don't see the point in giving an advantage to anybody. I doubt that will help the situation on an international level when there is no competitive advantage given.


The NAA existence is based their funding from the USOC. Archery, as I have been told over and over again by them and others, is on the chopping block to be removed from the Olympics. They need results to show that their programs, which the USOC fund, are working to continue funding. It is beneficial for the NAA's RA and other programs to show results so they can present that fact to the USOC. There lays the catch. If it looks like the program is not creating the top USA Olympic archers and International results/medals the NAA is failing the USOC and its funding mission.


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

Archerone said:


> The NAA existence is based their funding from the USOC.


This is a misnomer IMHO. Tell that to the hundreds of folks who volunteer their time, money and expertise to our sport on a daily basis. 

None of the BOG are paid. None of the Judges are paid other than lunch and a few dollars traveling money. None of the JOAD programs make money and pay the folks who donate their time and energy to them. How about the folks on all the committees, Board of Justice or the athlete reps? None of them get a dime. They all do it for the love of the game.

No, the NAA exists due to the efforts of many selfless individuals who have paid their dues to our game. Surely there is funding involved on the one end of the sport, but along with it comes the not so selfless politics.

There is a big difference between support of the RA's, coaches and the RA program and support for all the policies that have been recently put forward. I do support those programs and especially the athletes that have put it on the line to be there. It's not lost on me the price that those folks are paying. Believe me I understand perfectly how huge a sacrifice it is in every way. 

At the same time it can't be said that the same price isn't being paid by archers, coaches and volunteers outside those programs.

While the hot topic of the month happens to be the one end of our game, we mustn't forget what the NAA is all really about. You and me, not just elite archery 

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## shootist (Aug 28, 2003)

*...*



Archerone said:


> It is beneficial for the NAA's RA and other programs to show results so they can present that fact to the USOC. There lays the catch. If it looks like the program is not creating the top USA Olympic archers and International results/medals the NAA is failing the USOC and its funding mission.


But if the only way the NAA can produce the top archers through their RA program is to give an unfair advantage to their archers, that questions the integrity of both the USOC and the NAA.


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

c3hammer said:


> This is a misnomer IMHO. Tell that to the hundreds of folks who volunteer their time, money and expertise to our sport on a daily basis.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Pete


Wow!:mg: How can you spin what I said into I am attacking the members of the NAA? Talk funding like I did and not dance around the subject talking about how it is a slap to the face of the membership.


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

Sorry Archerone, you missed my point. I wasn't suggesting that you were bagging on the membership in any way. Just pointing out that very few if any parties to the NAA see any of that money. What it goes to is not what the NAA is all about. Nor does the NAA exist exclusively to support those programs.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

C3hammer, I accept the sorry! But my subject was *FUNDING* and you quoted me!
Remember ' No Bucks, No Buck Rogers!' 
Love of the sport IS the driving force for us all!


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

Archerone said:


> C3hammer, I accept the sorry! But my subject was *FUNDING* and you quoted me!
> Remember ' No Bucks, No Buck Rogers!'
> Love of the sport IS the driving force for us all!


Thanks for accepting my appology. It wasn't meant as a personal attack.

I think we're still not on the same page though.

Even if we don't have any Bucks, we still have Rogers as in MJ and Johnson's as in Jane and Barker's as in Tom and ......... the list goes on and on. Take away all the money from the USOC and nearly everyone is still here.

Take away all funding and we still have world teams and world trials. We still have an indoor nationals all over the country and an outdoor nationals that folks shoot every year.

My point is that "Funding" is not what drives our game. It's our love of the sport. Funding or not, most of us are still going to play.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> through their RA program is to give an unfair advantage to their archers


Darren (how are you these days buddy?), I think the issue of RA's being given an unfair advantage is a matter of opinion. Some obviously think they are, while others do not. The USOC reviews all of these decisions, and to some extent, is suggesting, recommending, or even mandating them. What exactly are our staff supposed to do?

And finally, the RA's are not "their archers." The RA's are OUR archers, The entire NAA supports and developed those archers. Many of them started out as JOAD kids trying to draw a recurve for the first time, or earn their qualified archer patch. They then applied sweat and determination to get to the level where they were considered for the program. For every one of those RA's, there are dozens of loyal NAA members that worked their butt off to give them the opportunity to earn a spot at that training center. 

You know this. You saw the JOAD program develop here in southern Illinois. In fact, two of those RA's are kids you shot with when you were training for the USIAC's a few years ago. The are not "their" archers. The RA's represent in many cases, the best of what the U.S. youth archery and college programs have to offer, and the result of a lot of hard work by scores of volunteer coaches, judges, parents and others.

This "us and them" mentality has got to stop. It absolutely has to. It is poisonous to the future of our organization and sport.

John.


----------



## Hoytemgood (Aug 19, 2006)

I guess I missed the point here somewhere. How can anyone claim that the RA's have an advantage? Are you referring to the fact that they have the best coaching in the world and thus the advantage? Or are you trying to suggest that they MIGHT have an advantage if the trials are held in Chula Vista? Since the trials have not been awarded yet, I don't see how you can claim that and secondly, no matter where they are held, someone will have home field advantage. I still don't believe that such a thing exists, but if you want to call it that. If someone fails to make the cut at the trials I guess they have to have someone to blame and thus blame the home field advantage someone else has. Its the AMERICAN way.  

Buck up and decide now whether you will make the team and then put in the work to follow through on your decision. If you fail to make it, accept it for what it is and don't blame someone else.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Good post Hoytem.



> If someone fails to make the cut at the trials I guess they have to have someone to blame and thus blame the home field advantage someone else has.


Seems to be a popular thing to do these days... get the excuses prepared beforehand.  

Like I've said before, I don't care if we shoot on a Wal-mart parking lot. So long as everyone has to shoot at the same time and all the targets are the same distance, I don't see how anyone can say it's unfair. If they want to think that, then let them. It is to their disadvantage IMO.

Heck, the Olympic field is going to give China the advantage, so we might as well give up now...   

John.


----------



## shootist (Aug 28, 2003)

*...*

Hoytemgood, Maybe I'm confused a little bit. I have just recently started following this saga. My understanding was the World Team Trials for this years Target World Championships was to be held in Chula Vista. The schedule I read said something like April 19-22 for recurves and May 11-13 for the compound. I was also under the impression that if recurve archers made this team, they would be required to shoot various other international tournaments leading up to this. So many in fact that anybody that works a job could likely not attend. (I'm certain several of our nation's best recurve archers will not attend the trials). Another post on here mentioned that RA's were allowed to use numerous elimination matches that take place at the OTC for their rolling rank scores. Whereas everybody else is limited to the scores they shoot during specific tournaments. If these three things are true (which I am not certain of), then yes, *my opinion *is that RA's are given a substantial advantage to the other top U.S. archers. 

I think the RA's should be given the best training available. With this opportunity, they should have a great chance to make world teams and olympic teams(without a competitive advantage). If the program at the OTC is truly good, then the U.S. teams will be very well represented by the RA's. 

John, If anybody thinks there is an "us and against them" mentality, it is the NAA. It seems many of the decisions made are politically driven. I do not think anybody is up against the RA's. They did not implement these controversial decisions, they are simply athletes trying to reach their goals. I would go as far as to say they have the full support of most people that speak out about what is going on.

And, John, I am doing well. Thansks for asking. I would like to shoot with you guys sometime. Drop me an email telling me when the next time you shoot is, and I'll try and attend.


----------



## sundevilarchery (May 27, 2005)

Well said shootist.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

shootist said:


> Hoytemgood, Maybe I'm confused a little bit. I have just recently started following this saga. My understanding was the World Team Trials for this years Target World Championships was to be held in Chula Vista. The schedule I read said something like April 19-22 for recurves and May 11-13 for the compound. I was also under the impression that if recurve archers made this team, they would be required to shoot various other international tournaments leading up to this. So many in fact that anybody that works a job could likely not attend. (I'm certain several of our nation's best recurve archers will not attend the trials). Another post on here mentioned that RA's were allowed to use numerous elimination matches that take place at the OTC for their rolling rank scores. Whereas everybody else is limited to the scores they shoot during specific tournaments. If these three things are true (which I am not certain of), then yes, *my opinion *is that RA's are given a substantial advantage to the other top U.S. archers.
> 
> I think the RA's should be given the best training available. With this opportunity, they should have a great chance to make world teams and olympic teams(without a competitive advantage). If the program at the OTC is truly good, then the U.S. teams will be very well represented by the RA's.
> 
> ...



an excellent point which mirrors succinctly what I have previously said.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

shootist said:


> Hoytemgood, Maybe I'm confused a little bit. I have just recently started following this saga. My understanding was the World Team Trials for this years Target World Championships was to be held in Chula Vista. The schedule I read said something like April 19-22 for recurves and May 11-13 for the compound. I was also under the impression that if recurve archers made this team, they would be required to shoot various other international tournaments leading up to this. So many in fact that anybody that works a job could likely not attend. (I'm certain several of our nation's best recurve archers will not attend the trials). Another post on here mentioned that RA's were allowed to use numerous elimination matches that take place at the OTC for their rolling rank scores. Whereas everybody else is limited to the scores they shoot during specific tournaments. If these three things are true (which I am not certain of), then yes, *my opinion *is that RA's are given a substantial advantage to the other top U.S. archers.
> 
> I think the RA's should be given the best training available. With this opportunity, they should have a great chance to make world teams and olympic teams(without a competitive advantage). If the program at the OTC is truly good, then the U.S. teams will be very well represented by the RA's.
> 
> ...


Good assessment. If I could add something, the training funding for the outside archers has been dramatically cut, and their training programs are now being critiqued by the HP's for elegibility. They are making it harder to succeed outside the program, which is not what the NAA should be doing.


----------



## Hollywood (Oct 24, 2002)

Huntmaster said:


> Good assessment. If I could add something, the training funding for the outside archers has been dramatically cut, and their training programs are now being critiqued by the HP's for elegibility. They are making it harder to succeed outside the program, which is not what the NAA should be doing.


I have been sitting back quietly, not saying a word about this whole thing, but I'm sorry I can't let this one go. 

The above statement is so INCREDIBLY inaccurate that I don't know what to say. PLEASE do not spread these rumors as though they are fact. The amount of money offered to those outside the RA program has not been cut - in fact, it has been INCREASED. Do not talk about these things which you do not know about. 

The continued spreading of falsehoods does no one any good.


----------



## sundevilarchery (May 27, 2005)

Really? The documents I have read are very clear about changing funding and requiring aprrovals and such.


----------



## Hollywood (Oct 24, 2002)

Yes, really. Trust me on this. The amount of funding offered to non-RA archers this year exceeds what was offered last year. 

And, on the training plans – if you’re not prepared to submit a written training plan (which takes minimal time out of your month, to prepare) I can’t see how you would think you should receive support money. If you’re training according to a plan, write it down. If you’re not training according to a plan, then it is likely that no support money is deserved, as generally those people without a plan….don’t make it very far (in life or in archery, either one).


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

Hollywood said:


> Yes, really. Trust me on this. The amount of funding offered to non-RA archers this year exceeds what was offered last year.
> 
> .


For all concerned instead of telling us to trust you please show us. Quote/Show the written document or shut up! I can not believe the statements that can not show or quote actual documents. We will respond only to truth and not spin. Funding can be grouped together to look as large as before but spread out further but smaller than before. Even the same level as last year is lower this year because of inflation.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Hollywood said:


> Do not talk about these things which you do not know about.
> 
> The continued spreading of falsehoods does no one any good.


hmmmmmmm, what do I know? :zip:


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Hollywood has a pretty good track record for truth as far as I am concerned and from what I know-that was told to me in confidence so I will not divulge names-the f unding is there. Its the other stuff such as the home field advantage and using the non-tournament OR scores that is causing most of the consternation


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Just to clear one thing up.......this thread was Limbwalkers support for the Dream team and the RA's, and this I do agree with! If this is their method of coaching, I only wish them the best! My opposition only concerns the NAA's waining support for those outside the program.

perhaps these last few posts should be moved to the other thread :darkbeer:


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

It is the same mushroom treatment as in the 90's that members complained about. The powers in charge decide the few who need to know what is going on and what others get to stay in the dark. The problem with that is it carries over to other areas of funding/decisions and causes distrust with the membership. With that style of leadership they deserve to be watched. If they can not be secure with their open decisions and justify them to the membership then just do not make them.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> And, John, I am doing well. Thansks for asking. I would like to shoot with you guys sometime. Drop me an email telling me when the next time you shoot is, and I'll try and attend.


Darren, regardless of how we may view this issue, you're always welcome on my target 

Send me a PM with your e-mail, and we'll get you over here shooting with us again...

John.


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

Huntmaster said:


> If I could add something, the training funding for the outside archers has been dramatically cut, and their training programs are now being critiqued by the HP's for elegibility. They are making it harder to succeed outside the program, which is not what the NAA should be doing.


What documents would you direct us to examine in support of your assertion that funding for "outside archers has been dramatically cut?" It is my impression that in Olympic years and the years just prior to, funding has typically been increased.

Not saying that you're right or wrong, just wondering about the source of your assertions.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

oldreliable67 said:


> What documents would you direct us to examine in support of your assertion that funding for "outside archers has been dramatically cut?" It is my impression that in Olympic years and the years just prior to, funding has typically been increased.
> 
> Not saying that you're right or wrong, just wondering about the source of your assertions.


This years athlete support is here
http://www.usarchery.org/files/07_direct_athlete_support_program.pdf

And here is the athete support document for 2006
http://www.usarchery.org/files/06_sasp.pdf

You'll note that the top athlete has taken a cut from $800 / month training to $400 per month, with funding being reduced in both cases as ranking goes down. You'll also note that there were 6 places, men and women, in 2006, and there are now only 2 positions available. Juniors have been cut from 3 top male and female positions recieving up to $500 to $225 per month for the top two positions as well.

Now, there is a note on the 2007 plan that states this "excludes athletes on the Elite Athlete special support package", but that program is not public to my knowledge. I have heard rumors of some other funding being available to certain athletes, but I have no idea who, how much, or stipulations attached to it. Nor have I heard any of it from "the horses mouth", but I have heard some conflicting tales. 

The financial incentive for score has stayed the same, and the standard has been raised, which I would expect. Unfortunatly, the period that an archer can qualify for this financial incentive has been decreased slightly.

Also, there used to be in the high preformance plan, or similar document, a salary available to top archers, and I believe it was associated with becoming an RA, which is no longer out there. This would probably not come into play for those outside the program anyway. This may be something translated over to the "Elite Athlete special support package", but the 2007 SASP is the only document I see any mention of it appearing on.


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

Huntmaster said:


> there is a note on the 2007 plan that states this "excludes athletes on the Elite Athlete special support package"


Thanks for the links -- those are the docs that I thought you were referring to, but I wanted to be sure before commenting...and you're correct: the docs suggest a sharp reduction in DAS sipends in 2007 as compared to 2006.

You are also correct to point out the reference to something called the "Elite Athlete special support package". I've been wondering what that is and who administers it. It sounds very much like a USOC program, but so far, I have found no info on it at the USOC web site.

Contrary to the dollar amounts detailed in the 2007 DAS doc, I keep hearing from people that I consider quite knowledgeable that the total amount for DAS programs in 2007 is considerably larger than last year. If true, it is certainly being kept a secret, for no apparent reason that I can think of. 

Its hard to reconcile the numbers in the DAS doc with the amounts rumored to be available. Perhaps the difference is in the dollar amounts allocated to the mysterious "Elite Athlete special support package". Another possible source is the "Athlete Performance Incentives for International Competition". The doc is unclear (at least, to me) as to the amounts of these awards; perhaps they are listed elsewhere and I've just overlooked them. (Assistance with these numbers, anyone?)

Perhaps the sum of the DAS amounts explicitly listed plus the Elite Athlete support dollars plus the performance incentives for international competitions can one get the total support dollars something approximating the rumored amounts. If true, those that know these numbers aren't sharing that information with the membership -- not on any official basis, anyway. And thats a shame. More transparency -- better info and more communication -- could have avoided and/or negated a lot of the stuff thats been going on.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

If I remember correctly, the funding that was available to archers yearly, and I can't recall if it was strictly for RA's or not, but it was somewhere in the range of $30K or $35K to the top archer. Again, that is just what I remember seeing a while back. It is possible this is where some of the moneys are coming from now that hollywood is refering to. I am simply going by what is publicly available to anyone wanting to look at it. Both of these documents are available on the NAA web site for anyone to review. One on the main page, the other under high preformance programs.

Please Hollywood, is there other programs out there that any of us don't know of? If so, is it planned to be unvailed at any time in any form?

I am not acknowledging here the added support for funding tournaments that we've seen so far, so cudos to the NAA for managing that portion so far. I hope we can see it continue:thumbs_up


----------



## Hoytemgood (Aug 19, 2006)

Huntmaster said:


> Just to clear one thing up.......this thread was Limbwalkers support for the Dream team and the RA's, and this I do agree with! If this is their method of coaching, I only wish them the best! My opposition only concerns the NAA's waining support for those outside the program.
> 
> perhaps these last few posts should be moved to the other thread :darkbeer:


I disagree that the NAA support has dropped for those outside the RA program. In fact I think it is picking up with the CHAMPS program. We are very excited to be a part of that program. Again this is a creation of Coach Lee and Tom Parrish thus increasing my support of them.


----------

