# Opinions on NTS



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Oh, good ... I'll make some popcorn :darkbeer:


----------



## rharper (Apr 30, 2012)

Great starting point but not the end all method. The whole system can work for some but not all. Yes, it's good to have a national standard. The interesting thing is the complex nts method is not something to teach to the kids/adults just starting out. A simpler method is taught first as it is much easier to remember.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Well, that's one way to start talking about Olympic recurve on this forum again! It is a polarizing issue and has been discussed here. Do a search and you'll find all kinds of entertainment.


----------



## Kendric_Hubbard (Feb 5, 2015)

Do you think there are any changes that could be made to make NTS better?


----------



## rharper (Apr 30, 2012)

Not sure about changes but it seems to me the perception is that it's a my way or the highway system from the general public. I had the same perception until talking to and observing other coaches that are certified L3 and higher here in Michigan. Everyone's body type is different so once the basics are out of the way, it's up to the coach to gather from all the different well known and trusted methods to help the student excel. See the thread on the books to buy for archery thread. Excellent resources in that thread for all coaches to read up on.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

What you guys need now is not another training system. Or a different system. What you guys need, are engineers.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

If you have a qualified individual teaching you the concepts and techniques of NTS I think it can probably work as a strong foundation to be tailored to individuals specific abilities, and needs. 

That said, trying to self teach NTS can be a very frustrating process. A lot of the literature out there isn't for someone getting into the sport. It can convey general concepts but more likely than not one will walk away with even more questions with out a coach to guide the experience on what is acceptable to modify and how to modify it from the basic techniques. Worse case you try to emulate those who have have had success in the US using it with out knowing why they do it they way they do - and you lnjure yourself.


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

I will chuck in my 2 cents here. It is meant to be a system capable of being modified for the end user, not a rigidly applied my way or the highway choreographed action. 

That being said, I don't doubt that it has been presented at times as a this is the only way methodology. 

As with any instruction, the instructor-student relationship matters, the instructor must be competent, communicative and adaptable, and the student just as much. 

As you will soon find, there are a bunch of ways to shoot an arrow, and most of the better ones have devotees who have succeeded at the highest levels. Try your best to parse fact from hype, find a good coach, and strive to do the best you can.


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

lksseven said:


> Oh, good ... I'll make some popcorn [emoji481]


Lol, I saw the thread title and thought the exact same thing. [emoji12] 

It's a great topic that I'm interested in, too. My personal interest being from a perspective of an archery range owner who has a team of academy instructors of which only one is NTS certified (myself). 

At least one of the other instructors has no handle on NTS, the reason for it, i.e. being biomechanically efficient to get to the holding position (braced in the bow), and will gladly express why their way is better. 

I will be teaching NTS to my team, but have yet to decide if I should insist that they teach it also. 

Carry on. [emoji1]


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

I just remembered something that I read in the 2015 symposium notes, that I have started implementing. 

Before even putting a bow in the hands of a student, I will break down why we are going to go over this "recipe", as I call it, that is the shot cycle, to get to the perfect "cookie", which is the result on the bale. 

The part that I have added, after reading those notes, is to explain that the purpose of the shot cycle is to get to holding. I will show them what being braced in the bow looks like, and explain why it's important that we get that right every time. Then, it is much easier for them to understand the transfer part of the cycle. 

Btw, a little formula that I use to help students and instructors remember the steps is DATA. After the obvious stance, nock, set, set-up is Draw, Anchor, Transfer, Aim, then the obvious release, and Finish with F for follow through. I know the steps are slightly different now, but that's what's on the test. 

I still have no opinion. Haha.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

One thing that has been proven...

For recurve archers, if you are a strong young man who trains full time, you can definitely make NTS work for you. Especially if you are already a top archer and you adapt NTS to suit you.

So far, it's not been proven that NTS is the route to world class scores for women. And the sample size is growing...

I think the question of whether the archers who have had success shooting NTS would have been successful learning another method, is one worth asking though.

John


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

My take: The back tension/ Shoulder/bow arm alignment is an excellent solution - if you can do it. Then/IF you can get your draw arm/elbow in position with a real holding weight bow like you can with the light weight/stretch band, you're in a superior stable position. The rest of the contortions are all about getting you into those two positions. The downside is that I don't believe most normal people will be able to do it correctly ... i.e. the Greco Reverse Bridge - where you pickup a guy, arch yourself backward, land on the top of your head, and put the opponent on his back - is a great 5point move technique to get an opponent on his back. But you've got to have the physical ability and strength to execute the move properly without hurting yourself (as in: avoiding a broken neck) - most normal wrestlers don't have that ability. And, like all analogies, it's not a perfect analogy. But you get my point.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

As far as "the proof's in the pudding" goes - so, NTS is represented in medals matches around world by Brady (who would be in medals matches no matter what method he used) and ???? who else? How many years has NTS been sowing its seeds? Young bucks pop up from other methods/countries in world cup medal rounds every year - how long will become 'too long' for NTS to be producing the young American bucks with its magic?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Great points to be sure Larry.

One could and probably should wonder, if not for Brady, where would NTS be today? How long should a national training system basically hang it's hat on the success of one single archer, particularly when dozens upon dozens of archers have trained full time under the creator of that system over the past 8 years, and particularly when that one archer 1) was already a world champion archer, and 2) modified the system to suit them?


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

I do like NTS. 

It is a good starting point and having a standard for all archers to evolve from is helpful down the road. 

It's a good thing when upcoming archers have basically the same education in the same teachings. 
If they do excel in the sport, it will make it easier for their future coaches if they all have the same basic introduction to archery.


----------



## Ten_Zen (Dec 5, 2010)

Kendric_Hubbard said:


> I just wanted to gather some opinions on the USA's National Training System. Is having a national standardized system a good thing? Does it work? Does it need to be changed?


In order they were asked, here are my answers.

1)Yes (IMO)
2) For some people.
3) Please god, no...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

XForce Girl said:


> I do like NTS.
> 
> It is a good starting point and having a standard for all archers to evolve from is helpful down the road.
> 
> ...


How is this any different now than from the instructional material that was available pre NTS? 

The same things could be said for any system.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Kendric_Hubbard said:


> Is having a national standardized system a good thing?


I used to think so.



Kendric_Hubbard said:


> Does it work?


Not demonstrably more than any other system used by Elite International Archers.



Kendric_Hubbard said:


> Does it need to be changed?


Totally above my pay grade and expertise, but in some ways, yes. The NTS has been around for nearly a decade, but it seems to still remain too complex a system to be learned correctly from anyone other than Kisik Lee or one of his direct disciples, which is a serious problem with a "National" system that is supposed to be trickled down nationwide through a hierarchy of instructors and coaches certified through one-off seminars rather than ongoing training.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

calbowdude said:


> As you will soon find, there are a bunch of ways to shoot an arrow, and most of the better ones have devotees who have succeeded at the highest levels. Try your best to parse fact from hype, find a good coach, and strive to do the best you can.


Reminds me a bit of the hypothetical arguments over "Which is the best martial arts system?" Too a large degree, I'd say, the one you practice the most. Which is to say, that archery, as with martial arts, is largely about practiced skill. So it's hard to know when to attribute any archer's success to a specific coaching system, when all we know for certain is that it is *possible* for at least that individual to succeed with that system, not that it is necessarily the most helpful or least injurious system. It's not like USA Archery is taking athletes and randomly dividing them up into experimental and control groups to systematically, and objectively study the short and long term comparative effects of various coaching systems (though one might think otherwise based on the way NTS is touted.)


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

How much is the lack of the overall success of the NTS system on the international level due to the lack of quality recurve archers entering into the national system? I think it is safe to assume here in the USA especially the South, that the far majority of archers are shooting compounds and not recurves. While, from what I have seen, there seems to be more interest in Europe and the Orient in recurve shooting than compound shooting. 

I guess what I am trying to say is that the most physically/mentally gifted archers in the USA are most probably carrying around a compound and not a recurve; while in the countries we are competing against their most physically/mentally gifted archers are carrying a recurve. Thus our recurve archers are already going against other archers that are either/or or both physically and mentally superior to them. I'm not saying this as a slight against the Olympic recurve crowd here in the USA, but the few tournaments I've been to the compound archers are by far the more superior crowd.

For example, last year my son shot in the regional and state (Louisiana) 4-H archery tournaments, and there was somewhere between 300-400 archers at both of them. At least 85% were compound archers, the rest were carrying Genesis and shooting barebow. My son shot Olympic recurve and won first place in both of them. The number of Olympic recurve archers? One, him, at the regional and three, including him, at the state.

We recently shot at a NFAA indoor tournament. He and I were the only archers shooting a recurve. 

For our archery club meeting, we had Mr. Skip Trafford and his son Harley speak in front of our kids, and he point blank said that it was a whole lot easier to climb the ranks of recurve archery than compound in this country. 

My point being is, can we blame the NTS technique for our success, or lack thereof, on the international level; or is the lack of access to high quality archers by the NTS system to blame?


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Concerning the personal note though, I think me adopting the NTS system has definitely improved my archer skills. Not saying they are great or elite by any stretch of the imagination; but since adopting and working that system into my personal technique, I am feeling more confident in my skills. Last night I shot two rounds of an NFAA indoor (120 arrows, 60 arrows per round) in less than 2 hours; and when I was done, I felt like I could have shot another round. Not only that I shot 13 points better in the second round than I did the first. Using the FITA method (the method one finds in the FITA coaching manuals) I could never get to holding; but with the NTS I can. Now like others above said, this is probably due to my body type [long limbs (6 foot tall with a 6.5 foot wing span), and a barrel chest]; but I just couldn't make much progress using the FITA method.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

What is "the fita method?"


----------



## DreamOn (Jan 16, 2015)

I'm a newb, I'll admit it. Please bear with me, I'm still learning. Couple of questions:
1. How many methods of recurve archery are there?
2. How many US Olympic archery coaches are there?
3. What are the S. Koreans doing differently?
4. Why are compound winning purses so much bigger than recurve?
Thanks for listening.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

It would take pages to answer those, if we could even answer them.

In a nutshell,

1) You could easily argue that there are 4 or 5 major methods of shooting Oly. recurve archery that are proven to be successful worldwide. Some would say more.

2) Right now, there is one Oly. archery coach in the U.S. - Kisik Lee. There are many assistant coaches who help him at events and at training camps. There are a number of former Olympic coaches, including Sheri Rhodes, Frank Thomas, Lloyd Brown, Tim Strickland, Al Henderson, Dick Tone, Larry Skinner, Alexander Kirillov and others - depending on how you define "coach." Some were personal coaches of the Olympic athletes, some were "official" team coaches that may or may not have been an athlete's coach. 

3) S. Koreans are doing a lot of things differently. Their country has many more Olympic style archers, they train from an earlier age, they take the sport much more seriously than we do in the U.S., they have many more experienced coaches than we have and there is an opportunity to make a living for many archers there, unlike here where only a handful can support themselves by shooting Olympic style.

4) Compounds compete for bigger purses because there are so many more archers in the U.S. competing with the compound, the compound and compound accessory sales are much more profitable than recurve, and therefore sponsors are much more willing to support events that feature compounds.


----------



## airwolfipsc (Apr 2, 2008)

The way I see it Nts made it more difficult to shoot olympic style recurve.
I can shoot both..for me, back in the day..bow is meant to be pulledbackand letgo.linear is more forgiving and can get inline more often..preaiming on 10ring resulting in better score.
Nts has many movements (very easy to torque the bow)hard to get inline with the bow and aiming process can make u miss the target because of candycane movement resulting in lower score. But..I can hold the bow twice as long!
My question is is the game played who shoots more 10s or how long we can hold the bow?
Also want to add that the longer we hold..the more the shot deteriorate.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

"I guess what I am trying to say is that the most physically/mentally gifted archers in the USA are most probably carrying around a compound and not a recurve; while in the countries we are competing against their most physically/mentally gifted archers are carrying a recurve. Thus our recurve archers are already going against other archers that are either/or or both physically and mentally superior to them. I'm not saying this as a slight against the Olympic recurve crowd here in the USA, but the few tournaments I've been to the compound archers are by far the more superior crowd."

************************
I do not agree with your conclusion. As an example, Braden Gellenthien is one of the best compound archers in the USA and the world. He finished 51st with a recurve at the Olympic Trials in 2011. I cannot believe that many of these physically and mentally superior compound archers wouldn't be taking up the recurve and a shot at the Olympics, were it so easily in their grasp. 

Just because a zillion people buy a $300 compound at Bass Pro and pull it out of the closet once or twice a month to shoot in local tournaments is not an indication of their superior physical and mental ability versus the smaller number of archers dedicated to the training discipline required to shoot a recurve well (and I'm not insinuating that there aren't a lot of compound archers who approach their craft with vigor and discipline - obviously there are; but there's huge number of compound owners that don't shoot 100 practice arrows a year). 

Every country has a small number of elite gifted archers who make it to medals matches on the world stage (although Korea's 'small number is decidedly bigger than other nations, for a variety of reasons). America's best world performances have been in the past, long before Kisik Lee (whom I like, by the way) or NTS hit American soil (gold medals in 1972, 1976, 1984, 1980 (if we hadn't boycotted, Pace was a slam dunk for the gold), 1984, 1988, 1996; silver in 2000). Maybe it's just as simple as that it's an historically cyclical thing, and we're in the trough of that cycle the last 10 or 15 years. 

But, it's pretty obvious after 8 years that NTS isn't the magic bullet. And, again, I don't think most people have a prayer of physically being able to do NTS as it's spec'd out.


----------



## Ten_Zen (Dec 5, 2010)

NTS did not work for me until it became "one thing" and not a bunch of steps. When I was still learning the steps, NTS was a long check list of things that I had to think about every time I drew my bow. This exactly the opposite of the mental state you want to be in on the line. Shooting a bow should feel natural, almost reflexive. Because NTS is so complex, it takes a long time for you to develop the muscle memory of all of those steps, which makes it feel unnatural and forced, and you will undoubtedly shoot weak shots as a result. I nearly gave up on it myself, especially because I dont have a coach, so I had to learn from books and videos. But I stuck with it, and I am finally experiencing the payoff of a higher avg. (my old avg is now my floor, and scores that were completely unreachable to me before, now seem just around the corner) and a much stronger and more consistent form overall. I think the most important part of adopting a formal style is to feel it out, and make it work for you. Use the instructions as a set of guidelines to either use as directed or as needed. 

To use bowling as a metaphor, until you learn the proper technique involved with hooking the ball, throwing that way will only cause you to get lower scores. Once you 'get it', you're game will improve, but you cant learn how to hook the ball without going through that period of adjustment, and suffering the score loss.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

So then the question becomes, had you applied the same discipline and effort to another method, would you have improved as much? More? Faster? 

There are nations with smaller sample sizes of dedicated Oly. archers, who have had better results using other methods. I'm thinking Italy and Mexico and the Netherlands here, not to mention even some 3rd world countries that are now routinely on the podium. What could their talent pool for such an expensive sport possibly be?


----------



## yugami (Dec 10, 2013)

lksseven said:


> "I guess what I am trying to say is that the most physically/mentally gifted archers in the USA are most probably carrying around a compound and not a recurve; while in the countries we are competing against their most physically/mentally gifted archers are carrying a recurve. Thus our recurve archers are already going against other archers that are either/or or both physically and mentally superior to them. I'm not saying this as a slight against the Olympic recurve crowd here in the USA, but the few tournaments I've been to the compound archers are by far the more superior crowd."
> 
> ************************
> I do not agree with your conclusion. As an example, Braden Gellenthien is one of the best compound archers in the USA and the world. He finished 51st with a recurve at the Olympic Trials in 2011. I cannot believe that many of these physically and mentally superior compound archers wouldn't be taking up the recurve and a shot at the Olympics, were it so easily in their grasp.


What would the Olympics give them?


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

yugami said:


> What would the Olympics give them?


Well, I should have put the phrase "physically and mentally superior" in quotes, as I do not believe for a minute that the poster's statement rings true.

But, to answer your question straightforward, just off the top of my head the same things that fuel all (or most) Olympic dreams - compete on the biggest stage possible, fame, fortune, endorsements out the wazoo, the Tonight Show; or maybe just to be Olympic Champion - who wouldn't want that? 

Or maybe ask Braden what he thought he would get out of it.


----------



## DreamOn (Jan 16, 2015)

That's what I was trying to find out by asking about the number of methods available. If all olympic hopefuls are subject to one method, and they in fact respond to another method better, how is that worthwhile? Stubborn traditionalists always think their way is better. Problem with having one head coach and one ideology is that not everyone fits that mold. Am I way off?

Oh...Hard work and dedication will eventually get you there. Talent just gets you there quicker.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

DreamOn said:


> That's what I was trying to find out by asking about the number of methods available. If all olympic hopefuls are subject to one method, and they in fact respond to another method better, how is that worthwhile? Stubborn traditionalists always think their way is better. Problem with having one head coach and one ideology is that not everyone fits that mold. Am I way off?
> 
> Oh...Hard work and dedication will eventually get you there. Talent just gets you there quicker.


No, I don't think you're way off. Nothing could be simpler than the form of Jenny Hardy or Vic Wunderlee. IMO, that's the quicker road to higher US placements by more US archers.


----------



## yugami (Dec 10, 2013)

lksseven said:


> fame, fortune, endorsements out the wazoo


I've met Brady, Jake, Vic and Darrell and I didn't get a sense of these things from them.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

yugami said:


> I've met Brady, Jake, Vic and Darrell and I didn't get a sense of these things from them.


That's because you weren't in Singapore in December 2013. I had to write a letter to one of the archer's head coach on behalf of the organiser for an event that they attended, before things spiraled any further. 

P.S. In case you're reading this post, yes, it was me. And you're not exactly one of the best archers in the world as you claimed to be. Your teammates however carried themselves extremely well.

Ok back to the topic. NTS: is it Korean?


----------



## Kendric_Hubbard (Feb 5, 2015)

NTS is not Korean. The Korean form is much closer to the teachings of Coach Hyung Tak Kim than those of Kisik Lee


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

So it's American?


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

I don't think it's Korean, nor American, nor typically citizen of the United States-ian. It's what Ki Sik Lee believed what would work with United States citizens. What would keep them under control, prevent them from running wild with their own individualistic ideas. 

Disclaimer: I do not refer to US citizens as exclusively "Americans," since that is false, not true, wrong. Everyone who lives in North America, Central America and South America is an American. As such, it is wrong for US citizens to refer to themselves as the only Americans. Sorry for the trivia, which is trivial, but it is the truth.


----------



## Ten_Zen (Dec 5, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> So then the question becomes, had you applied the same discipline and effort to another method, would you have improved as much? More? Faster?
> 
> There are nations with smaller sample sizes of dedicated Oly. archers, who have had better results using other methods. I'm thinking Italy and Mexico and the Netherlands here, not to mention even some 3rd world countries that are now routinely on the podium. What could their talent pool for such an expensive sport possibly be?


I was a linear shooter for 3-4 years before I switched to NTS. I was averaging in the 260s (indoor) and 272 was my personal best. Then I switched to NTS, and my scores suffered for awhile. When I finally got back to my average again I started to get the feel for it, and with a few minor adjustments to to the 'orthodox' style (I stopped tightening the muscles of my butt or abdomen, and a few other things to make it feel more relaxed) I suddenly jumped into the mid 270's average with a 285 personal best. And now instead of feeling like I've plateaued, I feel like I am on the final approach to the summit and I have the right form to get me there. I am not saying it is for everyone, but for me it is working FINE


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

yugami said:


> I've met Brady, Jake, Vic and Darrell and I didn't get a sense of these things from them.


A lot of us have met them. And I would think the fact that Brady Jake and Vic all make their living from being highly accomplished archers argues that "fortune and endorsements" are, in fact, legitimate and real motivators for them to pursue Olympic glory. It's not a negative.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> What is "the fita method?"


I'm just using this term to differentiate between our current NTS method and the method outlined in FITA coaching manuals.


----------



## yugami (Dec 10, 2013)

lksseven said:


> A lot of us have met them. And I would think the fact that Brady Jake and Vic all make their living from being highly accomplished archers argues that "fortune and endorsements" are, in fact, legitimate and real motivators for them to pursue Olympic glory. It's not a negative.


Jake stated (direct quote) "money pays the bills and I'm having a hard time doing that with my recurve".

At a multi day show dedicated to archery (ATA trade show) neither Jake nor Vic were recognized by anyone who didn't already know them.

We must have very different definitions of fame and fortune.


----------



## rharper (Apr 30, 2012)

Nor would I recognize most of the hunters with TV shows either there. Apples and oranges.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

yugami said:


> I've met Brady, Jake, Vic and Darrell and I didn't get a sense of these things from them.


Maybe because once they got home from the Olympics they all realized they were still the same person and they still had to take out the trash and do the dishes. 



> At a multi day show dedicated to archery (ATA trade show) neither Jake nor Vic were recognized by anyone who didn't already know them.


I know the feeling. In 2005, Stephanie White-Arnold and I were asked to represent USArchery at the ATA show in Indy. She and I wandered around that trade show for 2 days, bows in hand, in full Olympic uniform. You would NOT BELIEVE how many major archery manufacturers and staff had no idea who we were, or why we were there. I'll never forget being excited to meet Pete Shepley for the first time. I had always been a fan of PSE (my first hunting bow was a PSE) and had recently switched to a PSE X-factor. So I stood there, X-factor in hand and he turned to me in front of David Kronengold and point-blank asked me "who are you?"  I'll never forget that moment.

I think it's telling that in one day, Lars Anderson became much more well known worldwide than Brady Ellison.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Ten_Zen said:


> I was a linear shooter for 3-4 years before I switched to NTS. I was averaging in the 260s (indoor) and 272 was my personal best. Then I switched to NTS, and my scores suffered for awhile. When I finally got back to my average again I started to get the feel for it, and with a few minor adjustments to to the 'orthodox' style (I stopped tightening the muscles of my butt or abdomen, and a few other things to make it feel more relaxed) I suddenly jumped into the mid 270's average with a 285 personal best. And now instead of feeling like I've plateaued, I feel like I am on the final approach to the summit and I have the right form to get me there. I am not saying it is for everyone, but for me it is working FINE


You just needed a decent coach. That's all. A good competent coach teaching any method, NTS or otherwise, would have gotten you to the 280 mark. Heck, I have my wife shooting 270's on occasion and she shoots 1x/week - no more than 50 arrows. 

I'm going to say you had some serious form flaws when you were trying to shoot linear that were holding you back. 

Having said that, I'm glad you're making NTS work for you because at the end of the day, I'll all about people shooting better, regardless of which technique they use.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

lksseven said:


> I do not agree with your conclusion. As an example, Braden Gellenthien is one of the best compound archers in the USA and the world. He finished 51st with a recurve at the Olympic Trials in 2011. I cannot believe that many of these physically and mentally superior compound archers wouldn't be taking up the recurve and a shot at the Olympics, were it so easily in their grasp.


 The only thing I can counter here is that from my very limited experience working with kids in 4-H; we have quite a few kids that are pretty good at shooting compounds; but when you put a recurve in their hands, they can't hit the broad side of a barn. I believe (and I can be wrong here) that there is a significant difference between shooting a compound and a recurve. One who is good at one doesn't mean that he/she is going to be good at the other. 

So the question would be then did Braden Gellenthien invest enough time in making the transition to Olympic recurve, to be elite? Even I know that to get even competent at shooting a recurve (versus a compound) requires a lot more time, effort and far more arrows shot. 




lksseven said:


> Just because a zillion people buy a $300 compound at Bass Pro and pull it out of the closet once or twice a month to shoot in local tournaments is not an indication of their superior physical and mental ability versus the smaller number of archers dedicated to the training discipline required to shoot a recurve well (and I'm not insinuating that there aren't a lot of compound archers who approach their craft with vigor and discipline - obviously there are; but there's huge number of compound owners that don't shoot 100 practice arrows a year).


 I didn't imply that. My point is that there are far more compound archers than recurve archers. I don't know the statistics here in the USA; but if I guess from how hard it is to get Olympic recurve equipment, the payouts at money tournaments, etc. that there is easily at least 1000 compound archers for every Olympic recurve archer. I could be wrong, but that would not surprise me at all. So it stands to reason that there is going to be fewer potential elite archers choosing Olympic recurve over compound.

Then you throw in the very fact of how hard it is to get recurve equipment or training. An average NASP archer, even the ones who are superior archers in their program, when they decide to move to the next level; are more likely to choose compound over Olympic recurve. Why? Because in most areas there is no access to equipment or coaching. Compound? If a store sells sporting goods, they have compounds. If there is a bow shop or local archery club, someone can get coaching on shooting a compound. That is my point, nothing more.




lksseven said:


> Every country has a small number of elite gifted archers who make it to medals matches on the world stage (although Korea's 'small number is decidedly bigger than other nations, for a variety of reasons). America's best world performances have been in the past, long before Kisik Lee (whom I like, by the way) or NTS hit American soil (gold medals in 1972, 1976, 1984, 1980 (if we hadn't boycotted, Pace was a slam dunk for the gold), 1984, 1988, 1996; silver in 2000). Maybe it's just as simple as that it's an historically cyclical thing, and we're in the trough of that cycle the last 10 or 15 years.


 Its possible. My only point is that if we had more in the pool to choose from, there may be more elite recurve archers to compete on the international level. 



lksseven said:


> But, it's pretty obvious after 8 years that NTS isn't the magic bullet. And, again, I don't think most people have a prayer of physically being able to do NTS as it's spec'd out.


I agree the NTS isn't a magic bullet. The S. Koreans have shown everyone what is necessary to be dominating in archery, and that is to have an elite level overall training system; and it is obvious that our NTS (the overall system and not the technique) is not as good as theirs. 

A archer at my local club, who has been competing since the early 70s in archery, once gave me sage advice on becoming a good archer. He told me that whatever I do, whether good or bad, right or wrong, make sure you do it the exact same way every time, and if you do that you will shoot x's every time. 

So I don't think one can blame the technique (whichever one is currently, was once, or will be in the future, that is classified as THE NTS technique) as the reason for the success or lack thereof on the international level. I think that blame falls squarely on the overall NTS system.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> So then the question becomes, had you applied the same discipline and effort to another method, would you have improved as much? More? Faster?
> 
> There are nations with smaller sample sizes of dedicated Oly. archers, who have had better results using other methods. I'm thinking Italy and Mexico and the Netherlands here, not to mention even some 3rd world countries that are now routinely on the podium. What could their talent pool for such an expensive sport possibly be?


Hum, how would one be able to quantify this? I'm like Ten Zen. I'm not in an area were I have access to an Olympic recurve coach. (We have two level 4 coaches in my area, but they don't coach local kids, just their own.) So I had to learn everything on my own.

I started off studying and trying to apply the technique outlined in the FITA coaching manuals that I found on-line; and I did ok, but I hit a wall that I couldn't seem to get through. Granted there was probably something that I was missing that if I had access to a coach, he/she could have fixed and could have gotten through that wall. But all I can do is speculate.

I bought a few books, one on instinctive archery, because I initially thought about learning to shoot a recurve to go hunting, and then as my son got into archery for 4-H; I bought an Archery book that discussed the NTS technique. Initially I was frustrated from trying to apply the NTS technique as well, because not having someone to ask questions really gave me a lot of I don't knows. Anyway me going to a level 2 instructor clinic, and having a good coach answering those question I had, allowed me to progress.

Anyway like Ten Zen, the system works for me, and I am making progress; and that is all I can ask for.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

erose said:


> The only thing I can counter here is that from my very limited experience working with kids in 4-H; we have quite a few kids that are pretty good at shooting compounds; but when you put a recurve in their hands, they can't hit the broad side of a barn. I believe (and I can be wrong here) that there is a significant difference between shooting a compound and a recurve. One who is good at one doesn't mean that he/she is going to be good at the other.
> 
> So the question would be then did Braden Gellenthien invest enough time in making the transition to Olympic recurve, to be elite? Even I know that to get even competent at shooting a recurve (versus a compound) requires a lot more time, effort and far more arrows shot.
> 
> ...


thanks for the reasoned replies! We're good.


----------



## mahgnillig (Aug 3, 2014)

This is a really interesting topic. I first learned to shoot as a kid in England 20-some years ago and didn't pick it up again until about 6 months ago. I picked up where I left off, with the linear draw, square stance that I had learned back then. I'm now taking part in the AAAP at my local indoor range where the coach teaches NTS. I can't comment on whether or not the NTS style is improving my shooting or whether I'm just getting better because I have more practice time. NTS sure feels harder though, it seems to take a lot more tricep action to draw and there are a lot more steps to it.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

yugami said:


> Jake stated (direct quote) "money pays the bills and I'm having a hard time doing that with my recurve".
> 
> At a multi day show dedicated to archery (ATA trade show) neither Jake nor Vic were recognized by anyone who didn't already know them.
> 
> We must have very different definitions of fame and fortune.


The point is that if all these compound shooters are so vastly superior - physically and mentally - to the Olympic recurve guys, then surely some of the compounders would pickup the recurve and make the Olympic team, no? Surely there's some kind of allure to being in the Olympic Games. Of course, the real cheesecake is winning Olympic Gold for some of these other countriest ...
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/what-different-countries-pay-their-olympians-who-bring-home-a-medal-034825947.html

If it isn't for the money now (or at least 'not enough money') or the fame, i.e. chasing high sporting achievement and enduring the resulting sporting glory that comes with it (archery most watched sport the first week of 2012 Olympics on NBC), then school me, why do Jake and Vic and Brady continue to shoot Olympic recurve full time (or what appears to be full time)?


----------



## dschonbrun (Nov 14, 2012)

Kendric_Hubbard said:


> I just wanted to gather some opinions on the USA's National Training System. Is having a national standardized system a good thing? Does it work? Does it need to be changed?


It's good to have teachers using a consistent methodology and system. It helps students in a number of ways... they can find a coach they like without changing how they shoot. They get consistent feedback at events, no matter which coach they work with. The NTS system evolved from a number of others, including ones from Korea and Russia, so it's hardly new.

The NTS System isn't limited to Recurve anymore, by the way. There are specialists in Compound now. The shooting sequence, mental game, and nutritional components are identical. There is a slight difference in the release mechanism, but it's actually small when you look at the total process.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

dschonbrun said:


> It's good to have teachers using a consistent methodology and system. It helps students in a number of ways... they can find a coach they like without changing how they shoot. They get consistent feedback at events, no matter which coach they work with.


Except it hasn't always worked that way. As others have noted in working with kids who go off to JDT camps and come back with a *new* variation of the NTS that hasn't been passed on to the coaches. USA seems to be working on that. They now have an annual coaching symposium, and at least one change (an odd one) has been sent out via email. :dontknow:


----------



## TeamRetic (Dec 22, 2014)

It is good that they have a standard, but NTS does not work well for my body type. My coach try to teach it to me and it did not work well. He does teach in the steps. It is the way they draw the bow just not work for me at all, the string ends up were it suppose to not to and end up giving me a painful experience.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> The point is that if all these compound shooters are so vastly superior - physically and mentally - to the Olympic recurve guys, then surely some of the compounders would pickup the recurve and make the Olympic team, no?


No. But Alex Wifler just proved a former Oly. recurve archer can win the holy grail of compound events.  I guess you could say Reo Wilde proved the same thing a few years ago.

I suppose you could say Brady Ellison proved the opposite, going from junior world champion compounder to world champion recurver...

But that's much more rare. I think the money and status that comes with being successful with a compound do in fact take many of our most talented archers away from the Olympic ranks.

John


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

I've written a few responses to different posts and deleted them. I've been trying to think of a way to express my thoughts, some of which have been summed up by others. 

Yes, we need to have consistency in teaching to allow for these students who jump around to get taught the same methodology. 

However, do we also need to recognize, name, and better explain alternative methods? And, clarify why those alternatives might benefit different types of archers and body types? Much like the multiple disciplines of martial arts, that we differentiate through their names?

We're already ahead of that game by having our USAA coaches with or without the NTS module. But those without, what exactly are they teaching and how do we categorize it?

I've had students come to me from another L3 coach who does not have the NTS module, and the students learned something very different from me. Not necessarily better, just different. The other teaching is probably some older version of USAA teachings. 

Yes, USAA could do a better job of communicating the latest news, but they can only do so much, given their small size. There is a large onus on the state archery associations to be the hands and feet, too. With that in mind, I was very pleased to read that our very awesome Texas AA have plans to do exactly that in 2015. Yay, TSAA!  

So, from hereon, when a student comes to me who has had previous lessons, I will ask which methodology they were taught, and (as I already do) explain that I teach NTS and its purpose. 

I still have no opinion on NTS. I would love to learn all about the other styles to have something to compare, and to be better informed. 

John... there's another clinic in the making.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

John mentioned that there were at least five various archery techniques being used. What are those five, and is there any place to get introduced to them?


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

erose said:


> John mentioned that there were at least five various archery techniques being used. What are those five, and is there any place to get introduced to them?


Great question. I'll gladly host a workshop if we can get the teachers.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Ms.Speedmaster said:


> Yes, USAA could do a better job of communicating the latest news, but they can only do so much, given their small size. There is a large onus on the state archery associations to be the hands and feet, too. With that in mind, I was very pleased to read that our very awesome Texas AA have plans to do exactly that in 2015. Yay, TSAA!


With that limited bandwidth maybe they need to stick with a system that is simpler and more easily disseminated? Especially since there are simpler systems with proven track records?:dontknow:

Getting tricky seems to work ok at the OTC, but getting it down into the trenches is still very much a work in progress, like our latest fighter jet - very high tech and would be brilliant if and when we get it to work right, but in the meantime we'd be better off with something more reliable, simpler and robust that works more of the time.

Maybe NTS would work better in a country with a smaller population, where the centralized coaching would be available for a higher percentage of the country's archers? Maybe Australia? (just to pull out a random example.  )


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

erose said:


> John mentioned that there were at least five various archery techniques being used. What are those five, and is there any place to get introduced to them?


With my history in this sport going back only 12 years now, I certainly don't consider myself an authority on various styles of shooting, but rather someone who has both tried and personally observed archers at the highest levels who shoot very unique styles. Someone like Vittorio or GT or Don Rabska or Mike Usherenko or Alexander Kirillov would probably be the ones to begin to categorize the distinct styles used worldwide.

Having said that, I would begin with the 

1) Korean women's method, which is typically very simple parallel lines, a linear draw and a balanced push/pull through the clicker. (virtually every Korean woman) 
2) Italian method which includes a very definite push of the bowarm to break the clicker, and sometimes the thumb behind the neck (Frangilli) 
3) Russian/Ukranian method which features the thumb behind the neck, definite pulling, and a lot of head movement to get to anchor (Viktor Ruban/Balzhinima Tsyrempilov) 
4) The "fita" or former American method which included various stances but a linear draw, focus on back tension, and pulling through the clicker (McKinney/Wunderle/Rod White)
5) The former "BEST" and now "NTS" method, which features an open stance and hips, angular draw and "barrel of the gun" shoulder alignment (Ellison/Kaminski/McLaughlins/Fanchin)

Given a new student, I teach my interpretation of the Korean women's method. In other words, KISS. 

But not everyone can get their front shoulder as low and close to the arrow as the Korean women can, in which case it ends up looking more like the old American method. But I do promote balance between the front and back halves, so as much pushing as pulling to break the clicker. 

If a student who has been trained in NTS comes to me and wishes to continue in that style, I will teach that as well. Or if they ask to learn it, I will teach it. Otherwise, again, we're keeping it simple, stupid. 

John


----------



## fango0000 (Mar 16, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> Otherwise, again, we're keeping it simple, stupid.
> John


Ahhh, my favorite lol


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

The other thing to remember here is that it takes *years *to teach a student an entire technique. And that's if there are no injuries, target panic or other issues that get in the way. 

I simply cannot teach bow arm alignment, release of the bow, grip on the string, anchor, string alignment, follow through, stance, posture, head position, pulling vs. pushing, etc. all at the same time. Archers can really only learn one thing at a time, and until that thing is automatic, it's useless and counterproductive to move onto the next thing in the list. 

I have yet to work with a single student long enough to get them to the point where I feel their training is complete, despite having 3 world championship team members and four Jr. USAT members under my direction over the years. Rarely do us coaches get enough time and our archers get in enough arrows to complete the training before college, or work, or just plain life gets in the way...

Often, people will come to me for lessons and think they can learn most of their technique in a day or two or three. Or a parent will feel that after one year, their child should "have it down" despite only having a handful of one-on-one sessions with me in that year.

Where us coaches lose more archers is in their impatience, lack of discipline, lack of work ethic, or their parent's impatience in truly learning a method. I know a lot of coaches who will understand what I mean by that.

John


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

TeamRetic said:


> It is good that they have a standard, but NTS does not work well for my body type. My coach try to teach it to me and it did not work well. He does teach in the steps. It is the way they draw the bow just not work for me at all, the string ends up were it suppose to not to and end up giving me a painful experience.


Standard? We have a standard? 

NTS is not a standard. Working in an industry where there are all sorts of legitimate standards (electronics) I can tell you that NTS doesn't even remotely 
resemble a standard. Not because there is anything wrong with the concepts involved but because of the way it is managed and forced down the throats of
the archery community.

When there is a need to form a standard you form a committee from within the industry and draft a proposed standard. Then you release it as a proposal
and ask for comments. Once you get everyone more or less on the same page then you release the standard or revised standard and announce it to the
industry making sure that it is distributed widely to prevent problems.

Think about it in terms of the USB connector that we all have on our computers, printers, etc. If the electronics industry kept changing its mind and only
some of the companies that make devices using that connector had instant access to the information then you stand a significant chance of buying a
USB memory stick that blows up when you plug it in.

That is how NTS is handled. Someone or some small group of people decide that it needs to be changed. They tell only the people that they feel need to be
told and the rest of the coaches are still teaching last year's version. A coaches conference is a pretty poor way to disseminate that type of information.
There are how many USAA certified coaches? What percentage can ditch out on work, family and their checkbook to go to a conference to get information that
could have been provided in a PDF document or video via email.

Unfortunately there is NO excuse for this. If you decide that you are going to be a standards body and to manage that standard (USAA) then you are responsible
for making sure that it is managed in a way that makes it an actual standard. 

And by the way, the legitimacy of a "standard" is very much determined by how many entities in the affected industry "buy in" and decide that they want to comply
with the standard. Without obtaining that buy in before announcing that you are a standard can cause significant embarrassment.

Before anyone gets too ruffled about this I will admit that certain elite archers have had success with NTS. Some other archers like it. That is great.
But if you are going to claim to standardize something then you need to get on the ball and do it right. If you do not have the resources to manage the
standard that you are promoting then step aside and don't claim that it is a standard or a national system or whatever.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> When there is a need to form a standard you form a committee from within the industry and draft a proposed standard. Then you release it as a proposal
> and ask for comments. Once you get everyone more or less on the same page then you release the standard or revised standard and announce it to the
> industry making sure that it is distributed widely to prevent problems.


I'm laughing my head off right now because of course, you are correct. 

At the time USArchery and their "sponsors" decided we needed a new head coach, we had an opportunity to bring together some of the greatest coaches who have ever walked the earth - all right here in the U.S.

Did we do that? Not that I'm aware of. 

I am pretty sure I know why, and I've talked to many of those veteran coaches since. 

As far as disseminating information, USArchery is a non-profit archery organization that is SUPPOSED to support it's membership. How hard would it be for them to ask Lee to create a series of videos and disseminate those to certified *VOLUTNEER* USArchery coaches? 

How hard would it be to give USArchery certified L3's and above access to a sharepoint site that contains detailed videos on the latest iteration of NTS, using RA's that have mastered this form to demonstrate? 

Answer - not that damn hard. 

Instead, us *VOLUNTEER* coaches are asked to buy a plane ticket, rent a hotel room and give even more of our time to USArchery than we already do. And oh, by the way, make sure your events are sanctioned and all your club members pay their membership please... 

I could go on, but out of respect to certain staff who are responsible for this area, I won't.


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> Given a new student, I teach my interpretation of the Korean women's method. In other words, KISS.


And I'm leaning towards that also. I know that it is unlikely that I'll be coaching a student through the ranks to the Olympics. I would have passed them to another coach long before then. However, are we doing a disservice to a student by not giving them the "standard" from the beginning? That's a rhetorical question. (edit to add acknowledgment of the well stated facts about NTS not being the "standard").

I have a young lady who has been shooting barebow with next to no coaching - just passing comments on anchor, back tension, and aiming. She's doing very well, and is shooting hundreds of arrows every day. Her BB PB is 244, so I encouraged her to sign up for nationals.

She asked for a private lesson yesterday, with a sight. I warned her that what I'm going to show her is going to rock her world and spread her group until she's more practiced. I went on to say that she had to go back to her old way of shooting for nationals, and we'll work on the new style when she comes back. Ugh. I feel like I broke her. Obviously, her group spread. She whacked her arm, and she was discouraged. She understood why... i.e. per John's mention of how long it can take to perfect each element of the shot cycle. She actually wants to work on the new style after nationals. 

If you want a giggle, this is her blog. 
http://megtan3d.tumblr.com/
She is hungry for feedback. 

So, with all that said, I still have no opinion on NTS, but I know that I need to be more inclusive of other methods. I guess there's a lot of YouTube in my future.


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

Ms.Speedmaster said:


> And I'm leaning towards that also. I know that it is unlikely that I'll be coaching a student through the ranks to the Olympics. I would have passed them to another coach long before then. However, are we doing a disservice to a student by not giving them the "standard" from the beginning? That's a rhetorical question. (edit to add acknowledgment of the well stated facts about NTS not being the "standard").
> 
> I have a young lady who has been shooting barebow with next to no coaching - just passing comments on anchor, back tension, and aiming. She's doing very well, and is shooting hundreds of arrows every day. Her BB PB is 244, so I encouraged her to sign up for nationals.
> 
> ...


We need to get past NTS as "the standard". The old "9 steps to the 10 ring" was a really good springboard for beginners. Just enough detail to get someone shooting in
something that resembles good form. If you could not find or afford a coach you could do a pretty reasonable job just looking at the pretty pictures and trying to duplicate
what was in the book. As most people have observed doing that with NTS is not quite as easy. People take up archery because it looks like fun. They don't just look at
a list of olympic sports and say "I am going to medal in that one". Those "9-2-10" posters that NADA distributed were great for camps and other kid programs. Kids could
walk up and refresh their memory on the steps while waiting for other kids to shoot. How many steps does an 8 year old really need to know?

NTS is a valid method. Note that I said "A VALID METHOD" not the only valid method.

BTW your student seems to have at least one good thought: "The only gold I care about is in the center of the target - that’s the ultimate metal!"


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> As far as disseminating information, USArchery is a non-profit archery organization that is SUPPOSED to support it's membership. How hard would it be for them to ask Lee to create a series of videos and disseminate those to certified *VOLUTNEER* USArchery coaches?
> 
> How hard would it be to give USArchery certified L3's and above access to a sharepoint site that contains detailed videos on the latest iteration of NTS, using RA's that have mastered this form to demonstrate?
> 
> Answer - not that damn hard.


Not to divert this thread too much but that is exactly why I think that coaches need their own organization. To be able to share information and have a voice in those "standards" decisions.
If USAA does not have the resources to disseminate the information they can just pass it to the coaches' organization. If the coaches have questions, problems, requests, etc then they
can be funneled back to USAA as a single voice rather than dozens of emails and phone calls. It is a win-win: The coaches get more of what they need and it is less of a drain on USAA
resources to keep coaches informed and educated.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

If an archer can't control his bow arm and his posture in a relaxed, controlled manner, inconsistent results.

If an archer can't get close to zero angle alignment, what difference does it make what 'school of thought' they're under? 

If an archer is gut-busting to draw and hold, and as a consequence their draw arm is pulling from the side and they're popping their fingers off the string, then they're gonna be inconsistent in any school of thought. 

What goes under remarked, imo, is getting an ideal draw weight specific to each archer, plus enough physical training so that the archer has complete inexorable strength control of his body and his bow from the first arrow through the last arrow. My money's on that guy/gal - I don't care what style or technique is used. The vast majority of archers I watch shoot at tournaments here in the USA are overbowed. 

My own personal theory is that NTS' goal/bet (strong holding position) is to build a more formidable form that matches today's emphasis on short elimination rounds, sacrificing stamina and endurance accuracy but allowing/encouraging high draw weights and the supposed advantages of faster, heavier arrows carrying more energy downrange (to cheat wind and increase margin of error). Maybe the last 8 or 10 years has been a simple misjudgement of our national NTS coaching premise; that our current crop of elites (excepting Brady, always - and maybe even Brady at 2012 Olympics ... I thought he was overbowed and it showed up on long holds trying to figure out the swirling wind on the Olympic field ... just as an anecdote I think he's now shooting well below his Olympic weight of 54lbs or so) are overbowed due to an overarching errant or misguided premise, or some other training bet that hasn't panned out.


----------



## wfocharlie (Feb 16, 2013)

Larry I think that is a good point not just for elite archers but all archers in general. Every time I go to a range I see guys struggling to yank back a compound or others shooting a 50 pound recurve that are not even drawing it to their full draw length with any kind of proper alignment. The string is 3 inches from their face and they can't get rid of that arrow fast enough. It makes you realize the importance of some kind of coaching or instruction not only to make an archer better but just to make the sport more enjoyable. I think just one lesson with the right information can make the difference between someone continuing to enjoy archery for years or just giving up because it was too hard.


----------



## Kendric_Hubbard (Feb 5, 2015)

It seems like the majority of us agree that we do need a nationally standardized system, but our current system is overly complicated and poorly implemented. Are there any ideas of how we can improve the system to fix these issues?


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

@ Larry: I think a mistaken belief, especially among the self coached, about getting to Holding is that is should suddenly make holding a lot of weight very 'easy'. And While, if one can, achieving this alignment it certainly makes it 'easier' than just simply muscling the bow. 

A line from Inside The Archer always stood out to me - paraphrasing ' It still takes considerable strength to.." in reference to drawing a 'competition' weight bow +/- around 50 for men.
-----
While I can get into alinement with a stretch band in from of a mirror doing so consistently with bow in hand is another story. I'm in agreement with John's opinions on NTS - that the torso twisting, posture, and shoulder alinement of NTS does take a certain level of athleticism, flexibility, and consistent practice that a large majority of recreational archers are probably not willing orable to invest when there are more straightforward techniques to use that can have a satisfactory result for those just doing it for casual fun. 

That said, people on this forum repeatedly saying its more difficult to learn just makes me want to attempt to master it even more. I might even set up my Nexus for barebow one day too 

A video series featuring RAs with explanations from the top circle of L4/L5 coachs would be a wonderful thing. I'd pay for that. There is video out there and books with plenty of still photos, but the angles in the video is often found wanting.


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

wfocharlie said:


> Larry I think that is a good point not just for elite archers but all archers in general. Every time I go to a range I see guys struggling to yank back a compound or others shooting a 50 pound recurve that are not even drawing it to their full draw length with any kind of proper alignment. The string is 3 inches from their face and they can't get rid of that arrow fast enough. It makes you realize the importance of some kind of coaching or instruction not only to make an archer better but just to make the sport more enjoyable. I think just one lesson with the right information can make the difference between someone continuing to enjoy archery for years or just giving up because it was too hard.


Totally Agree.

I see it all the time. A lot of people buy bows and think archery is like in the movies. Just a little coaching and guidance in the right direction will do wonders.
I always include lessons/ coaching free with bow purchases at my shop. I feel I owe it to my customers to get them started in the right direction. Some don't take me up on the offer but some do.

I would much rather take a beginner and show them a few steps to better shooting than take a do it yourselfer and try to fix them.


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

Kendric_Hubbard said:


> It seems like the majority of us agree that we do need a nationally standardized system, but our current system is overly complicated and poorly implemented. Are there any ideas of how we can improve the system to fix these issues?


It is my opinion that the root of the problem is a system which teaches based on the assumption that the only goal is world domination.
We are teaching a technique to optimize the performance of everyone on the basis that they might become an elite athlete.

I admit that it is far fetched but that is sort of like teaching calculus to 4th graders because any one of them could potentially turn out to be Stephen Hawking.

In my mind you must break down the students into something like: Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced and Elite. Then you teach each one the skills necessary to move along
KEEPING IN MIND that they may want to move to the next level. Each level builds on the last. In the beginner level you are simply trying to get the student to use
something approximating "good form" and to shoot safely while enjoying themselves. Some will never move beyond that. If you do it right many will want to.
That would be a national TRAINING system. NTS is more like a Nationally Approved Shooting Technique. Once again. I am not criticizing NTS as a technique. It is simply not named correctly.
The old "BEST" designation was actually more accurate in calling it a "shooting technique".


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

rkumetz said:


> We need to get past NTS as "the standard".


I am so on board with that. My own experience, as someone who admits they don't have the miles behind them to really deserve the L3 title, is that the minutia of the NTS shot process gets in my way. I am a stickler for text book teaching, but there are too many times that I have had a text book NTS shot cycle to only be marred by something as fundamental as a nose anchor off by a few mm, or a finger placement on the string not where it should be. I honestly would love to simplify it. 



> BTW your student seems to have at least one good thought: "The only gold I care about is in the center of the target - that’s the ultimate metal!"


She has a great attitude - if a little frustrating at times when she is insisting that the color of her arrows make them lucky... lol. But her overall approach is awesome. Dedication, determination and evaluation. She evaluates everything - and that, right there, will be her winning strategy, imho.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> If USAA does not have the resources to disseminate the information they can just pass it to the coaches' organization.


USArchery needs to first figure out what it is and who it's customers are...



> A video series featuring RAs with explanations from the top circle of L4/L5 coachs would be a wonderful thing. I'd pay for that.


We shouldn't have to. Our volunteer hours are worth something to USArchery and it's membership as a whole, and any fees we pay to receive a L1-3 certification should cover it. 

I deal with volunteers all the time. I have at least 20 right now where I work. Four of them are resident volunteers who provide their own housing in the form of RV's. Others commit 10+ hours/week after driving an hour one-way to come help us. They help us because they believe in our mission, just as us archery coaches believe in our sport. 

The idea that ANY of our volunteers should have to PAY for instruction so they can help us is absolutely absurd. It would be the most insulting thing we could do to them, and they would leave in droves.


----------



## shamlin (Aug 18, 2007)

I love reading these threads and how so many of us make mountains out of mole hills! Its archery for goodness sake. Man has been slinging the stick and string for thousands of years and we want to make it similar to designing a rocket going to Neptune! NTS, in my opinion, does nothing other than to give prospective level 1,2,3 or 4 coaches the road map to teaching a sport that they may not even actively compete in. I find this extremely troubling as techniques and technology are rapidly changing. I liken this entire NTS process to teaching a kid to hit a baseball. I taught personal classes in hitting to numerous students over the years and similar to archery, different body types and makeup will determine how you teach the swing that will benefit the student best. Baseball however doesn't have a BEST method that is written up and required of all coaches as the organization realizes that it would be impossible to attempt at a cookie cutter approach. And last time I checked, there is no shortage of top notch hitters in MLB. In addition, hitting a baseball at speed is factually proven to be one of the most difficult things to accomplish in sport. 
In regard to Koreans and their dominance in archery, I feel it boils down to plain old commitment and practice. The US and its hard and fast style of living will continue to lag behind other countries due to sheer lack of time to commit to the required practice needed to shoot at a world class level. I would surmise that the Koreans shoot many more arrows at all levels of development during their archery careers.


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

XForce Girl said:


> Totally Agree.
> 
> I see it all the time. A lot of people buy bows and think archery is like in the movies. Just a little coaching and guidance in the right direction will do wonders.
> I always include lessons/ coaching free with bow purchases at my shop. I feel I owe it to my customers to get them started in the right direction. Some don't take me up on the offer but some do.
> ...


Don't forget the people who have 43lbs of accessories intended to improve their accuracy on their bow but drop the bow a millisecond after they release or can't
even hold it up to aim. I get a fair number of the 3D crowd seeking help and those are the most numerous issues: overbowed and trying to hold up a whole archery store.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> The other thing to remember here is that it takes *years *to teach a student an entire technique. And that's if there are no injuries, target panic or other issues that get in the way.
> 
> I simply cannot teach bow arm alignment, release of the bow, grip on the string, anchor, string alignment, follow through, stance, posture, head position, pulling vs. pushing, etc. all at the same time. Archers can really only learn one thing at a time, and until that thing is automatic, it's useless and counterproductive to move onto the next thing in the list.
> 
> ...


I'm new to coaching and I already know what you mean. Granted I'm teaching in a group environment, but I feel like I have to rush through the specific learning phases to get the kids ready for their first competition. I've only been coaching some of these kids three weeks 2-4 hours a week, others not as many hours, and I already feel pressed to put a target in front of them this coming up weekend to get them ready for their first 4-H tournament, which is the following weekend. Some are definitely ready, from the groupings they are getting, but some are not. But what else can I do at this point? I can't cancel the tournament or push it back, so I'm kind of on the burner to get these kids going. :sad:


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

shamlin said:


> I love reading these threads and how so many of us make mountains out of mole hills! Its archery for goodness sake. Man has been slinging the stick and string for thousands of years and we want to make it similar to designing a rocket going to Neptune! NTS, in my opinion, does nothing other than to give prospective level 1,2,3 or 4 coaches the road map to teaching a sport that they may not even actively compete in. I find this extremely troubling as techniques and technology are rapidly changing. I liken this entire NTS process to teaching a kid to hit a baseball. I taught personal classes in hitting to numerous students over the years and similar to archery, different body types and makeup will determine how you teach the swing that will benefit the student best. Baseball however doesn't have a BEST method that is written up and required of all coaches as the organization realizes that it would be impossible to attempt at a cookie cutter approach. And last time I checked, there is no shortage of top notch hitters in MLB. In addition, hitting a baseball at speed is factually proven to be one of the most difficult things to accomplish in sport.
> In regard to Koreans and their dominance in archery, I feel it boils down to plain old commitment and practice. The US and its hard and fast style of living will continue to lag behind other countries due to sheer lack of time to commit to the required practice needed to shoot at a world class level. I would surmise that the Koreans shoot many more arrows at all levels of development during their archery careers.


You are absolutely correct. You can come up with a basic technique (put your hands here on the bat, hold it like this, swing....) but you cannot manage minutia because every body is different. That is one
of the principle problems with a "national training system" focused on an end goal that primarily involves the success of elite athletes. It is akin to you expecting an 8 year old to swing that bat just like a major league batter who does it for a living.

With respect to the Koreans I do not think that they are a valid comparison because archery is pursued in a different way. We take up archery as recreation and then say "hey, I am pretty good at this so maybe I will give being serious at it a shot" while Koreans (for lack of a better description) FARM high performance archers. Let's be realistic, despite the cultural differences no kid (American or Korean) who wants to do something FUN is going to do mimetics for weeks before launching arrows. I have been enjoying archery for about 40 years but had I been asked to start out that way I would have become more
serious about fishing.


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

erose said:


> I'm new to coaching and I already know what you mean. Granted I'm teaching in a group environment, but I feel like I have to rush through the specific learning phases to get the kids ready for their first competition. I've only been coaching some of these kids three weeks 2-4 hours a week, others not as many hours, and I already feel pressed to put a target in front of them this coming up weekend to get them ready for their first 4-H tournament, which is the following weekend. Some are definitely ready, from the groupings they are getting, but some are not. But what else can I do at this point? I can't cancel the tournament or push it back, so I'm kind of on the burner to get these kids going. :sad:


The best thing that you can do is to try to instill an attitude like the one that Ms.Speedmaster's student threw out there: The goal is to put all of the arrows in the center of the target. You are competing with yourself to make that happen. In the process the goal is to make the groups as small as possible and the way to do that is to make your shot repeatable. Exactly the same every time. If you have a series of goals and give the kids something to work to so that they have measured progress other than just a raw score the whole thing becomes a lot easier to manage. When you don't have a logical way for kids to think about things then the conclusion that they arrive at is that they did not win because they are not good at what they are doing.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> With respect to the Koreans I do not think that they are a valid comparison because archery is pursued in a different way. We take up archery as recreation and then say "hey, I am pretty good at this so maybe I will give being serious at it a shot"


Or, "hey, I'm pretty good at this so maybe I'll start entering tournaments...!" 

Then begins the vicious cycle of trying to train an archer and make changes in between seasons, or worse yet, in between competitive events.  

If a kid really shows promise and makes it their goal to make Jr. USAT, then how big a window do we really have as coaches to make significant changes every year? A few months at best. And that's not really enough time for some things. And then if you consider that changes really are not tested and proven until they are successful in serious competition, it pushes the development back even further if you wish to incorporate a meaningful feedback loop.

This is to say NOTHING about the development of an archer's mental game, or the critical relationship between that archer and their coach, which takes equal amounts of time and effort as anything that's done with a bow in hand.


----------



## DreamOn (Jan 16, 2015)

What would be wrong with "throwing a student into the fire" by doing a comp? I can imagine they will learn really quickly that they aren't ready to compete yet. 
When I was a kid, I was a competitive swimmer. The only reason we practiced was ultimately to swim the meets. It took a good 4 or so years before I could win anything, and that's swimming everyday 11 months out of the year. We looked forward to swim meets. They were a way to see how we progressed. Is archery the same way? 
If a kid starts archery and does a competition, they will sometimes learn faster by watching other kids compete. Or it will give them the drive to really buckle down and learn the correct method and put more time into the discipline.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Kendric_Hubbard said:


> It seems like the majority of us agree that we do need a nationally standardized system, but our current system is overly complicated and poorly implemented. Are there any ideas of how we can improve the system to fix these issues?


I think John has a good point. Develop or adopt as simple of a system as possible that works, and build off of that. KISS is a good thing.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> With my history in this sport going back only 12 years now, I certainly don't consider myself an authority on various styles of shooting, but rather someone who has both tried and personally observed archers at the highest levels who shoot very unique styles. Someone like Vittorio or GT or Don Rabska or Mike Usherenko or Alexander Kirillov would probably be the ones to begin to categorize the distinct styles used worldwide.
> 
> Having said that, I would begin with the
> 
> ...


John, what style do you think the Korean men are using and how does it differentiate from the Korean women?


----------



## DreamOn (Jan 16, 2015)

What would it take to use AT as a vehicle/springboard to create dialogue amongst the nations archery coaches to maybe produce a revised method of teaching intro/intermediate/competition archery? Would it be possible to divide learning up into stages dependent on how far your ability is progressing? Make it kind of like a tree with branches. Each branch signifying a different technique that maybe has worked for such and such a body type/strength, etc. Get as much input from coaches in the US and maybe world. Try to construct a basic guideline for learning archery, so every coach in the country is on the same page just in case a future Olympian comes along. Finding someone to do the research would be key.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

erose said:


> John, what style do you think the Korean men are using and how does it differentiate from the Korean women?


The Korean men tend to vary quite a bit. Like most men, I suspect they all want to do it their "own way" to a degree, and like Brady has, incorporate their own preferences into their style of shooting.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

DreamOn said:


> What would it take to use AT as a vehicle/springboard to create dialogue amongst the nations archery coaches to maybe produce a revised method of teaching intro/intermediate/competition archery? Would it be possible to divide learning up into stages dependent on how far your ability is progressing? Make it kind of like a tree with branches. Each branch signifying a different technique that maybe has worked for such and such a body type/strength, etc. Get as much input from coaches in the US and maybe world. Try to construct a basic guideline for learning archery, so every coach in the country is on the same page just in case a future Olympian comes along. Finding someone to do the research would be key.


AT would not work. Most top level US coaches won't even admit they lurk here. If you mention AT around anyone on USArchery's staff, they will often laugh out loud, or shake their heads or both. This place is not well thought of among those in positions of true influence in USArchery, I'm afraid. There are reasons for that, both good and bad.

There are a few individuals that could bring together the coaches that would be needed to develop a true "American" system of shooting and teaching. Getting consensus out of those coaches may not happen though. Too small a sport, too much history and hard feelings there. At least, that's what I've seen when I bring up these topics with some of them.

So, I guess the fact that we are so independent is what got us in this position. The powers that be (read: those with the $) said "if all you coaches can't agree, we'll bring in someone who will..." 

And here we are.


----------



## williamskg6 (Dec 21, 2008)

I agree with what DreamOn says - I think that introductory, intermediate, and advanced (competition) archery might be best separated.

In my opinion the problem is that NTS does not really address archers who don't aspire to go to the Olympics - A.K.A. recreational archers. Most archers just want to shoot well and enjoy it. There should be a simpler program aimed at helping those people and if/when they decide it's time to get more serious they could move on to the full, advanced NTS program and an appropriate coach. Maybe even like DreamOn suggested - a beginner, an intermediate, and a competition program, each a subset of the more advanced program.

I know what some of you are going to say - that's already covered by the current NTS, but the problem I see is that the intro/intermediate portion is not explicitly spelled out. I'd say that the advanced program is already done (NTS). 

Too often intro/intermediate archers are being coached by coaches who insist on going right to advanced topics. I know that's not supposed to happen but it does, and it happens pretty frequently because the current system seems to promote a mentality of "advanced or nothing". If a simpler intro/intermediate program was spelled out clearly, perhaps that would help with those recreational archers, which are really the majority of shooters.

-Kent W.


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

DreamOn said:


> What would be wrong with "throwing a student into the fire" by doing a comp? I can imagine they will learn really quickly that they aren't ready to compete yet.
> When I was a kid, I was a competitive swimmer. The only reason we practiced was ultimately to swim the meets. It took a good 4 or so years before I could win anything, and that's swimming everyday 11 months out of the year. We looked forward to swim meets. They were a way to see how we progressed. Is archery the same way?
> If a kid starts archery and does a competition, they will sometimes learn faster by watching other kids compete. Or it will give them the drive to really buckle down and learn the correct method and put more time into the discipline.


I think that it depends very much on the individual. Some kids are intensely focused and will fall on their face, get up, wipe the blood off and just keep going. Some kids will say "Wow those other kids are way better than me" and decide that it is not for them. Either way they are kids and idea isn't to turn them into olympians it is to let them enjoy the sport. If they decide to go for the gusto then more power to them. If they decide that they just enjoy shooting for the personal best then that is fine too. As long as we contribute as coaches and instructors to helping them enjoy the sport.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Very true.

As a coach of recreational archers, I think it's my job to quietly and secretly incorporate the elements of good technique into an archer's shooting, while they continue to enjoy the sport. That is, unless they have specifically told me they are ready to "train" and are unhappy enough with how they currently shoot that spending some time going backwards is not something they have a problem with. One of my biggest problems with NTS is that it doesn't allow us recreational coaches to do this. There is not a lot of "continuing to enjoy the sport" when you take a new or intermediate archer and begin to show them NTS. It becomes work. A job, if you will, and more than once I've had those archers - even the ones who told me specifically they wanted to learn NTS - just flat quit and go back to where we started. 

With my own wife and daughter, I've taken the former approach, as neither have expressed to me that they wish to make archery a priority in their lives. Rather, it is something they do for fun, for recreational and social reasons. So I make sure we're keeping it fun, and make suggestions when I think they are ready to hear them. Otherwise I just shut up and let them enjoy shooting.

I've taken the latter approach only a handful of times in the past 10 years. I'd say about 50% of the time, those archers either quit archery or go back to the way they were shooting before. I'd say fewer than 4 archers I've worked with have stayed with the sport long enough to endure significant form changes long enough to see the payoff. I suspect my statistics as a private volunteer coach are not far off from the RA program at the OTC either. And you're talking about a group of young people there who already thought they were very committed to the sport.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

The longer I coach, the more I appreciate the original "Karate Kid" movie, where Daniel is told he must paint the fences, wax the cars and sand the deck before he can begin his training.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

williamskg6 said:


> I agree with what DreamOn says - I think that introductory, intermediate, and advanced (competition) archery might be best separated.
> 
> In my opinion the problem is that NTS does not really address archers who don't aspire to go to the Olympics - A.K.A. recreational archers. Most archers just want to shoot well and enjoy it. There should be a simpler program aimed at helping those people and if/when they decide it's time to get more serious they could move on to the full, advanced NTS program and an appropriate coach. Maybe even like DreamOn suggested - a beginner, an intermediate, and a competition program, each a subset of the more advanced program.
> 
> ...


Isn't that in a sense already done? The archery technique introduced at the L1 and L2 isn't the NTS system. It has 10 steps not 14. It uses a closed stance not an open one, the type of draw isn't discussed, but from the pictures it looks like the kids are doing a linear draw, etc. From what I understand NTS isn't really taught until Level 3, which is suppose to be training to be personal coaches instead of instructing a JOAD or Introduction to Archery program.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> The longer I coach, the more I appreciate the original "Karate Kid" movie, where Daniel is told he must paint the fences, wax the cars and sand the deck before he can begin his training.


"Here's more paint ... now do _other_ side of fence ..." what a classic look on Daniel-san's face at that point ...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I watched it with my kids last month, and forgot what a good movie it was. Kinda 80'ish hokey, yes, but still some good acting and a great message. What ever happened to movies having a great message? 

Daniel's goal in that movie was to go to the competition and win. Not just to learn karate so that he could perform it recreationally 5-6 times/year.

I've always said that the BEST/NTS method is designed for experts, or at least archers who are willing and prepared to train like experts. 

I don't coach many experts or archers who are willing to train like experts. Not many of us do. Therefore, a simpler approach fits the needs of my archers better - until such time they come to me and say they want to "win" the competition.  To which I usually reply "what are you willing to do?"


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> The Korean men tend to vary quite a bit. Like most men, I suspect they all want to do it their "own way" to a degree, and like Brady has, incorporate their own preferences into their style of shooting.


Are they then just using a variation of what the women are doing? I will have to go back to the videos and be more attentive to the differences. Question for you also: The technique used by the Korean women, is it a good technique for men as well; or is it better suited to women? IYO


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

erose said:


> Are they then just using a variation of what the women are doing? I will have to go back to the videos and be more attentive to the differences. Question for you also: The technique used by the Korean women, is it a good technique for men as well; or is it better suited to women? IYO


The women have the best most consistant form. The men tend to variate more from it with mixed results. 

Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

chrstphr said:


> The women have the best most consistant form. The men tend to variate more from it with mixed results.
> 
> Chris


That's what I've seen as well.


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

Update from my student's blog. Then read the snippet below from Kisik Lee's Wiki.

"Battle of the Stances

Since yesterday was just an experiment, Lynda and I agreed that I should go back to my old methods today to resume practicing for my tournament. I put my anchor back to the mouth, but this time I incorporated the new stance and shot cycle. The groupings were about the same as when I had a more linear process and stance, so I did some thinking about stances and why they work or don’t work for a particular archer.
I believe that the best stance and shot process for an archer is one that physically and mentally makes sense to that particular archer. When something makes sense to you, you’ll feel comfortable repeating over and over again - without thinking about it. You understand. You get it. This is NOT to be mistaken for familiarity. Familiarity is something you can achieve by practicing feverishly and hammering something in. This may be the worst analogy ever, but this is what I came up with: You can install a beautiful, elegant, Victorian-style light fixture into an interior space, and it will definitely work when you connect the wires and switch the lights on…but all of the furniture and elements in that space are of the Industrial-design style. Even though the space will function flawlessly as a living area, the feeling when you’re in that space is off and something will always be missing.

The stance, process, form, etc that Lynda taught me is a solid accepted method. She explained the reason and ideas behind why every part of the process is the way it is. It made sense. I even incorporated it into my process when I switched back to Barebow in order to analyze and confirm how I feel about it. I can safely say that it didn’t affect my Barebow groups much so the results are not affecting my judgement. I just didn’t feel like the method she taught was the right fit. The ideas and theory behind the movements were spot on, but the implementation of those ideas can be done in other ways that feel better to me. Mechanically it didn’t feel like it made as much sense to my body. Linear made sense. It was simple (I share the same principle in Tennis). Even though I won’t be shooting with the full method she taught me, I will take away several important ideas and pieces of the method and implement them into my own process moving forward. That lesson gave me a better understanding on the “what” and “why” of archery - which is what I originally intended to take away from it."
/end blog

From the Wiki:
"Among the coaches and experts that Lee recruited to help improve the NTS was biomechanical engineer and researcher Gary Yamaguchi. In his professional career, he has studied techniques and injuries in the sports of golf, tennis, skiing, and rock climbing. Yamaguchi says he decided to investigate the claims of the new method and after analyzing the postures and movements, he found that it "had merit.""
/end Wiki quote

What's interesting is that my student is already an accomplished athlete through tennis and rock climbing. However, it appears that NTS's "merits", as stated by a biomechanical engineer, who has also studied tennis and rock climbing, are not a one size fits all. Which, I know, has been covered. 

While this is not a comprehensive study, as the student has only just been exposed to NTS (and archery, for that matter), and there are no long term outcomes to analyze, it is nonetheless an interesting insight. 

Carry on.


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

Ms.Speedmaster said:


> From the Wiki:
> "Among the coaches and experts that Lee recruited to help improve the NTS was biomechanical engineer and researcher Gary Yamaguchi. In his professional career, he has studied techniques and injuries in the sports of golf, tennis, skiing, and rock climbing. Yamaguchi says he decided to investigate the claims of the new method and after analyzing the postures and movements, he found that it "had merit.""
> /end Wiki quote


This continues to be one of the issues that I have with how NTS is promoted. There are constant mentions of research but none of that research seems to be published. Can you imagine
someone promoting a new type of surgery without having published in peer reviewed journals? If you are going to say that NTS is better in the opinion of some coaches and archers that
is a 100% valid statement. If you are going to present it as being backed up by research then it is incumbent upon you to make that research available for others to make their own conclusions.

From the USAA document "Archery_Form_Handbook.pdf" which is titled "The BEST Method - Biomechanically Efficient Shooting Technique"

*Members of USA Archery’s Coach’s Development Committee and other top US archery experts have
done their own study of biomechanics as it applies to archery performance. USA Archery has created a series
of teaching techniques and resources to enable coaches and athletes to make the most of their training time by
focusing on methods that use the body’s structure and energy efficiently to improve performance.*


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> but the implementation of those ideas can be done in other ways that feel better to me.





> Even though I won’t be shooting with the full method she taught me, I will take away several important ideas and pieces of the method and implement them into my own process moving forward.


Smart girl. I look forward to meeting her.



> If you are going to present it as being backed up by research then it is incumbent upon you to make that research available for others to make their own conclusions.


This, we will never see.


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> This, we will never see.


You are probably correct but doesn't it rub you the wrong way that this technique that had been researched by experts is marketed
pretty much the same way that "Sexy Abs" are on early morning infomercials? Same level of documentation. Who are these mystery experts
and what exactly did they do to prove that there are biomechanical advantages? I know that if I did some research that I thought was
valid I would not only be willing but happy to apply my name to it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yea, it does to an extent. But it's not something I worry too much about. I mean, look at all the infomercial claims. They don't keep me up at night either, and they bring in "independent experts" in white lab coats all the time.


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> Smart girl. I look forward to meeting her.


And that you will, Sensei. That you will. She will graduate from the school of Speedmaster after nationals, and will be more than ready for limbwalker university.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Ms.Speedmaster said:


> Update from my student's blog. Then read the snippet below from Kisik Lee's Wiki.
> 
> "Battle of the Stances
> 
> ...


For those of you who might not know this, Gary Yamaguchi is the two-time reigning US National Outdoor Masters 50+ champion, smart, and very pleasant guy. His opinion 'has merit' from several different angles. :wink:


----------



## BlackCheetah (Sep 28, 2007)

Taking styles and systems is fun and all- I'm wondering what system the Dutch use. Van Der Ven has some unorthodox things going on and makes it work.
Within this discussion there seems to be an emphasis on the physical. Perhaps we should be talking about the mental systems and training of these different approaches. Don't most agree competition at the elite level we like to talk about is 90% mental? Does it really matter how Park Sung Hyun pulls her bow back? I'm thinking she could do it any of a number of ways and still end up on the podium..


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Perhaps we should be talking about the mental systems and training of these different approaches. Don't most agree competition at the elite level we like to talk about is 90% mental? Does it really matter how Park Sung Hyun pulls her bow back? I'm thinking she could do it any of a number of ways and still end up on the podium..


Shhhhhh! 

Stop giving away secrets!


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

BlackCheetah said:


> Taking styles and systems is fun and all- I'm wondering what system the Dutch use. Van Der Ven has some unorthodox things going on and makes it work.
> Within this discussion there seems to be an emphasis on the physical. Perhaps we should be talking about the mental systems and training of these different approaches. Don't most agree competition at the elite level we like to talk about is 90% mental? Does it really matter how Park Sung Hyun pulls her bow back? I'm thinking she could do it any of a number of ways and still end up on the podium..


Doesn't that 90% mental only kick in *after* you've achieved a necessary level of strengh and technique :dontknow:

(Not really disagreeing with you...)


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

rkumetz said:


> Standard? We have a standard?
> 
> NTS is not a standard. Working in an industry where there are all sorts of legitimate standards (electronics) I can tell you that NTS doesn't even remotely
> resemble a standard. Not because there is anything wrong with the concepts involved but because of the way it is managed and forced down the throats of
> ...


Yeah, the NTS isn't really a standard by industry definitions, and not necessarily by "buy in," either, as you note. 

But, it is worse than that, in some ways. I get that maybe there isn't a way, or maybe even a need, to set a standard for archery technique the way we need a standard for measuring arrow spine. But what USAA fails to do is to publish their standard, and when they change it, they don't publish the changes, nor a **change log** that tells coaches what is new without having to go through both standards on their own. I don't buy that USAA doesn't have the staff to do this. One man software companies do this as a matter of course, as do open source software collaborations. Heck, the apps on my phone are better about telling me "What's New" with each upgrade than USAA is about telling its nationwide network of coaches and instructors.

I also think John is dead on about videos. Back when you needed special equipment to make videos, physically replicate them and distribute them, it was expensive and difficult to make videos. But now pretty much every cell phone on the planet has a video camera that has better quality than an $80,000 Ikegami 3 tube broadcast video camera from the 1980s. And it is almost trivially easy to upload them to YouTube for *free* instant international distribution.

USAA doesn't need to make a full instructional video (though that would be nice and more complicated than just a quick cell phone vid) but I'd say they do need to make some video exemplars of the *pure* system, not the adapted versions. All they need is a tripod, a cell phone and a YouTube account. And they know it, because they include reference to *other people's* videos in the instructor's packets for the instructor classes.

I think USAA should do a few, inexpensive things:

* Publish all the coaching manuals on line, for free as PDFs. (USAA can still charge for the certification packets) This way instructors can see changes before their next course. They could also delete some of the instructor stuff and make an *archer* version. FITA has it's manuals on line, for free, because they want to educate as many people as possible.

* Start properly *versioning* all manual and documents, and change logs for when they are updated. And keep all the old versions on line for reference. (USAA has lost it sense of history, and has no old rules or manuals on line (or any manuals on line)).

* Publish a standards doc on the NTS that describes exactly what it is, and separate the non-negotiable bits from the stuff coaches can customize for individuals and how. Bownut was able to do so in a thread on AT, and I think he'd be a great person to do this. If the NTS can't hold still long enough to be written down in such a document, then it isn't a standard of any kind.

* Post a few video exemplars of what the pure NTS shot cycle is supposed to look like (no adaptations), from multiple angles.( If they can't train someone to do this, then there *is* no NTS.) And they should post some videos of variations, with explanations of how they are different and why.


----------



## mahgnillig (Aug 3, 2014)

Does anyone have links to videos that show what NTS is supposed to look like? I'm really having trouble visualising it, and like Warbow said above me, apparently USAA doesn't have any videos (or at least if they do, they're keeping it to themselves). It seems there are plenty of videos out there showing how the Koreans do it (I've spent all morning watching Park Sung-Hyun), but not a lot showing NTS.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

mahgnillig said:


> Does anyone have links to videos that show what NTS is supposed to look like? I'm really having trouble visualising it, and like Warbow said above me, apparently USAA doesn't have any videos (or at least if they do, they're keeping it to themselves). It seems there are plenty of videos out there showing how the Koreans do it (I've spent all morning watching Park Sung-Hyun), but not a lot showing NTS.


If you saw ten people execute a perfect NTS cycle, would they all look the same?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> If you saw ten people execute a perfect NTS cycle, would they all look the same?


Depends on how you define perfect NTS shot cycle. 

At it core, there is an idealized model of NTS, an **exemplar**, from which all the variations are derived. USAA should be able to post a video of the core model of "pure" NTS, one that shows the system in its non-customized form so that archers and coaches can recognize the the variations for what they are. And it can post videos of the most common adaptations with explanations of why. Just pointing people to video's of Brady or what not doesn't really help people understand NTS or how the variations relate to core NTS.


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

If they let you see a video then they would have to shoot you.

After all, it is the secret weapon that makes the Koreans sorry that they wasted money on airfare.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

You are trying to to shoe horn NTS into something its not with this idea of wanting to see a 'Text' book demonstration. Its about using the methods and concepts. 

Lets take the set-up "position" for example. 

Its pretty unique to each person based on their body structure. The ratio of the width of their shoulders to the length of their arms is a major consideration on what this "position" will look like for different individuals. Some have their draw hand much further forward than others. But as long as the goal of the set-up position is achieved, setting the barrel, then the exact _HOW_ isn't a ridged rule that must be followed. 

That's where the guidance of a coach comes in. To help their students find the best HOW, for achieving the set-up position consistently. 

Just look an Jake and Brady, They both achieve setting the Barrel, but visually they do it in a different way. The only thing i see written in stone as fars as HOW something is done is angular drawing. 

So I don't think there is this mythic " Pure form of NTS" on HOW each phase of the shot cycle should be achieved, but if you watch videos of those that use this Technique you will see that they all achieve the goal of each phase of the shot but do so in different ways. 

Am I wrong?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Dacer said:


> You are trying to to shoe horn NTS into something its not with this idea of wanting to see a 'Text' book demonstration. Its about using the methods and concepts. ..
> 
> Am I wrong?


Dunno :dontknow:

Perhaps Terry could clarify? He's quite good at it.

But, if is how you say, then I think there may need to be a change in how it is taught down the line, where an idealized model is taught.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Warbow said:


> Depends on how you define perfect NTS shot cycle.
> 
> At it core, there is an idealized model of NTS, an **exemplar**, from which all the variations are derived. USAA should be able to post a video of the core model of "pure" NTS, one that shows the system in its non-customized form so that archers and coaches can recognize the the variations for what they are. And it can post videos of the most common adaptations with explanations of why. Just pointing people to video's of Brady or what not doesn't really help people understand NTS or how the variations relate to core NTS.


The idealized model is presented in USAA's "Archery" imho. The problem with providing a video of a "pure" model is one, how many people are going to look exactly like that "ideal", and two, it doesn't help you experience it. Admit it, watching Gizelle walk the runway is not going to make you a super-model. 

A key component of the NTS cycle is "loading". How do you know you are executing "loading" properly? One way is described here: "This feeling is where your lower trapezius meets the lower left-hand corner of your drawing-side scapula..." (RH archer). There are ample photos of this in several books as well as videos on youtube. 

My point would be that "ideal" videos won't help because you can't really video the required "feeling". You have to experience it. For example, you can study the material and practice with a stretch band with a rear-view bathroom mirror until you see your scapula match the pictures and videos. At some point you should experience the feelings discussed. Otherwise, seek a qualified coach to stick his or her finger in that exact location while you are in your draw cycle. "Can you feel me now?" 

Then again, I wouldn't mind seeing a video of Gizelle shooting a bow. That would be "ideal".


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

Warbow said:


> Dunno :dontknow:
> 
> Perhaps Terry could clarify? He's quite good at it.
> 
> But, if is how you say, then I think there may need to be a change in how it is taught down the line, where an idealized model is taught.


Thats just my point too, you can't get this idealized model of exactly what every part should be. Because you have to take into account each individuals physical limitations; flexabiliy/range of motion, and body structure. If students are shoe horned into an exact position with out consideration it can lead to injuries. 

let me expand on what I mean by exact position by using setup again: 

After setup my draw is only maybe 4 inches possibly less. If I try to set the barrel where my draw hand is about even with my bow shoulder like is depicted in the USA archery book, or several pic in Inside The Archer - I impinge my draw shoulder. Because those demonstrations don't take into effect my wider shoulders, and not very long arms. so the point of these pictures shouldn't be that a student had to have everything looking exactly the same but that the goal of setup, setting the barrel, has been achieved.


However, I think I can see where you are maybe coming from. If i was a coach - I could see where it would be nice to have a " Common variances due to body structure and flexibility" kinda thing. Where it can be pointed out and transmitted to coaches, things like my particular issue. I could see that being very handy reading and an opportunity for a coach to expand their knowledge. **Notice I didn't use the word Modification, because I don't see these Variances as modifications but simply the way it works for a particular individual.


I find it ironic that that topic now is that there is to much variance, that it isnt rigidly codified enough when earlier threads of NTS/BEST complained how it was too rigid. 

So is it a method that takes away all individual creativity of technique, or one that is so customizable to the individual, apart from angular drawing, that its to hard to coach consistently from one instructor/coach to another?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I love seeing these explanations, esp. when it's touted as something beginning archers should be taught.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> I love seeing these explanations, esp. when it's touted as something beginning archers should be taught.


I remember wondering "What the Heck?" when I saw "Load Transfer then Hold" as one of the basic steps to archery in the L1 manual...since removed, I hope, but how would I know since they don't post the manuals or a change log online when they make changes? :dontknow:


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> I love seeing these explanations, esp. when it's touted as something beginning archers should be taught.


No kidding. At best, NTS should be something that is taught only to intermediate archers. And there's no reasonable excuse to not have instructional videos that illustrate the main goals and positions of the technique along the way to 'holding' ... no two 'anythings or anybodies' look exactly the same in any endeavor, yet virtually every other sport seems to be able to produce 'how to' videos that instruct, guide, illustrate, and clarify ... for instance, here's a 'how to' judo instructional video that gives some good, clear principles with visual reinforcement https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xftzjDgS9n4


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

How many instructional golf videos are there out there that all teach one to "come from the inside" and "not swing over the top?" 

Answer - about a million. And they all teach the same well accepted fundamentals that EVERY touring pro must do to be successful.

NTS and the coaching structure that has been built around it is hard to take seriously when we cannot even produce simple videos for distribution that explain it in simple terms. 

Until then, it will continue to be the "man behind the curtain" or "emporer's new clothes." Take your pick.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> How many instructional golf videos are there out there that all teach one to "come from the inside" and "not swing over the top?"
> 
> Answer - about a million. And they all teach the same well accepted fundamentals that EVERY touring pro must do to be successful.
> 
> ...


Well, there was one attempt. Easton Foundation produced a video called "BEST Beginnings" to fill that gap. It featured Don Rabska demoing instruction techniques for teaching BEST method, and had an interview with Kisik Lee himself. The Easton Foundation was creating a companion print piece so you could get both for instructors at a reasonable price for much less than the cost of the only book on the KSL Shot Cycle II, the shot cycle and anatomy that BEST was founded on, the expensive soft cover book "Total Archery". 

Unfortunately, at the time BEST (now NTS) was very much a moving target and BEST Beginnings was obsolete by the time it was released. And, it seems, the print companion was abandoned. 

I don't know what ultimately tanked BEST Beginnings, but it probably didn't help that Tyler was working on a new, still very expensive BEST/NTS book, with Lee given co-author credit and 50% of the profits. (With the book being pitched to investors as a lock-in because, among other reasons, Lee would use his influence as Head Coach to make it required at the OTC.) So, unless a project gets the full support and an authorship credit for Lee (and profit participation?) I'm not sure that it will be allowed to have any more support or success than the BEST Beginnings project. 

Another video project that failed is Brady's own attempt at offering an instructional video via the now defunct archery instruction website, Next Level Archery. Brady gave useful but somewhat workman like instruction on how he shoots (not a bad thing to learn about) in short, over-produced video segments available individually as part of a monthly subscription to the site + additional fees, paid through an insecure website. Next Level Archery was a promising experiment, mostly for compounders, but like so many build it and they will come business, wasn't able to stay aloft. (Their, uhm, optimistically high pricing may have had something to do with it...and maybe Levi mocking people who considered the $90 per month subscription to be more than they were interested in paying for a video site (that feedback should have been a clue, not something to mock..)) Brady's videos, like the Easton Foundation video, were not AFIK signed off by Lee nor in profit participation with him. I have no idea if the videos, from around 2011 are still current or available anywhere.

So it really is up to USAA to do this. It has to be official. Lee has to sign off on it. And it should be free, posted to YouTube as part of the expense of the line item budgets for coach instruction and High Performance coaching. (It can't just be another way for Lee to make side money off of his official duties as head coach.)


----------



## williamskg6 (Dec 21, 2008)

Warbow said:


> ... how would I know since they don't post the manuals or a change log online when they make changes? :dontknow:


<soapbox>
This is one of my biggest gripes. You take the course, pay your fees, and they turn you loose never to tell you when something has changed. It leaves you wondering, why did they tell this other coach but not tell everyone? Is the coach who is "in the know" making it up or is it that he has the right connections and got real guidance from USAA that is only distributed to the chosen few? It makes no sense at all to me to make changes to a system that all certified coaches are expected to teach and then not passing those changes along.

Regarding the manuals, I suspect at least part of the reason they're not posted is financial. I wish it wasn't so, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't.
</soapbox>

-Kent W.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

williamskg6 said:


> Regarding the manuals, I suspect at least part of the reason they're not posted is financial. I wish it wasn't so, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't.


That's certainly the excuse Dough Eng of NADA gave back when NADA had control of the L1-L2 coach training, including distribution of the manuals. Doug was wrong then, as USAA is wrong now if they use that excuse. 

USAA is in the *certification* business (among other things), not the very limited pamphlet-sales-strictly-to-instructor-training-students business. What kind of printed media do you get for your USAA membership dollars? Nothing! Not even a professional looking membership card. So, if USAA can give you nothing for your membership dollars, they can do the same for your certification dollars. USAA can charge what ever it wants for each instructor training package, whether or not the manuals are online for free. There's something else going on with why USAA refuses to post the manuals or properly version them, and I don't quite get what it is other than crazy, proprietary control freakishness. 

On a related note, it is quite weird that USAA has zero instructional material on line on it's website. Nothing. Not coach training. Not support material for archers taking lessons from certified instructors. Zero. Zilch. Nada. An archer can't even _buy_ any books or pamphlets through the store (there is an "explore archery" spiral bound book - only for registered explore archery program directors - for $100 ( :mg

However, you can go to Kisik Lee's website to learn about, drum roll pleas, the "KSL Shot Cycle IV". Why the heck is this info on KSL's site but not USAA??? How does it relate to NTS and why does he keep it separate? And why are there no links to it on the USAA site? (Last I checked) Also, can I buy the KSL Shot Cycle IV on HSN? Sounds like something I'd buy there... :dontknow:


----------

