# So where is coaching heading in the U.S.?



## Demmer3 (Apr 23, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> I'm of the opinion that NTS has just about run it's course. I have nothing to base that on other than a gut feeling and a few insights, and could be completely wrong. But I just don't see USArchery promoting NTS in 10 years. Maybe even 5. I also don't see our national head coach sticking around (either his choice or that of the board) beyond Tokyo. But again, that's just a gut feeling.
> 
> One reason I say this is the success that coaches like Dick Tone are having with archers like Casey. That's pretty hard to ignore, just as the results from our women's program have been for the past 13 years. I also think the men's program peaked somewhere between 2012 and 2016. With archers like Jake and a few other top talents leaving, those shoes are really hard to fill.
> 
> ...


I wonder if we will ever get some big donor to give our Olympic push a little more clout. Once Brady is done, when will we have our next big Men's superstar? I think we might be okay with the woman's lead if everything continues to progress. No money for the athletes to fight for, the competition will just stay stagnant or drop some. It was a sad day when Jake bounced. I know more are capable, but it just signified what is kinda wrong with the business plan or lack there of. Even some European countries have a barebow Archer or two as a professional athlete. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Demmer3 (Apr 23, 2017)

I know it's a little off topic, but maybe somehow they both can be intertwined. Idk. But, I think when Lee is gone, nts will slowly dwindle like the elite athlete pool we have taking a big flushing and leaving behind a thinner pool. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Money and business aside, I'm really curious what the next coaching theory will be. Or will we just circle back to what worked in the 60's and 70's. I have no idea. Change is inevitable though, so I'm just interested in what the next "great thing" will be, or if it will be a bit of a course correction and the pendulum swings back?


----------



## Demmer3 (Apr 23, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> Money and business aside, I'm really curious what the next coaching theory will be. Or will we just circle back to what worked in the 60's and 70's. I have no idea. Change is inevitable though, so I'm just interested in what the next "great thing" will be, or if it will be a bit of a course correction and the pendulum swings back?


I guess we will see what the coaching method produces this year for scores. Some glimpses of hope in the past, but unfortunately not very consistent with the 2nd and 3rd members. If the numbers stay low enough, I'm guessing a change will eventually will happen sooner than later. On a side note, what is the woman's coach pushing 
? Nts, linear, or anything else? I haven't been up to snuff on the women's side much lately. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Moebow (Jul 8, 2010)

OR, could it possibly be the coach/archer interface? Perhaps it's not some "system" but rather the coach's ability to understand a version of A system AND to communicate it to receptive and talented student(s). I do believe that there should be a base line system for instructors and coaches to follow and be trained for -- a road map if you will -- . But sooner or later, talented TEACHERS will find talented students and success will happen. Henderson, Wunderle, Cardinale, Strickland, Lee ---- All successful and just a few names off the top. BUT Is it really the system mechanics or is it some synergy that happens regardless of the "system??"

Arne


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

from a purely logical viewpoint the best coaches normally produce the most number of wins...or winners-----or the best performance improvements vs the past..

let the future results be the gauge on whether coaching--anywhere--is on the right track..


----------



## GRIV (May 20, 2002)

Moebow said:


> OR, could it possibly be the coach/archer interface? Perhaps it's not some "system" but rather the coach's ability to understand a version of A system AND to communicate it to receptive and talented student(s). I do believe that there should be a base line system for instructors and coaches to follow and be trained for -- a road map if you will -- . But sooner or later, talented TEACHERS will find talented students and success will happen. Henderson, Wunderle, Cardinale, Strickland, Lee ---- All successful and just a few names off the top. BUT Is it really the system mechanics or is it some synergy that happens regardless of the "system??"
> 
> Arne


Ding! We have a winner! I agree with the above. There must be an understanding of how the human shape efficiently works while shooting archery. The most skilled coaches will be the ones that leverage that understanding to bring their students to the top level of performance. In the end, it takes a tenacious student of archery to use a skilled coach properly as well.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Moebow said:


> OR, could it possibly be the coach/archer interface? Perhaps it's not some "system" but rather the coach's ability to understand a version of A system AND to communicate it to receptive and talented student(s). I do believe that there should be a base line system for instructors and coaches to follow and be trained for -- a road map if you will -- . But sooner or later, talented TEACHERS will find talented students and success will happen. Henderson, Wunderle, Cardinale, Strickland, Lee ---- All successful and just a few names off the top. BUT Is it really the system mechanics or is it some synergy that happens regardless of the "system??"
> 
> Arne


Yes, it's always hard to separate the two. Which makes it even harder to claim success with any particular system. The sample size of archers is always too small to be statistically significant.

I just know that Americans have very limited patience for "losers" and an hefty appetite for change.


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> Money and business aside, I'm really curious what the next coaching theory will be. Or will we just circle back to what worked in the 60's and 70's. I have no idea. Change is inevitable though, so I'm just interested in what the next "great thing" will be, or if it will be a bit of a course correction and the pendulum swings back?


I will say what I said to the CDC and the coaches back in the 1990s when I was asked to consult with them and teach biomechanics for the new "system" they were trying to develop. It needs to not be about finding the next great thing. Chasing a magic pill will not get you anywhere. It takes hard work, learning new perspectives and a hard, honest look at what we can learn from the past. It takes pulling together the best coaches and capturing their knowledge. It takes challenging every assumption and testing it until you can be certain about what the patterns are that you build around. It takes not being afraid to risk the chaos of collaboration to find the common threads to follow forward. It takes paying attention to the science that has been done and doing more based on the real questions that will inform better performance, not random notions that are not well founded. It takes a systematic approach to problem solving and program management.

There is lots of good general coaching theory and practice out there in many other sports. The mechanics of archery are closer to being understood than ever. We have some great coaches and athletes with a lot of experience. With all of that going for us it should not be a long haul to get to a more productive system. Except for the inertial politics of the old NAA that has not changed with a new name. Except for the polarization of those who are "out" against those who are 'in". 

There is no kool aid to drink that will build champions. And some will have to eat their own egos to make it happen. NTS is where we have been and while there are issues with it, there is also much to learn from it. Positive and negative. Being able to objectively look at both without the emotion that I have seen that has people divided is going to have to be part of the way forward.

Pull together the best coaches and most experienced athletes with the smartest people we have and collaborate to solve the problem. I could think of a dozen without even blinking who would give their time and experience.

Maybe we are ready for it, but after being away from it for a couple of decades, it sure looks like a similar landscape to 20 years ago...


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

Moebow said:


> OR, could it possibly be the coach/archer interface? Perhaps it's not some "system" but rather the coach's ability to understand a version of A system AND to communicate it to receptive and talented student(s). I do believe that there should be a base line system for instructors and coaches to follow and be trained for -- a road map if you will -- . But sooner or later, talented TEACHERS will find talented students and success will happen. Henderson, Wunderle, Cardinale, Strickland, Lee ---- All successful and just a few names off the top. BUT Is it really the system mechanics or is it some synergy that happens regardless of the "system??"
> 
> Arne


Definitely thinking in the right direction. What great coaches do is not just apply some formula. They find ways to communicate to make real to the athlete what they need to do to get the results they want. It might be mechanics or it might be like John Williams told me about getting my head out of my...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

GRIV said:


> Ding! We have a winner! I agree with the above. There must be an understanding of how the human shape efficiently works while shooting archery. The most skilled coaches will be the ones that leverage that understanding to bring their students to the top level of performance. In the end, it takes a tenacious student of archery to use a skilled coach properly as well.


Howdy George. 

So, coach-archer relationship aside, what will we be looking at as far as a system? Because you know, organizations love their systems and certification processes all but depend on them.

We all know a great talent with a great work ethic can make virtually any system work. But organizations have to make decisions in order to certify people.


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

Yes, you have to have a system, but it also has to recognize its own limitations so that it is not static but constantly improving. No system can ever be complete upon itself. That was proven mathematically almost a century ago. But there are assumptions that we can make that can be supported by solid understanding of anatomy, physiology, and system dynamics. And there is lots of experience among coaches and athletes out there to get a good start on determining what we can start with as axioms.

Biomechanical efficiency is one good principle that I have tried to teach for decades. The underlying idea is to exploit what we can get from the system for "free" or at least with the least effort. There are attractors in the dynamics of the human system as applied to archery that tend toward more stable performance. Most great coaches instinctively know them. Connect that knowledge to the biomechanical and physiological underpinnings and you have a great start. Does anyone think that Dick Tone doesn't get the biomechanics of archery implicitly? Boil down that knowledge, and that from the others mentioned and more and connect it to the research and experience from sport science and you have a great deal to work with.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lcaillo said:


> Yes, you have to have a system, but it also has to recognize its own limitations so that it is not static but constantly improving. No system can ever be complete upon itself. That was proven mathematically almost a century ago. But there are assumptions that we can make that can be supported by solid understanding of anatomy, physiology, and system dynamics. And there is lots of experience among coaches and athletes out there to get a good start on determining what we can start with as axioms.
> 
> Biomechanical efficiency is one good principle that I have tried to teach for decades. The underlying idea is to exploit what we can get from the system for "free" or at least with the least effort. There are attractors in the dynamics of the human system as applied to archery that tend toward more stable performance. Most great coaches instinctively know them. Connect that knowledge to the biomechanical and physiological underpinnings and you have a great start. Does anyone think that Dick Tone doesn't get the biomechanics of archery implicitly? Boil down that knowledge, and that from the others mentioned and more and connect it to the research and experience from sport science and you have a great deal to work with.


Not sure there is enough room for all that on a certificate.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Coach Lee is gone after Tokyo. Inertia and some insider special interests is the only reason he's here now.

NTS fades away in the next few years, as a failed shooting method. 

Women's coach then stops holding her nose while exhibiting tepid support of NTS and begins teaching methodology/form that actually works for female archers.

Yes, there will have to be some kind of promoted 'system' pushed by USAA, because they want the coaching certification revenue, which is significant.

But, what that system might be I guess depends a lot on who the new men's coach is. But, "shoot like the Korean women" would be a good place to start. Start square, get inline, draw linearly, don't dawdle. Maybe we should push Chris to be the new men's coach. Straight talker, no B.S. guy with a clear eye of what's essential and what isn't "Just the facts, Ma'am." Could the royal court survive the trauma of such a person in their midst? Doubtful. 

How/who the new men's coach will be be picked is going to be an interesting thing to watch/hear about. 

Will the US be able to field a full men's team in 2020?


----------



## droy (Dec 21, 2012)

Larry - that's a good question. Can the USA qualify a full 3 person team of each sex this year/early 2020.


----------



## tenshooter (Sep 17, 2013)

A little shout out to Coach Tone and coaching in general.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgkI9sqwy-4


----------



## GoldArcher403 (Jun 25, 2014)

lksseven said:


> Coach Lee is gone after Tokyo. Inertia and some insider special interests is the only reason he's here now.
> 
> NTS fades away in the next few years, as a failed shooting method.
> 
> ...


I dont know. I dont see NTS just being dropped like a rock. Its funny because I actually asked my own personal coach this very question this week. He and I both seem to agree that NTS probably will stick around, some new system might be brought in as the new latest greatest, but it most likely will always exist as an alternative. USAA has invested too much time and resources into making it the standard all these years. To say NTS will just fade away is more wishful thinking on the part of its haters I think. What will all the thousands of certified NTS coaches do? What about the RA program and all the NTS shooters that comprise it? If we were to revamp the system and nullify all the certifications people have invested so much time and money to earn, it wouldn't be without repercussions. People would likely blow off spending even more time and money to get re certified in the new system and just continue teaching NTS to their private students. The system is too deeply rooted to just fade away. It will most likely coexist with whatever new system we end up with, which I'm OK with. NTS may not be a perfect system, but it and Coach Lee brought structure to American archery that previously didnt exist. IMO, for NTS to just disappear would be a bad thing. You cant argue that since Coach Lee took over, we've had more young up and coming archers setting records and shooting higher scores than ever before. Yes, there are potentially easier and better methods, but it brought a solid foundation and consistency to the sport and raised the bar of competitiveness across all divisions. If we were to drop the system cold turkey, I feel like we would revert back to what you saw in the 90's.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

BTW when was the last time the USA was able to field a full men and women's team in an Olympics after the present qualification system has been in effect??


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

A proven winning "system" already exists. One could look to the Korean team. However upon even the most superficial examination it is obvious that the resources to support anything even remotely resembling what they do does not exist here. 

I know that sounds bad, but nobody should take offense. It's just that within the larger "world" of organized sports, Archery here in the US is struggling to make do with table scraps.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Well, it's premature to write Lee off. I heard many rumors of that around the last Olympics. Things do change though and at some point Lee will be gone. 

BEST and NTS have been part of the landscape for too long to think it will quickly vanish. I'd hazard to guess that most of the current crop of coaches have been taught the methodology. There are a few things I do know. Complex systems break more easily than simple ones. The fundamentals of good shooting are the bedrock of all teaching methodologies worth a damn. Those fundamentals have not changed through the years. 

The useful knowledge of the current regime will be retained and integrated into whatever comes next. We could do far worse than going back to teaching beginners the 'T' form.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> What will all the thousands of certified NTS coaches do? What about the RA program and all the NTS shooters that comprise it? If we were to revamp the system and nullify all the certifications people have invested so much time and money to earn, it wouldn't be without repercussions. People would likely blow off spending even more time and money to get re certified in the new system and just continue teaching NTS to their private students. The system is too deeply rooted to just fade away.


Funny to read this. We were all saying the same thing in '06, only about the "old" system. 

RA program archers adapt very quickly. If anyone is used to change, it is them. It's their job to constantly process new information and make adjustments and they are very good at it. 

There are coaches out there (like Dick Tone) that have maintained their old certifications without ever going through the NTS certification process. That is why when you go to the coach locator on the USArchery website, there are L3's and L3 NTS, L4's and L4 NTS, and L5's and L5 NTS. There are plenty of folks who maintained their certs from before NTS and there will be NTS coaches that will maintain their certs whenever the new system is in place, because it's what they know.

Bender, speaking of resources, how much did it take for two people to write a book describing a "new and innovative" method that was eventually adopted by USArchery? It could happen again literally by the end of the year and if someone was smart, they would already be working on it.



> but it and Coach Lee brought structure to American archery that previously didnt exist.


What is that saying about those who fail to study history? 



> IMO, for NTS to just disappear would be a bad thing. You cant argue that since Coach Lee took over, we've had more young up and coming MALE archers setting records and shooting higher scores than ever before


fixed it for ya. 

If you want to talk about scores and records, let's talk about Miranda Leek and Casey Kaufhold. 

I think the timing is right for the next era in teaching technique. There is a lot of great information out there now. Some old, some within the past 10-15 years. Lee contributed to the body of knowledge, but I'm waiting for some smart individual to compile all the best parts of all the various methods into one. Maybe that will never happen, but you'd think by now someone with a strong background in sport physiology would have conducted a thorough review of the primary shooting methods and drawn some conclusions on what their strengths and weaknesses are. 

I'd buy that book. How 'bout it GRIV?


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

rjbishop said:


> I dont know. I dont see NTS just being dropped like a rock. Its funny because I actually asked my own personal coach this very question this week. He and I both seem to agree that NTS probably will stick around, some new system might be brought in as the new latest greatest, but it most likely will always exist as an alternative. USAA has invested too much time and resources into making it the standard all these years. To say NTS will just fade away is more wishful thinking on the part of its haters I think. What will all the thousands of certified NTS coaches do? What about the RA program and all the NTS shooters that comprise it? If we were to revamp the system and nullify all the certifications people have invested so much time and money to earn, it wouldn't be without repercussions. People would likely blow off spending even more time and money to get re certified in the new system and just continue teaching NTS to their private students. The system is too deeply rooted to just fade away. It will most likely coexist with whatever new system we end up with, which I'm OK with. NTS may not be a perfect system, but it and Coach Lee brought structure to American archery that previously didnt exist. IMO, for NTS to just disappear would be a bad thing. You cant argue that since Coach Lee took over, we've had more young up and coming archers setting records and shooting higher scores than ever before. Yes, there are potentially easier and better methods, but it brought a solid foundation and consistency to the sport and raised the bar of competitiveness across all divisions. If we were to drop the system cold turkey, I feel like we would revert back to what you saw in the 90's.


What will all the thousands of certified NTS coaches do? What about the RA program and all the NTS shooters that comprise it? The half that don't even shoot a bow themselves anyway will just memorize another set of books/materials and dust off their stretch band to pass some more quizzes/tests. Most of the other half of NTS certified coaches (those that actually shoot) don't teach NTS anyway. They have the shingle for marketing and insurance purposes, but they teach simpler more effective methods. These actual archer/coaches will appraise any new incoming teaching and cert system and make individual decisions about what level/how much to invest. 


If we were to revamp the system and nullify all the certifications people have invested so much time and money to earn, it wouldn't be without repercussions. People would likely blow off spending even more time and money to get re certified in the new system and just continue teaching NTS to their private students. Again, only the non-shooting coaches will continue to push NTS. It's a ridiculous system that no one follows beyond a certain level. (and those with itchy keyboard fingers to point out false positives, spare me the Brady reference. Brady shoots Brady. Brady could pick up Yemen's archery method (hint: they don't have one) and still be top 5 in the world for as long as he wants to be. And Casey shoots Casey/Dick Tone/Tom Stevenson. Who else you got?) 

You cant argue that since Coach Lee took over, we've had more young up and coming archers setting records and shooting higher scores than ever before. Yes, there are potentially easier and better methods, but it brought a solid foundation and consistency to the sport and raised the bar of competitiveness across all divisions. If we were to drop the system cold turkey, I feel like we would revert back to what you saw in the 90's.

Setting records? higher scores? Maybe in Hobokken ... but where else? 13 years as the national system and where are the results? Brady and "who"? Kudos to Mackenzie Brown for briefly soldiering up, but since 2016 ???? Katuna (pre/not NTS; Jenny (pre/not NTS); Miranda (pre/not NTS); Mackenzie (NTS for a cup of coffee briefly) ... who else? Jake was pre NTS and on his way to being a very good archer anyway, but was a good soldier and dutifully tried to go NTS, as he was focused on going along with the 'system' and trying to make a living in it). Who else? 

"..NTS will just fade away is more wishful thinking on the part of its haters I think"
What other sport - or business for that matter - that was about performance results would tolerate 13+ years of NTS international track record? It's not 'hating' to evaluate a performance record of any endeavor and find it to be a failed attempt to achieve results on the playing field.
NTS has always been generating/funneling $$$ upward through the system. At that it's been pretty successful. But podiums in regional and world cups? Not so much.

Back to what you saw in the 90's And the 80's? Like, Olympic individual gold and silver medals all over the place, team Olympic medals all over the place? Denise, Darrell, Rick, Jay, Justin, Vic, etc. 

Look, there's nothing wrong with having a general structure of certification so that there's some level of confidence that allows insurance companies and their lawyers to set hoops and loop(hole)s in exchange for insurance coverage, and give newbies some way to initially identify a coaching resource that can read and follow directions and isn't a serial killer. But NTS with its 11 main steps and 72 substeps and insistence on 'more draw weight at all costs' (can you say subluxated ribs?) and no emphasis on tuning the bow/arrow system so that it is a wonderful dance partner for the archer (hard to really make money off new books that involve tuning) , or the mental game (again, hard to make money off new books that discuss/teach the mental game and how to perform to your skill level under competitive pressure ( The Inner Game of Tennis, by Tim Gallwey is all anyone needs to know about the mental game of any sport)). So, we'll create a Goldberg Mouse Trap of steps that are mysterious (LAN II!) and byzantine and force coaches everywhere to pay for certification in it if they want/need the marketing/insurance coverage, and sell books for $gazillion that read like War and Peace, and maybe no one will notice that 1) our archers don't podium offshore, and 2) no one else is stealing or imitating our vaunted system (as opposed to the 80's, when most other serious aspirants of archery (think 'Korea' as a prime example) studied/imitated/stole as much methodology and technique from the Americans as they could.

Not trying to hammer on you personally, RJ. But you're the NTS messenger in this thread (and absolutely entitled to your viewpoint and your opinion, both of which are as valid as mine), and with my viewpoint I'm "going off" on NTS like I would be after a business endeavor that never made any money or a weight lifting endeavor that never got me stronger, or ??? In the vernacular of the last decade, "NTS, you're fired."


----------



## tunedlow (Nov 7, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> Money and business aside, I'm really curious what the next coaching theory will be. Or will we just circle back to what worked in the 60's and 70's. I have no idea. Change is inevitable though, so I'm just interested in what the next "great thing" will be, or if it will be a bit of a course correction and the pendulum swings back?


To coach with a method that will let people shoot with the best possible proximity to alignment would be great. All too often, I see archers shooting NTS but they can't get in-line or even close to it because of flexibility/anatomical issues or the guidance to explain the mechanics isn't there. Fact is, NTS isn't easy to replicate.


----------



## tunedlow (Nov 7, 2012)

jmvargas said:


> BTW when was the last time the USA was able to field a full men and women's team in an Olympics after the present qualification system has been in effect??


London?
Brady, Jake and Jacob

Miranda, Jenny and Khatuna


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

tunedlow said:


> To coach with a method that will let people shoot with the best possible proximity to alignment would be great. All too often, I see archers shooting NTS but they can't get in-line or even close to it because of flexibility/anatomical issues or the guidance to explain the mechanics isn't there. Fact is, NTS isn't easy to replicate.


While there is no question NTS now has a proven history with strong young men, both in Australia and here in the U.S. (but then again so do other methods), I think there is room to address some of the deficiencies in the system like you mention, as it applies to the broader student body. An objective review of why our women or the AUS women struggled to have success with it is probably in order if it hasn't already been done or isn't already underway. 

I don't have a sports phys. background and I've heard all sorts of reasons/excuses/rationalizations over the years, but it's hard to know who to believe some days. Even if folks mean well I'm not sure they always have the understanding of physio they would need to identify or question a particular method. Most archery coaches will not.

I'd love to see an objective study by a truly independent 3rd party, of all the proven methods in the sport. A "technique tree" could be developed where the roots provide the history/theory, the trunk is the common foundation of all great techniques that have been proven over time, and the branches are the individual styles that continue to have success. Not sure if that makes sense, but that's the resource that - as a coach - I would love to have.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

tunedlow said:


> London?
> Brady, Jake and Jacob
> 
> Miranda, Jenny and Khatuna


Let's not forget the 11th hour miracle in Utah it took for that to happen and just how incredibly close we came to not having fielded a full women's team since Athens. I still think Miranda is the most underappreciated, unsung talent our sport has seen in decades, and the reason she (and others) quit shooting should be carefully considered (perhaps already has been?) whenever the new direction is set.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

rjbishop said:


> I dont know. I dont see NTS just being dropped like a rock. Its funny because I actually asked my own personal coach this very question this week. He and I both seem to agree that NTS probably will stick around, some new system might be brought in as the new latest greatest, but it most likely will always exist as an alternative. USAA has invested too much time and resources into making it the standard all these years. To say NTS will just fade away is more wishful thinking on the part of its haters I think. What will all the thousands of certified NTS coaches do? What about the RA program and all the NTS shooters that comprise it? If we were to revamp the system and nullify all the certifications people have invested so much time and money to earn, it wouldn't be without repercussions. People would likely blow off spending even more time and money to get re certified in the new system and just continue teaching NTS to their private students. The system is too deeply rooted to just fade away. It will most likely coexist with whatever new system we end up with, which I'm OK with. NTS may not be a perfect system, but it and Coach Lee brought structure to American archery that previously didnt exist. IMO, for NTS to just disappear would be a bad thing. You cant argue that since Coach Lee took over, we've had more young up and coming archers setting records and shooting higher scores than ever before. Yes, there are potentially easier and better methods, but it brought a solid foundation and consistency to the sport and raised the bar of competitiveness across all divisions. If we were to drop the system cold turkey, I feel like we would revert back to what you saw in the 90's.


Is it really that deepbrooted? How many coaches went through the certification system just to get the certificates, and do not teach NTS? I didn't even though I was a level 3 certified NTS coach. How many coaches out there truly teach NTS? One of the things Coach Lee seems to lament every coaches symposium is that level 3 and even many level 4's don't get it.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Bender said:


> A proven winning "system" already exists. One could look to the Korean team. However upon even the most superficial examination it is obvious that the resources to support anything even remotely resembling what they do does not exist here.
> 
> I know that sounds bad, but nobody should take offense. It's just that within the larger "world" of organized sports, Archery here in the US is struggling to make do with table scraps.


I would disagree with this. One thing USA has been able to produce year after year is great compound archers, that are always competitive. This isn't by accident. The fact is there is very little incentive for potentially elite archers to pursue the Olympic Recurve division. IMO the more important priority should be the reforming the tournament system for OR shooters. The incentives need to increase to attract the potentially elite archers to pick up a recurve instead of a compound.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

John, as usual good question. I don't know where it will be going, but I have my hopes. Primarily the certification program needs to be revised so that it gives coaches at whatever level they are coaching at the necessary tools to get as much out of a archer as they are able depending upon the archer's dedication. The new national head coach one would hope would be someone who has the ability to take a young promising successful archer to the next level no matter how they shoot a bow. But most importantly I think either USA Archery or some other archery association needs to establish an environment for OR and BB archers that allow a larger body of elite archers to actually make a living shooting a bow. Currently it seems that the USA only has room for two professional OR archers. It needs to be closer to 10 if the USA is going to be a force on the world stage. Obviously that means a lot of things would have to move in the right direction. Of course the last point should not be on the back of the National coach.

One other thing I hope the future coach will encourage USA Archery to do more of and that is archery clinics that are not just for kids, but for adults as well. USA Archery IMO has dropped the ball heavily on educating and developing their adult members.


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

midwayarcherywi said:


> BEST and NTS have been part of the landscape for too long to think it will quickly vanish. I'd hazard to guess that most of the current crop of coaches have been taught the methodology. There are a few things I do know. Complex systems break more easily than simple ones. The fundamentals of good shooting are the bedrock of all teaching methodologies worth a damn. Those fundamentals have not changed through the years.


I would say that there is a difference between complex systems and complicated systems. Archery performance is a complex system, with multiple kinds of dynamics and multiple degrees of freedom. When done well, performance can be robust. When complicated, it becomes less so and people don't have the success they would like. NTS and the way coach Lee explains things is far too complicated for me. The underlying system dynamics have never really been clearly explained, IME, though I have not done any of the modern coaching classes, only read what was available publicly and been coached by an NTS trained coach. I never heard any description of the anatomical meaning of alignment in actual scientific terms, however. When I describe the articulations of the scapulae in relation to alignment and expansion to NTS trained coaches they have never heard it in those terms. There is much that is right about some interpretations of KSL/NTS steps, but the discussion of it is usually confusing. Complicated as opposed to complex, IMO. When you use correct anatomical terminology and simplify things to basic concepts, it becomes much more salient to both the coach and athlete. But people have to be willing to learn a little anatomy and biomechanics to share a language. Just a little, not a lot.

The fundamentals have changed. When I learned archery in the 1970s we were told to squeeze the shoulder blades together and that was good back tension. Instructors and coaches forced a T form with the string at the center of the chin. There was no tolerance for a side anchor or getting in line as we understand it today. Today, it is clear that it is the shifting of the bow side scapula anterior and draw side scapula posterior that gets us closer to line. And expansion comes from depressing the scapulae. That is the simple biomechanical reality. Once an archer and coach can picture that the motion can become more effortless. But how many people actually understand the articulations of the shoulder?

We know a lot more about biomechanics and physiology these days, and a lot of coaches figured it out on their own in the 70s and 80s. In the 90s there was more interest and eventually BEST was born, but there remains a lack of connecting the experience of the best coaches to the system that we use. There simply is no substitute for collaboration and knowledge capture, IMO. People like me who studied the science can provide some context, but the real knowledge is with the athletes and coaches who have been and produced champions. No one person should be trusted to create a system. 

And good coaching is more about being able to connect ideas to behavior in a way that the athlete responds. Not coloring by complicated numbers.

IMNSHO.


----------



## tim.long (Jul 4, 2015)

tunedlow said:


> London?
> Brady, Jake and Jacob
> 
> Miranda, Jenny and Khatuna


I don't have a dog in this either way, but is the primary point of a "national shooting style" to create more superstars or bring the entire body of the sport in the US up?
Did scores across the nation increase during the NTS era and can that be attributed to NTS?

I would argue that it's not "the form" that makes X country great, since Korea keeps getting thrown out as an example, so much as the program as a whole and the support and emphasis: Early and systematic fostering of the sport, financial support for archers, etc etc


----------



## SHPoet (Nov 13, 2009)

Ahhhhh.... Let me jump in here and offer some opinions. 

I think the biggest issue is that JOAD, by it's very definition, is a Junior Olympic Archery Development. I am around 4 or 5 JOAD clubs on a regular basis and the majority of shooters are shooting compound bows. Heck, there is even an ADULT JOAD program. Adult Junior..... Get my drift? 

USA Archery needs to draw a line and teach true Olympic archery. Start another program for adults and compound shooters and groom them for competitions or just for fun shooters like me. They also need to more firmly establish an elite program for the kids that have a good bit of talent and drive and nurture that talent. I know they are working towards that but I think it has a long way to go. I have seen to many really talented kids drop out of the programs because they are constantly shooting with less talented kids. Coaches also need to be more realistic about the talent a kid has and not on how much money the parents have.

I know it rambles a bit but that is just me......


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

lcaillo said:


> The fundamentals have changed. When I learned archery in the 1970s we were told to squeeze the shoulder blades together and that was good back tension. Instructors and coaches forced a T form with the string at the center of the chin. There was no tolerance for a side anchor or getting in line as we understand it today. Today, it is clear that it is the shifting of the bow side scapula anterior and draw side scapula posterior that gets us closer to line. And expansion comes from depressing the scapulae. That is the simple biomechanical reality. Once an archer and coach can picture that the motion can become more effortless. But how many people actually understand the articulations of the shoulder?
> IMNSHO.


A center anchor didn't hold John Williams back and Darrell Pace was not made to shoot with a center anchor. A center anchor provides a solid reference and shouldn't be dismissed. BTW, nobody told me to squeeze my shoulder blades together. So we can parse what was in the 70's, or we can agree that bedrock principles don't go out of style. There is plenty of room to layer new information on top of standing up straight and getting a proper line.


----------



## 892277 (Sep 9, 2018)

Sadly, it appears Lee has lost his passion for coaching, at least here in the US due to the treatment he was receiving from USA Archery's former CEO. He wanted out of his contract a couple years ago, even consulting with an attorney to see how he can get out of his contract. I doubt he will stay after Tokyo. He was bitter about having to take a pay cut to accommodate the new woman's coach, his wife lost her job within the organization (I don't really know what her role was anyway) plus his family is in Australia and he has said many times that's where he wants to retire.

I think NTS as a coaching program will stay, at least for the time being, because USA archery makes money on the NTS coaching certification program and I don't know if they have another program to replace that particular revenue stream. I think the coaching certificate program itself is a solid program but I'm not sold that it has to be NTS.

Regarding the women's coach, Coach Lee has complained about her since day one because she threatens his NTS program. I don't even understand how the men's team is fed NTS and the women's team is being fed push/pull. I know of one male archer who was told he'd have to leave and abruptly left the program because he was reluctant to change to NTS. However it appears Lee has nothing to worry about since the women RAs didn't have a good showing last year compared to other women new comers such as Kasey and Crystal who have done so well, while at the same time other women RAs have left the program. I'm not even sure how Woo can even coach Mackenzie as she is already at a level beyond what Woo can improve and I don't see Mackenzie making big changes to her form.

Personally, I hope USA archery can bring coaches who can motivate, inspire and lead a team rather than just teach a certain form. Of course form is important, but we see archers with many different forms out there who can compete so I'm not so sure about all the emphasis on hiring a coach to implement one form or another.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Shooter720 said:


> Regarding the women's coach, Coach Lee has complained about her since day one because she threatens his NTS program. I don't even understand how the men's team is fed NTS and the women's team is being fed push/pull. I know of one male archer who was told he'd have to leave and abruptly left the program because he was reluctant to change to NTS. However it appears Lee has nothing to worry about since the women RAs didn't have a good showing last year compared to other women new comers such as Kasey and Crystal who have done so well, while at the same time other women RAs have left the program. I'm not even sure how Woo can even coach Mackenzie as she is already at a level beyond what Woo can improve and I don't see Mackenzie making big changes to her form.
> .


Oh where to begin......

First the mens side is fed NTS because Coach Lee refuses to allow any other form to be used aside his NTS in the RA program. As you stated, more than one archer left the program because they did not want to shoot NTS. 

2. I find it odd that USA archery cut his salary in half to push him out the door and he stayed. But then as you say gets an attorney to see if he can get out of his contract. He opted to stay at the reduced salary. so weird to say the least if he wanted out. He has used the National coach title to push his Joy Lee academies, pull kids for the failed JDT teams, and without the OTC forcing NTS, you will find it goes fairly quickly. As any international archer what they think about NTS. They will smile and say, you have to have a certain body structure to shoot it while they smirk. It is telling that USA coaches are no longer hired by other countries to coach archery. That ended with Lee. 

3. Coach Woo threatens his program because she is teaching a better method than his NTS. She proved it with the success Team Mexico had in London. Of course he is making it hard for her there. 

4. The women last year didnt have a good showing because Coach Woo was in the beginnings of her overhaul and almost all the ladies still shot NTS which Lee forced on them. None did well. Interesting that two of the RAs who left due to poor scores during their RA time using NTS are now shooting higher scores outside of the Coach Lee influence. Much higher scores i might add. 

5. Casey does not shoot NTS, and Crystal gave that form up as well. Neither shoot NTS and I am sure Rob will not let NTS within 50 feet of Casey. They protect her form. Dick Tone knows what he is doing and he certainly does NOT teach NTS to his archers. 

6. While McKenzie is one of the top female archers we have, she can certainly improve under Coach Woo. Any coach worth his salt can see the issues she has in her form even its NTS. She may not want to change from NTS, but have you actually watched McKenzie shoot at a world cup? She draws and once she has anchored, her bow arm has dipped down below the target. She has to then push up about 2 inches to put sight on the yellow. This push up of the bow arm at full draw is terrible on the shoulder and on accuracy. Which shows in her shooting. 

7. So much misinformation is out regarding the Linear Korean shot from Coach Lee and just people not knowing its system, it is appalling. I just watched a video last month by Sjef and Griv on NTS vs linear. To be frank, Sjef shoots a linear posture with an angular draw. This is an injury shot sequence in the making. You cant mix both. You either draw linear with a linear posture, or you have an open stance and draw angular. Any hybrid draw will injure you. Period. As evidenced by his current shoulder injury issues. 

Griv understands NTS fully and is a great coach, but to be honest, he has the wrong concept for the linear draw in that video. The wrist doesnt break with a linear draw for example. His draw albow was way too low to do the draw correctly. The linear draw is more bio mechanical than NTS but it doesnt use the muscles, it uses the bones. No insult to Griv, he is a far more productive coach than i could ever be. But it appears he hasnt been given an real explanation of what the linear shot sequence is and how it works. 

There are a number of Korean coaches in the USA teaching the linear shot sequence ( most olympic gold medalists). There is a language barrier from some of the coaches and the concepts arent always translated correctly in english. My linear seminar is the english version of the shot system. 

I have been giving my seminar over the internet via video, and i would love to spend some time with Griv on that system and give him a better overview. 

Personally i feel that any kid who shoots well enough to get to the OTC should be able to shoot the form they want/ and have trained with the home coach. NTS and linear can exist together in the USA. But i am on the side that NTS will fade once Lee is gone and the hordes of certified coaches have difficulty translating the form into a workable winning method. 

Also as an aside, the OTC coaches need to keep the home coach updated when their archer has an injury and cant shoot for a week. And i do not mean to insult McKenzie, Griv, or any other person in this thread. Just stating the facts as i see them. 

And thanks Larry for the vote for National Coach. I dont think they are ready for someone like me who says what it is and pulls no punches. 




Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I was really hoping we could talk about new/next coaching theory and what we have learned over the past 15 years, rather than discussing individual archers - most of whom we know personally (in some cases, since they were kids) and all of whom we wish nothing but the best for. 



> There is plenty of room to layer new information on top of standing up straight and getting a proper line.


Exactly.

So, what have we learned. We've learned that Lee's method works for certain strong young men who can make it work. Hard to argue otherwise. Some people claim it's been a salvation to their injuries and others claim it's the source. We've also learned that it doesn't seem to work for women. I don't think that's even a question anymore.

We need to take advantage of the great coaching minds we have here in the U.S. while we still have them. We have Lee's body of work and I'm sure several of his students will continue to teach his method for years to come. I would love to see someone like Rick collaborate with a great sports physio and break down different techniques, giving us the strengths and weaknesses of each. That would be a great teaching tool for coaches, to help them teach and troubleshoot various techniques when working with a variety of students. 



> Personally, I hope USA archery can bring coaches who can motivate, inspire and lead a team rather than just teach a certain form. Of course form is important, but we see archers with many different forms out there who can compete so I'm not so sure about all the emphasis on hiring a coach to implement one form or another.


Who is a great leader will depend on who you ask. Leadership styles will appeal to some and turn off others. I think it's always going to be tough to find someone who can do both. Teaching great technique requires an analytical, technical mind and people with those attributes are not always the best leaders or motivators, and vise-versa. And I think we've seen some of that over the years. I also think it's pretty unrealistic to think that a single coach will be equally productive with both men and women. 

I'd love it if we could separate the "technique" from the "team leader" duties. I think those are very different jobs. A coach is sometimes asked to do both but is usually much stronger in one area or the other, for the reason I mentioned - their fundamental personality.

In my opinion, the technical expert or "technique" expert should report to the head coach who is a strong team leader. Much the same way the mental coach and physio coaches should report to the head coach. Our national head coach should be a great leader and manager and person who can inspire the teams. Not necessarily a precise technical expert for form or mental game or physio. Those are details the head coach should be familiar with, but not have to get bogged down in. The technical experts can spend more time with individual archers adapting to that archer's specific needs.


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

chrstphr said:


> 7. So much misinformation is out regarding the Linear Korean shot from Coach Lee and just people not knowing its system, it is appalling. I just watched a video last month by Sjef and Griv on NTS vs linear. To be frank, Sjef shoots a linear posture with an angular draw. This is an injury shot sequence in the making. You cant mix both. You either draw linear with a linear posture, or you have an open stance and draw angular. Any hybrid draw will injure you. Period. As evidenced by his current shoulder injury issues.
> Chris


Please explain, Chris. What constitutes a linear draw vs angular and what makes you so certain that any hybrid is going to produce injuries? I think there is much merit in your ideas, but when you make such statements without really explaining the criteria for your descriptions and logic behind the conclusions (like "will injure you. Period.") you start to lose me. Lots of people actually shot with some hybrid of NTS and other methods, but I don't think that in itself is what causes injury. Now when you get an inefficient movement combined with excessive draw weight and excessive practice reps, I can see that being a problem. 

Sure, NTS is overly complicated and KSL's explanations are variable and obtuse at times, but the basic idea of getting in line and transition to completing the motion with the back is not really faulty. As others have said, we can tweak what we have and don't need to pit one system against the other as exclusive options. Nor do we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We should extract the solid ideas from the current system and expand on them. There should be room for multiple perspectives on how to get to the same result. Just look at the variations that have worked for top shooters over the ages. There are common patterns that tend to work better but still lots of variations that have proven to work for individuals. 

I would really like to understand the biomechanical justification for some of the claims that are made.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> we can tweak what we have and don't need to pit one system against the other as exclusive options. Nor do we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We should extract the solid ideas from the current system and expand on them. There should be room for multiple perspectives on how to get to the same result. Just look at the variations that have worked for top shooters over the ages. There are common patterns that tend to work better but still lots of variations that have proven to work for individuals.


I agree, and I feel that it is a good time in the sport for someone with who is both qualified and objective (might be an oxymoron) to summarize the numerous techniques that are being taught today. 



> I would really like to understand the biomechanical justification for some of the claims that are made.


Many of us have been saying the same thing for years, but to be fair, without the training and education to evaluate those claims, we have no choice but to take someone's word for it. I'm not in a position to dispute or validate claims of biomechanics and I know very very few archery coaches who are.


----------



## Anarchist_Otter (Mar 26, 2013)

Until the US can actually support the top 10 archers and keep them financially stable. It really won't ever matter. Lee is essentially attempting to recreate the structure of Korea without having any of the financials available. Frankly, the 4-6 week qualification periods for trial selection is a joke. The fact that the system has been actively manipulated in order to promote an advantage for RAs is a joke. I don't honestly think Lee is incompetent; I think he doesn't care. His tenure is essentially justifying his existence for as long as he can. With three Olympic medals over two cycles and a decline in world cups his tenure will come to an end hopefully sooner than later.

Frankly, I hope Dick Tone or Mel Nichols step in to replace him. While Mel might have more a more noticeable cadre of students on the compound side. He has consistently produced some of the best archers coming out of the US in recent years.

Dick Tone's resume goes without question. He has been a high performing coach for years. Casey is a great example. She has consistently performed with the best adult women in the country and will hopefully continue that trend. 

I doubt that NTS will ever really die. There has certainly been a large amount of mystique around the method. Which, frankly, I see as a downside. It is not an intuitive method. It has changed and changed and changed over Lee's tenure. To the point now that his own coaching materials from previous years are completely obsolete in comparison to coaching materials he will supply to the new recruit level 4s. Who, apparently aren't teaching NTS at their home ranges. For a program that seems to have "deep roots" it looks like his tree is dying. Just not as fast as some would like.


----------



## tunedlow (Nov 7, 2012)

lcaillo said:


> Please explain, Chris. What constitutes a linear draw vs angular and what makes you so certain that any hybrid is going to produce injuries? I think there is much merit in your ideas, but when you make such statements without really explaining the criteria for your descriptions and logic behind the conclusions (like "will injure you. Period.") you start to lose me. Lots of people actually shot with some hybrid of NTS and other methods, but I don't think that in itself is what causes injury. Now when you get an inefficient movement combined with excessive draw weight and excessive practice reps, I can see that being a problem.
> 
> Sure, NTS is overly complicated and KSL's explanations are variable and obtuse at times, but the basic idea of getting in line and transition to completing the motion with the back is not really faulty. As others have said, we can tweak what we have and don't need to pit one system against the other as exclusive options. Nor do we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We should extract the solid ideas from the current system and expand on them. There should be room for multiple perspectives on how to get to the same result. Just look at the variations that have worked for top shooters over the ages. There are common patterns that tend to work better but still lots of variations that have proven to work for individuals.
> 
> I would really like to understand the biomechanical justification for some of the claims that are made.


The occurrence of muscular injury is not as simple as one method being used over another. Yes, form is a large factor but so is strength conditioning and weight loads that are manageable for an archer to handle. Now, when comparing one method over another in terms of injury -one isn't better than another because you do have people being injured using either style so that argument is not bulletproof. 

Biomechanical claims are an endless pit of arguing because you will have fanboys of each side arguing for their point like the Koreans are better than X, Y, Z. Blah blah blah. Fine and dandy but.....none of use ARE those people who train under specific conditions to attain a particular athletic level. I really do wish people would just stop with the Korean comparisons because trying to say one style is better than another is only valid if you can actually shoot LIKE those folks and most can't. Its a lot like music.....you can be taught to play like Wes Montgomery or Jaco or Yo-yo Ma using whatever technique that they were taught but that doesn't that you are going to have the same level of efficacy, the same level of mastery or even the same level of optimization that someone can get because there are just too many other variable setting someone apart from another.

Pick a method, see if it works for your combination of traits and train to optimize. I can't speak for biomechanics but I can speak in terms of muscular overuse and inflammation - it doesn't matter what style you use, the muscles are all the same and prone to overuse. What does matter is using the right technique that YOU are capable of safely replicating that will get you to shoot more injury free with the right conditioning.

When people say one is better than the other in terms of using bone to get in line - that is odd because both try to attain the same thing using different paths.; the end goal is the same.


----------



## Anarchist_Otter (Mar 26, 2013)

Until the US can actually support the top 10 archers and keep them financially stable. It really won't ever matter. Lee is essentially attempting to recreate the structure of Korea without having any of the financials available. Frankly, the 4-6 week qualification periods for trial selection is a joke. The fact that the system has been actively manipulated in order to promote an advantage for RAs is a joke. I don't honestly think Lee is incompetent; I think he doesn't care. His tenure is essentially justifying his existence for as long as he can. With three Olympic medals over two cycles and a decline in world cups his tenure will come to an end hopefully sooner than later.

Frankly, I hope Dick Tone or Mel Nichols step in to replace him. While Mel might have more a more noticeable cadre of students on the compound side. He has consistently produced some of the best archers coming out of the US in recent years.

Dick Tone's resume goes without question. He has been a high performing coach for years. Casey is a great example. She has consistently performed with the best adult women in the country and will hopefully continue that trend. 

I doubt that NTS will ever really die. There has certainly been a large amount of mystique around the method. Which, frankly, I see as a downside. It is not an intuitive method. It has changed and changed and changed over Lee's tenure. To the point now that his own coaching materials from previous years are completely obsolete in comparison to coaching materials he will supply to the new recruit level 4s. Who, apparently aren't teaching NTS at their home ranges. For a program that seems to have "deep roots" it looks like his tree is dying. Just not as fast as some would like.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

tim.long said:


> I don't have a dog in this either way, but is the primary point of a "national shooting style" to create more superstars or bring the entire body of the sport in the US up?
> Did scores across the nation increase during the NTS era and can that be attributed to NTS?
> 
> I would argue that it's not "the form" that makes X country great, since Korea keeps getting thrown out as an example, so much as the program as a whole and the support and emphasis: Early and systematic fostering of the sport, financial support for archers, etc etc


Seems to me like the job of the USA National Head Coach is to "win games against the opponents of Team USA (i.e Korea, Germany, France, China, GB, Mexico, India, Netherlands, etc). 

Growing the sport at the grass roots level shouldn't be a concern of the national Head Coach. He's supposed to be training/tuning up our upper elites to win international medals. Growing the sport should be an entirely different entity/division/agenda/personnel group. 

Nick Saban isn't getting paid to have more walk-ons and participation at the Spring scrimmage game. Nor is he tasked with trying to increase participation and blocking skills of the 3rd grade kids in Tuscaloosa, Alabama elementary schools. 


Am I wrong?


----------



## tim.long (Jul 4, 2015)

lksseven said:


> Seems to me like the job of the USA National Head Coach is to "win games against the opponents of Team USA (i.e Korea, Germany, France, China, GB, Mexico, India, Netherlands, etc).
> 
> Growing the sport at the grass roots level shouldn't be a concern of the national Head Coach. He's supposed to be training/tuning up our upper elites to win international medals. Growing the sport should be an entirely different entity/division/agenda/personnel group.
> 
> ...


So in that case, (in your opinion) is all this discussion about NTS as far as it being a national system as opposed to say, focused on RA/olympic team level, a complete waste of time?

If that's the main job of the national coach, who cares what everyone else has been taught/what certifcations they have as an NTS coach or whatever at the lower levels


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

lcaillo said:


> Please explain, Chris. What constitutes a linear draw vs angular and what makes you so certain that any hybrid is going to produce injuries? I think there is much merit in your ideas, but when you make such statements without really explaining the criteria for your descriptions and logic behind the conclusions (like "will injure you. Period.") you start to lose me. Lots of people actually shot with some hybrid of NTS and other methods, but I don't think that in itself is what causes injury. Now when you get an inefficient movement combined with excessive draw weight and excessive practice reps, I can see that being a problem.
> 
> Sure, NTS is overly complicated and KSL's explanations are variable and obtuse at times, but the basic idea of getting in line and transition to completing the motion with the back is not really faulty. As others have said, we can tweak what we have and don't need to pit one system against the other as exclusive options. Nor do we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We should extract the solid ideas from the current system and expand on them. There should be room for multiple perspectives on how to get to the same result. Just look at the variations that have worked for top shooters over the ages. There are common patterns that tend to work better but still lots of variations that have proven to work for individuals.
> 
> I would really like to understand the biomechanical justification for some of the claims that are made.


I will make it all clear with you on Saturday.


Chris


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

tunedlow said:


> The occurrence of muscular injury is not as simple as one method being used over another. Yes, form is a large factor but so is strength conditioning and weight loads that are manageable for an archer to handle. Now, when comparing one method over another in terms of injury -one isn't better than another because you do have people being injured using either style so that argument is not bulletproof.


There may be trends toward injury that are greater with one technique over others, but I have not seen a clear enough definition of any of them to make a serious comparison. 



tunedlow said:


> Biomechanical claims are an endless pit of arguing because you will have fanboys of each side arguing for their point like the Koreans are better than X, Y, Z. Blah blah blah. Fine and dandy but.....none of use ARE those people who train under specific conditions to attain a particular athletic level. I really do wish people would just stop with the Korean comparisons because trying to say one style is better than another is only valid if you can actually shoot LIKE those folks and most can't. Its a lot like music.....you can be taught to play like Wes Montgomery or Jaco or Yo-yo Ma using whatever technique that they were taught but that doesn't that you are going to have the same level of efficacy, the same level of mastery or even the same level of optimization that someone can get because there are just too many other variable setting someone apart from another.


Biomechanics is a science. If you learn the principles, and you use the proper language, it becomes much more possible to have a meaningful discussion about different techniques. To date, few have been willing to learn the language or the concepts. I maintain that it does not take a lot of study, but you have to clarify the basics. Once you have a common language, coaches understand more than most people think, even if they have come to their solutions intuitively or subjectively.



tunedlow said:


> Pick a method, see if it works for your combination of traits and train to optimize. I can't speak for biomechanics but I can speak in terms of muscular overuse and inflammation - it doesn't matter what style you use, the muscles are all the same and prone to overuse. What does matter is using the right technique that YOU are capable of safely replicating that will get you to shoot more injury free with the right conditioning.


Reasonable opinion, but you can also apply some understanding of the analtomy and mechanics to come to reasonable conclusions. Put more stress on the bow shoulder by letting it ride high and back and you are more likely to develop problems. Use more muscle from positions of less mechanical advantage and you are more likely to do damage or increase fatigue.


tunedlow said:


> When people say one is better than the other in terms of using bone to get in line - that is odd because both try to attain the same thing using different paths.; the end goal is the same.


The goal is the same, but some methods are more effortful than others. If you can minimize muscular effort with geometry, or stabilize with a slight bias, you start with an advantage. Again, if you don't agree on the language and the goals, you can't even have a meaningful discussion. Much less teach people to transfer knowledge and coach effectively.

I tend to see things through the eyes of a math teacher and project manager, both of which I have done for a good chunk of my life. It boils down to 6th grade problem solving. The first step in solving a problem is to understand the problem. Not just state it, really understand it. That defines most of the goal and makes the strategies clearer. Where most problem solving and most projects fail is not sufficiently clarifying the problem and making sure that everyone is clear on what you are trying to do. Biomechanics is a science about understanding how the body performs out of that science has come some useful research and models for describing human performance. And how to ask questions in a way that might be useful to learning and controlling movement. But one has to also understand the limits of usefulness of any system. One of the problems with NTS is that it has been sold as a panacea that it is not.


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> Many of us have been saying the same thing for years, but to be fair, without the training and education to evaluate those claims, we have no choice but to take someone's word for it. I'm not in a position to dispute or validate claims of biomechanics and I know very very few archery coaches who are.


Well, I studied biomechanics and motor control, and have a MS to show for it, but all that makes me qualified to do is ask questions in a systematic manner using the language of anatomy and some of the concepts that I learned. What people educated in sport science can do is to help those with experience in the specific skills connect and clarify their knowledge in those terms. When I was asked to teach coaches I tried to make that point. A biomechanist can only provide a foundation of knowledge about how the body tends to behave and a language for discussing it. The knowledge lies with the coaches and athletes and needs to be organized and applied in those terms to be more useful to more people. But what I was asked to do was to provide some easy magic path to success that just does not exist. The "formula" only comes with hard work and a willingness to do reflective analysis of one's process, whether that be shooting, coaching, or teaching. I can tell you that the primary way to increase the distance from the spine to the shoulder is to depress the scapula. A good coach can translate that into something that the athlete can apply. We have great coaches that have been able to do that. Not for every athlete and not with the same language or technique, but if we can better discuss and share those ideas and skills, we all will benefit. the science can give us better tools. Not easy answers.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lcaillo said:


> Well, I studied biomechanics and motor control, and have a MS to show for it, but all that makes me qualified to do is ask questions in a systematic manner using the language of anatomy and some of the concepts that I learned. What people educated in sport science can do is to help those with experience in the specific skills connect and clarify their knowledge in those terms. When I was asked to teach coaches I tried to make that point. A biomechanist can only provide a foundation of knowledge about how the body tends to behave and a language for discussing it. The knowledge lies with the coaches and athletes and needs to be organized and applied in those terms to be more useful to more people. But what I was asked to do was to provide some easy magic path to success that just does not exist. The "formula" only comes with hard work and a willingness to do reflective analysis of one's process, whether that be shooting, coaching, or teaching. I can tell you that the primary way to increase the distance from the spine to the shoulder is to depress the scapula. A good coach can translate that into something that the athlete can apply. We have great coaches that have been able to do that. Not for every athlete and not with the same language or technique, but if we can better discuss and share those ideas and skills, we all will benefit. the science can give us better tools. Not easy answers.


Then you're a perfect example of someone who may be in a position to evaluate the claims. The vast majority of NTS coaches however, are not, myself included.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> With three Olympic medals over two cycles


Might want to check that.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I started this post to talk about the future, not the past. I was hoping we could focus on that.


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

You (specifically you, John, and plural you as well to the others here) are more qualified than you know. You just need to connect your knowledge to the science and that just requires learning a little anatomy and terminology, and being steered in the right direction to get to an objective translation of what you and others already know into something that others can use.

A formative experience for me was spending 4 years as an NAA representative to the USOC Sport Science and Technology Committee. We reviewed and guided proposals for applying funding to research. Never did the scientists suggest how the various sports applied the knowledge or technology developed. It was the coaches and athletes that used those tools, whether it be clap skates or accellerometers in heavy bags. Mostly we asked questions to be sure that the research and development was meaningful in terms of what athletes and coaches needed. The questions and the priorities came from them. 

The mistake the old CDC made was to look to others for answers from others besides the people who knew best what it takes to be a successful archer. They bought their answer from outside when it was right among them. I failed to sell them what they wanted, so I was of little use because I asked the tough questions and proposed a path that required some soul searching and hard work. Rarely is anything worthwhile accomplished without doing "the hard thing." There are a lot of great people who have had success as coaches and athletes. Just look down the Master's line, or think about the coaching names that have been mentioned here recently. How much knowledge is going to waste, and some are aging and dying off who hold much of it. All for a lack of just a little leadership and vision that it would take, and some time and collaboration from those who hold the knowledge.


----------



## mcullumber (Jul 31, 2006)

Shooter720 said:


> Sadly, it appears Lee has lost his passion for coaching, at least here in the US due to the treatment he was receiving from USA Archery's former CEO. He wanted out of his contract a couple years ago, even consulting with an attorney to see how he can get out of his contract. I doubt he will stay after Tokyo. He was bitter about having to take a pay cut to accommodate the new woman's coach, his wife lost her job within the organization (I don't really know what her role was anyway) plus his family is in Australia and he has said many times that's where he wants to retire.
> 
> I think NTS as a coaching program will stay, at least for the time being, because USA archery makes money on the NTS coaching certification program and I don't know if they have another program to replace that particular revenue stream. I think the coaching certificate program itself is a solid program but I'm not sold that it has to be NTS.
> 
> ...


Wow, I'm glad that was explained. I did not know the story.


----------



## tunedlow (Nov 7, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> Then you're a perfect example of someone who may be in a position to evaluate the claims. The vast majority of NTS coaches however, are not, myself included.


There have been studies done on biomechanics in archery but I didn't see a direct comparison done on an academic level of NTS and the linear method. Worth digging deeper into though. I am actually surprised this hasn't been studied in more detail because it would highlight potential optimization measures that can be applied in training.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> You (specifically you, John, and plural you as well to the others here) are more qualified than you know. You just need to connect your knowledge to the science and that just requires learning a little anatomy and terminology, and being steered in the right direction to get to an objective translation of what you and others already know into something that others can use.


I'm sure you're right. I've just never delved any deeper into the physio because all my volunteer time was spent running tournaments, awarding achievement pins, trying to coach 20+ different archers of all ages at any given time, managing 30+ bow/arrow combinations and trying to shoot enough to be a good example, etc. all while holding down a full time job and raising a family. LOL Doesn't leave a lot of time for studying new fields. 

Even after 16 years in the sport, 15 of which are post-Olympics, I'm still not sure I can explain exactly how I expand through the clicker. And I consider that a real problem and a deficiency as a "coach." And I'm not sure that even as a L4 NTS certified coach, I was given that information to pass on.

So it sure would be nice to get that from someone at some point. Some TRUE physio and biomechanic instruction to pass along to my students. I would love to see this become common knowledge among coaches in the future, along with specific techniques to give to students to execute certain movements.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Or, like Burger King decided to do, instead of reinventing the wheel, let's just put up stores within a block of McDonald stores (do what the Koreans have been eating our lunch doing).

Along those lines, I would recommend everyone anywhere close to Vegas next year take Chris' seminar on Linear Draw, and if you're not going to be close to Vegas, beg him to dish it up for you over the computer. Amazing combination of common sense, and brilliant insight into details previously unknown (to me, anyway), put together in a cohesive stream that paints a powerful picture. And he's 100% correct when he says getting into alignment is easy, as long as you're doing first things first. 

John, speaking to your last post about 'hoping to look toward the future', here's my hope for the near future of USA Archery: 
- I hope we hire a coach who is tasked with elites making international progress and splashes and encouraging signs of "medals coming" (beside Brady). 
- I hope he welcomes promising existing and future shooters, regardless of their personal style /methodology.
- I hope his foundational shooting message/method is the Linear Draw, as best exampled by the Koreans. Efficient, simple, easy on the body.
- I hope he encourages more emphasis - than is currently being done - on knowledge of tuning equipment and matching bow setup to archers, and knowledge of the mental game (if you can't make the dragon not exist, then make it disappear by being completely focused on something else (works for Tom Brady).
- I hope he is paid enough that he doesn't feel the need/temptation to start asking the wrong question ("how should we structure the coach cert system to best funnel revenue upstream?"
- I hope he's a man of integrity and demands the same of the people on the inside of his organization, that his people treat each other and the archers in their charge with genuine respect and caring; tolerates no games and head games/fiefdom building; an engaged, decent leader who brooks no b.s.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Larry, in my head, I just turned all your "he's" into "she's" 

Surely we are not limiting our future to half the pool of qualified individuals, further short-changing the women in our sport.

Particularly when it's commonly accepted that many (if not the majority) of the best archers of all time, are women.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Even after 16 years in the sport, 15 of which are post-Olympics, I'm still not sure I can explain exactly how I expand through the clicker. And I consider that a real problem and a deficiency as a "coach." And I'm not sure that even as a L4 NTS certified coach, I was given that information to pass on.
> 
> So it sure would be nice to get that from someone at some point. Some TRUE physio and biomechanic instruction to pass along to my students. .


I can show you how the linear draw comes thru the clicker and how to teach it. Its pretty much invisible when done correctly as evidenced by the Korean not moving and yet the clicker falls.. I just taught it to Larry during my seminar for him. I also use it for my barebow archers as a trigger for them to shoot and not anticipate or have the hand creep forward or out at the shot etc. 

It may not be how you expand through the clicker, but it is a true physio and biomechanical method. and its not push pull or scapula etc.

It is also not how NTS comes through the clicker. They continue with the circular draw after anchor and do use the scapula. But my method would also work with NTS form much the same as Brady uses NTS until anchor and then comes thru the clicker linearly. 

Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I should clarify my statement. I'm still not sure I can explain exactly how I expand through the clicker when I'm doing it right. However, when that doesn't work, I have a sequence of steps that I go through to break the clicker and I hope I never have to resort to step 4. LOL

I'm pretty sure my preferred method could be described if I understood the physiology better though.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

then i misunderstood your post.


Chris


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> I should clarify my statement. I'm still not sure I can explain exactly how I expand through the clicker when I'm doing it right. However, when that doesn't work, I have a sequence of steps that I go through to break the clicker and I hope I never have to resort to step 4. LOL
> 
> I'm pretty sure my preferred method could be described if I understood the physiology better though.


Laughed out loud! Something about it reminded me of being a kid, having a friend stay overnight, and we'd be doing something loud or precarious in the den or bedroom, and my mom would call for us to "keep it down in there, boys". Well, of course we wouldn't "keep it down", and eventually I'd hear my dad say in that normal volume but it carries through walls 'dad voice' "Larry, if I come in there, you won't like what happens next". Step 4. Shudder.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> Larry, in my head, I just turned all your "he's" into "she's"
> 
> Surely we are not limiting our future to half the pool of qualified individuals, further short-changing the women in our sport.
> 
> Particularly when it's commonly accepted that many (if not the majority) of the best archers of all time, are women.


Yeah, that occurred to me, too (and Sheri Rhodes is a shining example of how it can work really well), but I as too tired to go back in and change "he" to "he or she", and I was on the premise that the current women's coach would continue to be the women's coach. 

Thanks for the assist.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yea, step 4 gets ugly but it's usually good for an 8/9 liner. LOL

I shot a whole end of step 4's at the trials that weren't the trials.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

tunedlow said:


> There have been studies done on biomechanics in archery but I didn't see a direct comparison done on an academic level of NTS and the linear method. Worth digging deeper into though. I am actually surprised this hasn't been studied in more detail because it would highlight potential optimization measures that can be applied in training.


Agreed. I'd love to see a "heat map" of the muscles as they contract through the shot, and particularly at the last few mm. then following the release. Being able to compare those from archer to archer would really help us understand the commonalities, and differences in various techniques.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

Moebow said:


> OR, could it possibly be the coach/archer interface? Perhaps it's not some "system" but rather the coach's ability to understand a version of A system AND to communicate it to receptive and talented student(s). I do believe that there should be a base line system for instructors and coaches to follow and be trained for -- a road map if you will -- . But sooner or later, talented TEACHERS will find talented students and success will happen. Henderson, Wunderle, Cardinale, Strickland, Lee ---- All successful and just a few names off the top. BUT Is it really the system mechanics or is it some synergy that happens regardless of the "system??"
> 
> Arne


I've never coached archery but have coached quite a few other sports. The only sport I have coached where the "proper" form was part of the scoring was gymnastics and there absolutely is a right and wrong way to do skills in gymnastics and if you do them incorrectly, the score reflects that. The golf lessons I gave was all about working within the student's abilities and giving insights and advice to squeeze out the performance that they were capable of within their natural swing tendencies. Of course if they were just awful, we broke it down and started over. Same with coaching hitting and pitching in baseball. There aren't two identical golf swings, pitching or hitting motions in the top of the game and yet there are elite athletes in each sport.

I totally agree that likely the best "system" is to just have a baseline and then let things evolve from there. You can't force people, who are not identical in ability and structure, to fit into the same form or execution style. Some will thrive like that but only because that style or form happens to be the best for them. Others will just fade out because they don't fit the mold. Good coaches coach the individual. They don't create "robot" athletes.


----------



## Houngan (Oct 19, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> I should clarify my statement. I'm still not sure I can explain exactly how I expand through the clicker when I'm doing it right. However, when that doesn't work, I have a sequence of steps that I go through to break the clicker and I hope I never have to resort to step 4. LOL
> 
> I'm pretty sure my preferred method could be described if I understood the physiology better though.


I was watching a video of Brady talking about his form, and he said something along the lines of, "I don't pull through the clicker, when I settle at anchor I hold my breath and let my rising blood pressure and natural body expansion finish the draw."

Something like that, anyway. I tried it and it kinda works! I'm not sure if it's the physio that he was suggesting or just a subconscious move, but if I watched the clicker and put myself right on the edge, held my half-breath and waited, it certainly does seem like my body naturally expands.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Houngan said:


> I was watching a video of Brady talking about his form, and he said something along the lines of, "I don't pull through the clicker, when I settle at anchor I hold my breath and let my rising blood pressure and natural body expansion finish the draw."
> 
> Something like that, anyway. I tried it and it kinda works! I'm not sure if it's the physio that he was suggesting or just a subconscious move, but if I watched the clicker and put myself right on the edge, held my half-breath and waited, it certainly does seem like my body naturally expands.


You'll get lots of action with your post, as the biology/physiology people explain how the three time Olympic medal winner and indoor world record holder doesn't know what he's talking about. My personal take away from what he said/was describing is this: 
1) The most important point in his description that most people miss is that he can come back into alignment first, then settle into his anchor and setup shop no more than 1mm from clicker break ... every time! The Control! The Consistency! How wonderful would be all of our improvements in score if we could all consistently hit alignment and anchor and be 1mm from clicker break.
2) Not a blood pressure thing. I think what's really happening is he has the ability to both hold his ground and relax his body, and the process of relaxing some of his muscles is that they are 'less contracted' and therefore they decompressed minutely and voila! Clicker Break! It's much the same thing that gets Ki Bo Bae through the clicker (and likely many of the other Korean shooters), though they won't explain it thus (or at all). 

Anyway, I've seen it in Ki Bo Bae (thanks, Chris!), and that's what I suspect is going on with Brady, too.


----------



## tunedlow (Nov 7, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> Agreed. I'd love to see a "heat map" of the muscles as they contract through the shot, and particularly at the last few mm. then following the release. Being able to compare those from archer to archer would really help us understand the commonalities, and differences in various techniques.


I can see if the local university/orthopedics lab I am affiliated with would be interested in something like this. I did a lot of gait analysis for orthopedics back in the day so maybe the new technology has progressed where these metrics would be measurable on DAQ software like Labview.


----------



## tunedlow (Nov 7, 2012)

lksseven said:


> You'll get lots of action with your post, as the biology/physiology people explain how the three time Olympic medal winner and indoor world record holder doesn't know what he's talking about. My personal take away from what he said/was describing is this:
> 1) The most important point in his description that most people miss is that he can come back into alignment first, then settle into his anchor and setup shop no more than 1mm from clicker break ... every time! The Control! The Consistency! How wonderful would be all of our improvements in score if we could all consistently hit alignment and anchor and be 1mm from clicker break.
> 2) Not a blood pressure thing. I think what's really happening is he has the ability to both hold his ground and relax his body, and the process of relaxing some of his muscles is that they are 'less contracted' and therefore they decompressed minutely and voila! Clicker Break! It's much the same thing that gets Ki Bo Bae through the clicker (and likely many of the other Korean shooters), though they won't explain it thus (or at all).
> 
> Anyway, I've seen it in Ki Bo Bae (thanks, Chris!), and that's what I suspect is going on with Brady, too.


Yeah, it ain't blood pressure. The minute physiology changes aren't that big to cause a mass expansion of your anatomical structure to move that much. Dude would have to be hyptertensive up the roof to get that to happen plus crazy amounts of built up CO2 output to move that much given tissue elasticity. However, what is important is that it is feeling that he knows and can replicate. He might very well be thinking about steaks, ponies and ice cream and if that gets the work done right -heck, I'd leave it be.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I think what's really happening is he has the ability to both hold his ground and relax his body, and the process of relaxing some of his muscles is that they are 'less contracted' and therefore they decompressed minutely and voila! Clicker Break!


Dammit Larry, you just told everyone my secret. LOL 

Actually, that is what happens with me in my "Step 1" when everything is working how it should. A conscious relaxation brought on by complete control of the bow and good alignment result in just enough expansion to break the clicker. I know what it is, and how it feels. I just don't know what is actually happening, or the best way to teach it. I also don't know if it's what we should be teaching to newer shooters, who simply will not be in a position to have complete control of the bow and good alignment. 

One could probably teach this with a string bow or PVC bow or 10# set of limbs to a newer shooter, but we all know how much patience Americans have for that kind of training early in their shooting career.  The only reason I was able to execute that style is because I was coming off a 63# longbow to an Olympic rig that was 15# lighter and drawing and holding even a 48# recurve was a very simple thing at the time.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

tunedlow said:


> I can see if the local university/orthopedics lab I am affiliated with would be interested in something like this. I did a lot of gait analysis for orthopedics back in the day so maybe the new technology has progressed where these metrics would be measurable on DAQ software like Labview.


That would be very instructive. I would love to see a slow motion heat map video of 8 or 10 top shooters just to compare what is going on before, during and after the shot. At least that would give us a place to start. I feel like that information has to be out there somewhere already (maybe in Korea because of the corporate support?). I know Rick and Darrell were hooked up to sensors over 30 years ago to try and analyze the same thing. Not sure what ever came of that information. I don't think I've ever seen the results.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Houngan said:


> I was watching a video of Brady talking about his form, and he said something along the lines of, "I don't pull through the clicker, when I settle at anchor I hold my breath and let my rising blood pressure and natural body expansion finish the draw."
> 
> Something like that, anyway. I tried it and it kinda works! I'm not sure if it's the physio that he was suggesting or just a subconscious move, but if I watched the clicker and put myself right on the edge, held my half-breath and waited, it certainly does seem like my body naturally expands.


From the compound perspective, I've also tried this and had it work. I just settled in like usual but left out the final "execute button" step in my shot. About 2/3's of the time the shot went off the same way as if I did hit my "execute button" and deliberately initiated my expansion. Without actually knowing the exact mechanism involved, I theorize that I've done my increase-in-tension so many times now it's subconscious enough to even start on its own. Though again it works only at a rate of about 66% the last few times I tried it.

I've given thought to completely converting the final part of my shot into this, but for now I still deliberately hit the "execute button". Maybe after a while I won't even need to do that anymore.

lee.


----------



## tunedlow (Nov 7, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> That would be very instructive. I would love to see a slow motion heat map video of 8 or 10 top shooters just to compare what is going on before, during and after the shot. At least that would give us a place to start. I feel like that information has to be out there somewhere already (maybe in Korea because of the corporate support?). I know Rick and Darrell were hooked up to sensors over 30 years ago to try and analyze the same thing. Not sure what ever came of that information. I don't think I've ever seen the results.


Yeah. I feel that most big universities affiliated with a hospital/lab program would be able to do this. I've seen some of the DARPA funded research working on exoskeletons do something similar to do gait analysis. I would imagine that if someone from UCSD was interested in doing this, Chula Vista isn't that far away to take some measurements of shooters using linear and NTS. The first step would be to get a good sample of people who are proficient in the linear method and NTS to do that comparison.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Without actually knowing the exact mechanism involved, I theorize that I've done my increase-in-tension so many times now it's subconscious enough to even start on its own. Though again it works only at a rate of about 66% the last few times I tried it.


I would agree with this % and you're probably right about having a subconscious expansion as a result of so many reps in the past.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

tunedlow said:


> Yeah. I feel that most big universities affiliated with a hospital/lab program would be able to do this. I've seen some of the DARPA funded research working on exoskeletons do something similar to do gait analysis. I would imagine that if someone from UCSD was interested in doing this, Chula Vista isn't that far away to take some measurements of shooters using linear and NTS. The first step would be to get a good sample of people who are proficient in the linear method and NTS to do that comparison.


One would need to be careful selecting the subjects, for sure. 8-10 archers shooting several different methods who are on top of their game at the world level would be a great baseline but would also be hard to get. I'm not sure some archers (or countries) would even be willing to participate. On the other hand, taking archers who are still working through their training and may or may not be "doing it right" yet, could provide some false positives and be misleading.

There are by now probably millions of hours of instructional video on the golf swing. You can go online and compare your swing fundamentals to any tour player, sometimes for free. But with archery it's a lot harder to see the INTERNAL workings that top players use. And that's really a roadblock to developing unbiased, meaningful instruction IMO.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Why do I get the feeling that as we're discussing this tool, there is a parallel universe somewhere where a small group of elite coaches who already have these tools are looking down and grinning like "this information is reserved only for us select few..." LOL

I almost kind of wish that were the case because at least then we would know it exists. But if it did exist in archery, by now I'm sure someone would have built a business around it, going to tournaments and "heat mapping" individual archers, and selling them a file they can then review on their phone or tablet and compare to a group of top shooters. Every time a sale is made, those top shooters get a %. Heck, if the archer buying the analysis could select which top shooters they want heat maps of, those shooters could get a cut for every sale. I would think that Brady's heat map and a few of the Koreans would be bought enough times to finally put some money in their pockets, which would encourage them to participate.

I can imagine the conversation at the kiosk in Vegas already...

Vendor: Hello, can I interest you in a personal heat map analysis today?

Archer: Why yes, and I was wondering if you got Ki Bo Bae's heat map available yet? 

Vendor: Not yet but we should have that available for download by the end of the month.

Archer: Great, can I pay for it in advance? 

Vendor: Sure, you can pay at the same time you pay for your personal analysis if you want. If you decide later you want to add Khatuna or Mackenzie or Casey, just go to our online store and download them there. So, let's get started. Just grab your bow and stand right here. Which venue would you like on the simulator as you shoot? We have Vegas, Lancaster, three outdoor World cup and four Olympic venues to choose from. 



Viola' - there's your business. Helps top archers earn a living and it helps coaches and students at the same time. 

Now where is iArch to get this thing started?


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

limbwalker said:


> Dammit Larry, you just told everyone my secret. LOL
> 
> Actually, that is what happens with me in my "Step 1" when everything is working how it should. A conscious relaxation brought on by complete control of the bow and good alignment result in just enough expansion to break the clicker. I know what it is, and how it feels. I just don't know what is actually happening, or the best way to teach it. I also don't know if it's what we should be teaching to newer shooters, who simply will not be in a position to have complete control of the bow and good alignment.
> 
> One could probably teach this with a string bow or PVC bow or 10# set of limbs to a newer shooter, but we all know how much patience Americans have for that kind of training early in their shooting career.  The only reason I was able to execute that style is because I was coming off a 63# longbow to an Olympic rig that was 15# lighter and drawing and holding even a 48# recurve was a very simple thing at the time.


It's not the relaxation of the limbs alone that is producing the expansion, it is the core tension that will "pump-up" the teres minor muscles. When Brady is holding his breath at full draw the core tension is the natural result to achieve the "floating" - you have a "balloon" that must be anchored (the brain takes care of this). The body sway is not a limb movement, it is a core movement. The core is the most important part from the shooting sequence in NTS because through it the spine aligns the skeleton, limbs and the head and the archer achieves the balance required to send the arrow using a solid platform and through the core you expand and release. 
This is my interpretation of Lee's teachings - very eastern (internal) oriented thinking.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

tunedlow said:


> Yeah. I feel that most big universities affiliated with a hospital/lab program would be able to do this. I've seen some of the DARPA funded research working on exoskeletons do something similar to do gait analysis. I would imagine that if someone from UCSD was interested in doing this, Chula Vista isn't that far away to take some measurements of shooters using linear and NTS. The first step would be to get a good sample of people who are proficient in the linear method and NTS to do that comparison.


..people who are proficient in the linear method (any Korean) and NTS (I'll hook up with Diogenes and we can share travel expenses while on our search)

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I keep wanting to suggest that we could all just test each method ourselves, instead of waiting for the lab.

And, really, if you're like me (first of all, condolences!), once you've gotten a taste of the linear draw done correctly (absurdly easily aligned and balanced), all the other methods you've tried will seem gawd-awful.


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> Agreed. I'd love to see a "heat map" of the muscles as they contract through the shot, and particularly at the last few mm. then following the release. Being able to compare those from archer to archer would really help us understand the commonalities, and differences in various techniques.


This is where my experience does have some relevance. While I have not had experience directly with heat mapping technology, I am somewhat familiar with it and both the time and spatial resolution would not yield useful data in differentiating technique, IMO. I used EMG to pilot this kind of study back in the 1990s and found that the level of activation in muscles, other than the large muscles that are obviously used in the draw, is not great enough to get above the noise with enough data to be useful. Even the larger muscles are not used to the degree they would be in other sports, such as a baseball pitch. The relevant movements in archery are so small, as in the completion of the shot at release that you can hardly find it. The data we go was simply not very informative. There is always a level of muscle activity (tone) and what I saw in the data was more about the relative activity in the muscles that are not used to draw, hold, or finish the shot. This correlated with poorer shooters but there was not much data that was useful in distinguishing average shooters from better shooters nor between drawing styles. When I was asked by the NAA to propose a study for USOC funding on EMG patterns in archers, I declined based on my pilot work. As a member of the committee that approved this kind of thing, I knew that there was not a basis for it and it would never have been accepted. 

The takeaway here is that trying to do this kind of analysis with the limited range of motion, limited muscle activation, and subtle movements that are critical to differentiate average from elite shooters is a rabbit hole and a waste of time. This coming from someone who built two biomechanics labs and consulted on numerous biomechanical, motor control, and motor learning experiments and did a MS thesis on EMG analysis. I love this stuff, but it just did not have much application in archery. Heat mapping I am pretty sure would not be useful either. 

We did learn a little from force platform data, but the conclusions were pretty obvious, that the better shooters tended to not put all of their weight on their heels and were more consistent in distribution and location of forces. Motion analysis of drawing technique did not reveal much useful information, but sight movement tracking showed some promise and if I did any data collection these days it would be on draw length patterns and sight movement. I would also be interested in taking some accelerometer data from risers to look at what happens at the moment of release, and measuring relative force on the fingers at draw. I have the accelerometers but have not had a chance to set them up yet. I have a tab I made with pressure sensitive resistors and did a little pilot work on that but found pretty much what I expected on myself. Rather consistent distribution with most of the force on the middle and lower fingers and less on the top. 

Knowing what I know about sport science technology and archery, there is far more to be gained by affecting how archers THINK about their shooting and how they train mentally and connect their mental training to their physical training. All of the talk about technique is interesting, but how one delivers information and helps athletes change their thinking and training patterns and behaviors is going to have a lot more bang for the buck.


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

Very cool, lcaillo!

I have been tracking about 120 archery research articles and have been working on some new research as well. There is a great deal of descriptive data but not much that would provide a positive input to improving an archers scores. I think that the "killer app" will be something that gives live feedback that archers can work with (like muscle activation, postural sway, and efficient aiming). Otherwise, I can slap down data and studies and talk all day about how top archers shoot, as well as the difference between top archers and novices, but offer relatively little effective input other than the typical coaching we all do. Lots of insight with relatively little real-world traction, or simply validating what coaches already see. LOL, yeah, novices use every single muscle in their body and flail around upon release, while the elite archer smoothly draws with just a couple of strong muscles and holds like a statue.

In any case, in terms of the future of US coaching, my understanding is that NTS came from BEST and was renamed to avoid potential intellectual property issues, so USAA could own NTS. I believe that NTS has major importance in being a structured methodology which can be taught and learned. It provides a shared language that allows us to communicate the shot process, and archers can go from coach to coach and still work together. This, IMHO, is huge. Having said that, the basic shot process is super useful but the details are where it can get a bit overboard. For example, does coiling have to be used to have a great shot and be a champion? Maybe, maybe not. It is something to try, but not worth insisting on or kicking someone out of a program for not doing it. I like to say that NTS is another tool in the toolbox. It is a really good tool, but not the only one or always the best one. As a coach, my job is to help the archer shoot better. I fully expect that I will keep learning and so will the archer. In time, Coach Lee will move on and a new generation of leadership will emerge. NTS will then evolve - the 11 steps will be there, but the details behind them may change a bit.


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

I haven’t seen anyone mention coach Kim’s book. Probably because it’s $150.00. 
It’s THE best book of detailed information on linear shot. For a self taught archer it was the most helpful information I’ve come across. The book is very high quality with regards to paper weight, size, heavy cover etc. so much so that it is overkill imo; it’s simply burying the quality information under a price tag that is reflective of the book weight and physical quality. I’m very confident that if it were an inexpensive, lighter weight book or digital copy and in the under $50 range it would be the best selling recurve archery book available. Find a used copy or buy it new. You won’t regret it. I thought the price tag was ridiculous until I studied the book. I still think the price tag is grossly high but the information was worth it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

There are a lot of good books that haven't been mentioned. Rick's, Al Henderson's, Vittorio's... heck even the pamphlet that Richard Carella provided with the Formaster training aid has a lot of great sports physio information in it (some of the best I've seen actually). I've heard nothing but good things about coach Kim's book as well.

The trouble (for many, other see it as an opportunity) is that it's hard to know who and what to believe, and the sport has a lot of coaches and archers running down rabbit holes at the moment - several of them proclaimed as "absolutes" and some of them even dismissive or critical of other styles as "inefficient" and "prone to physical and mental injury." That is confusing and somewhat dangerous.

I agree with the comments above about USArchery owning NTS and it can and will survive and evolve moving forward. I started this thread wondering out loud what that might look like. 

In a "post-BEST" world, I'd like to see some drawing in of the body of knowledge. I feel coaching methodology has been more scattered in the past 15 years than it has been gathered, if that makes sense. And drawing the most proven conventional wisdom together would best be accomplished by an unbiased non-profit IMO.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

I have never heard of archery form giving a mental injury.


Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

chrstphr said:


> I have never heard of archery form giving a mental injury.
> 
> 
> Chris


Surely you've heard some proclaim that certain techniques lead to target panic and others can cure it? I know I have.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

What I would like to see coming out of this is that the certification manuals become more basic in the sense of giving coaches a better understanding of the different techniques that an archer can use to skin the cat of getting the arrow in the gold. If I was them I would try my damnest to get some of the great archers and coaches in the same room and come up with a system and literature to develop both the grassroot system, i.e. coaching and archer growth. I would hope that the certification books when it comes to technique become more modeled on how Rick wrote his book, i.e. giving folks multiple methods.

Concerning the linear method vs the angular methods of shooting, I once reached out to the late great Coach Hardy Ward for an American archery magazine to see if he would write an article about the linear method of shooting, and what he told me was that no body uses it any more, that it went out about 30 to 40 years ago. He distinguished two drawing motions as pronating drawing motion (angular draw) and a supinating drawing motion (what Koreans do).


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I would hope that the certification books when it comes to technique become more modeled on how Rick wrote his book, i.e. giving folks multiple methods.


Agreed.

I would like to see one instruction book that compares multiple proven methods, without including training plans, mental game, equipment setup, etc. Having said that, it's probably time for a book JUST on selecting, setting up and tuning equipment. After all, how many threads do we see every year with those questions?


----------



## bahboric (Aug 22, 2013)

ryan b. said:


> I haven’t seen anyone mention coach Kim’s book. Probably because it’s $150.00.
> It’s THE best book of detailed information on linear shot. For a self taught archer it was the most helpful information I’ve come across. The book is very high quality with regards to paper weight, size, heavy cover etc. so much so that it is overkill imo; it’s simply burying the quality information under a price tag that is reflective of the book weight and physical quality. I’m very confident that if it were an inexpensive, lighter weight book or digital copy and in the under $50 range it would be the best selling recurve archery book available. Find a used copy or buy it new. You won’t regret it. I thought the price tag was ridiculous until I studied the book. I still think the price tag is grossly high but the information was worth it.


Coach Kim does have an app (for the iPhone/iPad and android) that is only $22.99. It is well-worth it.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

erose said:


> Concerning the linear method vs the angular methods of shooting, I once reached out to the late great Coach Hardy Ward for an American archery magazine to see if he would write an article about the linear method of shooting, and what he told me was that no body uses it any more, that it went out about 30 to 40 years ago. He distinguished two drawing motions as pronating drawing motion (angular draw) and a supinating drawing motion (what Koreans do).


The Korean's studied the US archers in the 60s and 70s and that is how the linear shot came in to being. Nancy Vonderheide, Hardy Ward, John Williams, Barry Wilson to name a few, etc etc 

If you watch Barry Wilson shoot back in 1972, he looks exactly like current Korean archers. 

Chris


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

chrstphr said:


> The Korean's studied the US archers in the 60s and 70s and that is how the linear shot came in to being. Nancy Vonderheide, Hardy Ward, John Williams, Barry Wilson to name a few, etc etc
> 
> If you watch Barry Wilson shoot back in 1972, he looks exactly like current Korean archers.
> 
> Chris


Hardy said that Koreans do not use a linear draw. Again he refers to it as a supinating draw vs a pronating draw, which he referred to what the KSL method uses. Me personally I think it should be referred to as a high angular draw while the KSL is a low angular draw. Why? Because the Korean archer does not draw the string/arrow straight back. When they draw, the bow starts high and is pulled it down at anchor, where the KSL starts left (for right hand shooter) and pulls bow right at anchor. The closest (I think) to a true linear draw are some of the Italians, who when you watch their sights they don't move much during the drawing process. 

But you are right, and Coach Hardy and Skip Trafford affirmed this to me, that the Koreans do shoot a fine tuned "classical" American style. Coach Hardy initially before he went to the Orient to teach archery, would do seminars at the world events in the US; and the Koreans and C. Tiapai would send representatives to these seminars and others to learn as much as they could from American archers, since at that time American archers were the best in the world. And even after Coach Hardy started working for the Chinese Taipai government to create a farm system for archery, the Koreans would come over frequently to train with the archers there. Then you add in all the other American archers that contributed to the knowledge of the Koreans, it shouldn't be referred to as the Korean method at all, but rather the Classical American method.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

erose said:


> Hardy said that Koreans do not use a linear draw. Again he refers to it as a supinating draw vs a pronating draw, which he referred to what the KSL method uses. Me personally I think it should be referred to as a high angular draw while the KSL is a low angular draw. Why? Because the Korean archer does not draw the string/arrow straight back. When they draw, the bow starts high and is pulled it down at anchor, where the KSL starts left (for right hand shooter) and pulls bow right at anchor. The closest (I think) to a true linear draw are some of the Italians, who when you watch their sights they don't move much during the drawing process.
> 
> But you are right, and Coach Hardy and Skip Trafford affirmed this to me, that the Koreans do shoot a fine tuned "classical" American style. Coach Hardy initially before he went to the Orient to teach archery, would do seminars at the world events in the US; and the Koreans and C. Tiapai would send representatives to these seminars and others to learn as much as they could from American archers, since at that time American archers were the best in the world. And even after Coach Hardy started working for the Chinese Taipai government to create a farm system for archery, the Koreans would come over frequently to train with the archers there. Then you add in all the other American archers that contributed to the knowledge of the Koreans, it shouldn't be referred to as the Korean method at all, but rather the Classical American method.


I call it linear because all the draw forces are linear to target. I consider angular draw forces that are off center horizontally of target. I dont consider the vertical plane in my personal description. While there are exceptions like Kim Woojin who dont draw straight back, etc, most of them do draw the string straight back. The entire draw stays in front of their face inline with the arrow. I have some great video showing this. Kim Woojin doesnt use the leverage of the linear shot like most of the rest. He pulls thru setup which is rare there, but still works great. Their bringing the arm down is just using the leverage to draw the bow instead of pulling to draw the bow. 

There is a good deal of variety in the Koreans that shoot the linear, just as there are hybrids of the NTS form being shot. 

But yes, the form came from our archers in the 60s and 70s. I just added a montage of 60s and 70s US archers shooting who originated the linear shot in my seminar. I like your name for the form...Classical American method. 

Chris


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

erose said:


> Hardy said that Koreans do not use a linear draw. Again he refers to it as a *supinating draw vs a pronating draw*, which he referred to what the KSL method uses. Me personally I think it should be referred to as a high angular draw while the KSL is a low angular draw. Why? Because the Korean archer does not draw the string/arrow straight back. When they draw, the bow starts high and is pulled it down at anchor, where the KSL starts left (for right hand shooter) and pulls bow right at anchor. The closest (I think) to a true linear draw are some of the Italians, who when you watch their sights they don't move much during the drawing process.
> 
> But you are right, and Coach Hardy and Skip Trafford affirmed this to me, that the Koreans do shoot a fine tuned "classical" American style. Coach Hardy initially before he went to the Orient to teach archery, would do seminars at the world events in the US; and the Koreans and C. Tiapai would send representatives to these seminars and others to learn as much as they could from American archers, since at that time American archers were the best in the world. And even after Coach Hardy started working for the Chinese Taipai government to create a farm system for archery, the Koreans would come over frequently to train with the archers there. Then you add in all the other American archers that contributed to the knowledge of the Koreans, it shouldn't be referred to as the Korean method at all, but rather the Classical American method.


Is this addressing cupped vs bowed (or flat) wrist?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Still, all these explanations/observations of the exterior and none about the interior...

We've been so fixated on how to stand, how to raise the bow, how to draw the bow, how to hook the string, how to place your hand in the grip, how to anchor...

That's the easy stuff. We can all SEE that. 

The hard stuff is answering the question "THEN WHAT?"


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

erose said:


> Hardy said that Koreans do not use a linear draw. Again he refers to it as a supinating draw vs a pronating draw, which he referred to what the KSL method uses. Me personally I think it should be referred to as a high angular draw while the KSL is a low angular draw. Why? Because the Korean archer does not draw the string/arrow straight back. When they draw, the bow starts high and is pulled it down at anchor, where the KSL starts left (for right hand shooter) and pulls bow right at anchor. The closest (I think) to a true linear draw are some of the Italians, who when you watch their sights they don't move much during the drawing process.


That's my take too. Koreans developed their own traditional archery shooting sequence way before europeans theorized theirs. KSL is teaching an altered way of shooting the bow "western way" (copied in '60s) implementing the knowledge from his own culture. We are looking for visual hints when they are executing based on two very down-to-earth concepts: don't go against your joints natural movement and try to use the gravity in execution. The variety is due to anatomical differences and self-imposed constraints like "sky drawing", but the concepts are followed "a-la-lettre"


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

limbwalker said:


> Still, all these explanations/observations of the exterior and none about the interior...
> 
> We've been so fixated on how to stand, how to raise the bow, how to draw the bow, how to hook the string, how to place your hand in the grip, how to anchor...
> 
> That's the easy stuff. We can all SEE that. The hard stuff is answering the question "THEN WHAT?"


This is something I encountered 10 years ago. Until I've met a high level Sensei willing to explain the difference between what the English version was saying compared with the original version was saying about the technical and mental attitude regarding the execution of a technique. We were all in the grey area and far but FAR away from the truth. Each part of the technique has a very well thought reason to be there, and the entire sequence becomes meaningful just when the physical part and mental part are in sink. And they teach both from a level up.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

If I might jump in here for a little...
There are some good arguments here. One thing we have to remember is our OLYMPIC TEAM is SOLELY supported by people like you and me! The USOC solicits donations from me on a regular basis, and I usually acquiesce by giving them some $. Won’t say how much, but THE OLYMPIC MOVEMENT is paramount to any Olympic Junkie and participant in Olympic Sports. Just to give you an idea of the Olympic Sports that this household plays at...Table Tennis, International Skeet (husband was alternate to the ‘88 USAShooting Oly. Team), International Trap, Archery, Equestrian. SO you can see we have something here....This paragraph is addressing the “FUNDING” issue...the USA is the ONLY country whose government does not “sponsor” the Olympic Team. So get out of your pockets and donate!

NTS is a good system, but as most have stated, it takes a certain physiology to shoot this style. I can take certain parts of it, but cannot do NTS wholey because my almost 60 year old (back when it came 43 year old) body cannot do the magic that goes with it...oh and I am woman hear me roar ;-). NTS SHOT CYCLE is infalable. It gives the steps and then you can run from there! If you are an established archer, who has not started with NTS, and have tried to get it on your form, it is hard. I injured my bow arm when I first learned NTS, trying to get the bow arm set like B.E.S.T. System taught (AC joint injury). Then with NTS variant I have injured my draw shoulder (torn labrum/rotator).

What I would like to see in a coach is someone who can take you where you are and tweak your form to make you the best archer you can be. I found that in a couple of people who have helped me improve on my WA barebow form, BUT I have had to work through my injuries to figure out a way to improve my form. I made the 2019 USAT because both of these men worked with me where I was and what I was capable of doing physically. It’s hard because as I approach my 60th birthday, shoulders start to talk when they are done.

My theory is this, take NTS Shot Cycle and tailor it to your program and to each individual archer. We are not built the same, I can’t shoot like John (Limbwalker), or Casey K., or anyone else, I shoot like the Lizard (those who know who I am . 

My one wish is that you all would stop bashing Coach Lee. His intentions were to bring a uniform system to the states, to build our archery team. If you EVER watched Darrell and Rick shoot...these were the basis for the whole of BEST! Biomechanically Efficient Shooting Technique. I’m lucky, I get to watch DP shoot every once in a while, and he still has the same timing as he did! I even said to Rick, when he was at our first training class at COS-OTC, this is based on you and Darrell, because I KNOW that form, when I see it shot! Darrell was taught by Charlie and Mildred Pierson. 

Here’s another gripe I have too...ALL THE ARCHERY ORGANIZATIONS need to come together and standardize age groups, bow classifications. It is mind boggling the classifications, etc! They have all come together on coaching technique, for the most part! 

So coaching, as I see it, Coach Lee’s Shot Cycle will stick for a long time, but made pliable to each archer’s abilities. I remember him saying, “I don’t care HOW you get to HOLDING but get to HOLDING, and learn how to work the rest of the shot cycle.” I don’t poo-poo anything he has done, because HE HAS GIVEN US A SYSTEM TO WORK WITH, we need the freedom to tweak to each individual. Our JOAD team had a couple of really great guys go to the RA program and they excelled at World Cup with Coach Lee...I cannot deny the system worked for them, but they were strong young men, and we started them on the road to shooting that way.

I am a Level 4NTS coach, who has been coaching with a USA Coach moniker for quite a long time. I respect Coach Lee and the shot cycle he has given us. Back when National Archery Assiciation which is dba as USA Archery now, had a “Nine Steps to the Ten Ring” pamphlet! It was pretty much the same but worded differently.

Enough of my ramblings! Carry on the discussion! DONATE TO THE USOC FOR THE FUNDING OF OUR TEAM USA, OR BETTER YET, DONATE TO USA ARCHERY, AND SEE HOW OUR SPORT GROWS! I would donate with a DESIGNATION, if you can direct how your donation is spent, instead of a general fund...Just a thought!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> NTS is a good system,


I keep hearing this, but our women's program was but one match away from going 0 for 3 on fielding full teams since NTS arrived. That's not a "good" record.



> My one wish is that you all would stop bashing Coach Lee


Pointing out facts is not bashing, Liz. Facts are facts. He brought to the US a complicated method that a certain small % of U.S. archers can use effectively and a few have used to reach world class scores. By my count, that's about 4-5 men and 1 woman in 13 years. In the meantime, nearly as many archers (and more women) have achieved similar success without his method. Those are just facts. Not opinions and not "bashing."

Personally, I think the communication barrier was just too much for him to overcome to be as successful as he could have been. I was on the team of four original JDT coaches and traveled as his asst. in 2007, so I can say this with some experience.


----------



## teebat (Oct 28, 2013)

lizard said:


> If I might jump in here for a little...
> There are some good arguments here. One thing we have to remember is our OLYMPIC TEAM is SOLELY supported by people like you and me! The USOC solicits donations from me on a regular basis, and I usually acquiesce by giving them some $. Won’t say how much, but THE OLYMPIC MOVEMENT is paramount to any Olympic Junkie and participant in Olympic Sports. Just to give you an idea of the Olympic Sports that this household plays at...Table Tennis, International Skeet (husband was alternate to the ‘88 USAShooting Oly. Team), International Trap, Archery, Equestrian. SO you can see we have something here....This paragraph is addressing the “FUNDING” issue...the USA is the ONLY country whose government does not “sponsor” the Olympic Team. So get out of your pockets and donate!
> 
> NTS is a good system, but as most have stated, it takes a certain physiology to shoot this style. I can take certain parts of it, but cannot do NTS wholey because my almost 60 year old (back when it came 43 year old) body cannot do the magic that goes with it...oh and I am woman hear me roar ;-). NTS SHOT CYCLE is infalable. It gives the steps and then you can run from there! If you are an established archer, who has not started with NTS, and have tried to get it on your form, it is hard. I injured my bow arm when I first learned NTS, trying to get the bow arm set like B.E.S.T. System taught (AC joint injury). Then with NTS variant I have injured my draw shoulder (torn labrum/rotator).
> ...


"NTS SHOT CYCLE is infalable " , sorry but this is simply not true. 

Sent from my VS835 using Tapatalk


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

erose said:


> Hardy said that Koreans do not use a linear draw. Again he refers to it as a supinating draw vs a pronating draw, which he referred to what the KSL method uses. Me personally I think it should be referred to as a high angular draw while the KSL is a low angular draw. Why? Because the Korean archer does not draw the string/arrow straight back. When they draw, the bow starts high and is pulled it down at anchor, where the KSL starts left (for right hand shooter) and pulls bow right at anchor. The closest (I think) to a true linear draw are some of the Italians, who when you watch their sights they don't move much during the drawing process.
> 
> But you are right, and Coach Hardy and Skip Trafford affirmed this to me, that the Koreans do shoot a fine tuned "classical" American style. Coach Hardy initially before he went to the Orient to teach archery, would do seminars at the world events in the US; and the Koreans and C. Tiapai would send representatives to these seminars and others to learn as much as they could from American archers, since at that time American archers were the best in the world. And even after Coach Hardy started working for the Chinese Taipai government to create a farm system for archery, the Koreans would come over frequently to train with the archers there. Then you add in all the other American archers that contributed to the knowledge of the Koreans, it shouldn't be referred to as the Korean method at all, but rather the Classical American method.


If viewed from the bird's eye view (top view), Korean is classic linear (in line from side to side), vs angular (lots of side to side angle). They're - at the beginning of their shot process - getting their drawing arm in line with the arrow from elbow through arrow tip, and releasing their drawing shoulder to get in line with their bow shoulder/arm to more easily have their correct back muscles be and stay the primary drawing and holding muscles. Am I wrong in this view?

Hard to see how Michele Frangilli is linear draw. His arm dodges out and around his draw hand, and his bow arm bends and shortens, then straightens again. Maybe he's the anomaly - or may I need to study him some more; been awhile since I watched him shoot.


----------



## phallenthoul (Aug 21, 2016)

lksseven said:


> Hard to see how Michele Frangilli is linear draw. His arm dodges out and around his draw hand, and his bow arm bends and shortens, then straightens again. Maybe he's the anomaly - or may I need to study him some more; been awhile since I watched him shoot.


he needs to get the thumb behind the neck muscle with linear draw, so he has to tilt back the head, move draw hand thumb to back of neck meanwhile bend elbow to keep arrow behind clicker, and then anchor and push bowarm back straight..
Patrick Huston and Alex Wise use the same anchor but their draw technique looks much more efficient and cleaner


----------



## GoldArcher403 (Jun 25, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> I keep hearing this, but our women's program was but one match away from going 0 for 3 on fielding full teams since NTS arrived. That's not a "good" record.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I still disagree. NTS has created a larger pool of young archers shooting higher scores than other methods in the past. Youre discounting talented kids like Jack Williams, Alex Bourdage, Trenton Cowels, Megan Tan, and Lanola Shepherd who are or at one point where were shooting at the world level using NTS or at least their own spin of it. Heck, right now Jack is leading the Pan Am trials down in AZ with a scorching 687 on his first day. Trenton steamrolled his way through the Youth Olympics in both the qualifications and eliminations and took gold. Lanola was shooting very well herself shooting in the world cup circuit and even took a few medals until life changes warranted her moving back home and taking time away from shooting. Its these talented kids that I think will be the next archery giants and will be setting all the records in the near future. I think from our perspective, its easy to be myopic and only observe the "celebrity" archers at the top and deduce that NTS must not be a successful system because Brady and Mackenzie arent winning every single title, but for me, I see some of these kids dominating cadet and jr who are coming up and I see how they've really benefited from the NTS fruit now that it has had time to fully ripen. I believe in its infancy, NTS was a convoluted system that didnt work for many but I believe now that it is more refined, its working great for many. Just look at the scores in the younger divisions over the years and you will see that. Cadets and juniors have been shooting scores since NTS took over that were previously unthinkable. If there were any archers in the cadet and junior divisions that were capable of shooting 680+ prior to coach lee, I'd love to know who. I think the low stats you see with NTS over the years are more from archers who were already established at the top using a different method who tried to transition and it threw them off. I believe these kids who have shot it since day one are going to change that.


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

lksseven said:


> If viewed from the bird's eye view (top view), Korean is classic linear (in line from side to side), vs angular (lots of side to side angle). They're - at the beginning of their shot process - getting their drawing arm in line with the arrow from elbow through arrow tip, and releasing their drawing shoulder to get in line with their bow shoulder/arm to more easily have their correct back muscles be and stay the primary drawing and holding muscles. Am I wrong in this view?.


No, you just think 2D. The joints are working in 3D. More bow hand "aligned" with the target, higher the drawing motion starts - to get the most efficiency from the joints. This will make the "arrow plane" to come very close to the body giving that impression of "linear". But in reality they draw using the same principles used by NTS pointing toward efficiency, not "visual impression".


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

rjbishop said:


> I still disagree. NTS has created a larger pool of young archers shooting higher scores than other methods in the past. Youre discounting talented kids like Jack Williams, Alex Bourdage, Trenton Cowels, Megan Tan, and Lanola Shepherd who are or at one point where were shooting at the world level using NTS or at least their own spin of it. Heck, right now Jack is leading the Pan Am trials down in AZ with a scorching 687 on his first day. Trenton steamrolled his way through the Youth Olympics in both the qualifications and eliminations and took gold. Lanola was shooting very well herself shooting in the world cup circuit and even took a few medals until life changes warranted her moving back home and taking time away from shooting. Its these talented kids that I think will be the next archery giants and will be setting all the records in the near future. I think from our perspective, its easy to be myopic and only observe the "celebrity" archers at the top and deduce that NTS must not be a successful system because Brady and Mackenzie arent winning every single title, but for me, I see some of these kids dominating cadet and jr who are coming up and I see how they've really benefited from the NTS fruit now that it has had time to fully ripen. I believe in its infancy, NTS was a convoluted system that didnt work for many but I believe now that it is more refined, its working great for many. Just look at the scores in the younger divisions over the years and you will see that. Cadets and juniors have been shooting scores since NTS took over that were previously unthinkable. If there were any archers in the cadet and junior divisions that were capable of shooting 680+ prior to coach lee, I'd love to know who. I think the low stats you see with NTS over the years are more from archers who were already established at the top using a different method who tried to transition and it threw them off. I believe these kids who have shot it since day one are going to change that.


 Megan Tan tried NTS for a while that is true and shot a trial at the OTC using NTS. Then she went to HSS and learned the linear shot completely changing her form and the way she shot. When she became an RA , that is the form she was shooting. Her current form as an RA is based on the linear shot, not NTS. 

Unless Coach Woo has changed her from linear to NTS in the past few months. 

Chris


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Draven Olary said:


> But in reality they draw using the same principles used by NTS pointing toward efficiency, not "visual impression".


Interesting, I do not see how the principles are remotely the same. 

how is that so when NTS has the draw elbow completely to the side and the wrist bent? And then pulls to the side in an angular line from target using the rear shoulder as a pivot point.

The NTS draw can not be called linear in regards to the target or to the body. Angular is the correct terminology. And the classical american method is not angular or drawing outside. 

Chris


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Draven Olary said:


> don't go against your joints natural movement and try to use the gravity in execution.


I couldnt have said it better.


Chris


----------



## GoldArcher403 (Jun 25, 2014)

chrstphr said:


> Megan Tan tried NTS for a while that is true and shot a trial at the OTC using NTS. Then she went to HSS and learned the linear shot completely changing her form and the way she shot. When she became an RA , that is the form she was shooting. Her current form as an RA is based on the linear shot, not NTS.
> 
> Unless Coach Woo has changed her from linear to NTS in the past few months.
> 
> Chris


I'm only vaguely acquainted with her after seeing her at some tournaments and at the time she was NTS so hence my use of her as an example. I'm just saying, she didnt shoot BAD under NTS.


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

chrstphr said:


> Interesting, I do not see how the principles are remotely the same.
> 
> how is that so when NTS has the draw elbow completely to the side and the wrist bent? And then pulls to the side in an angular line from target using the rear shoulder as a pivot point.
> 
> ...


I will try to explain how I see NTS starting from the beginning, maybe I am seeing something that is not there:

The feet position is an indication that the hips are not perpendicular on the target. Staying more on the balls of the feet than on the heels combined with the hips pushed forward is an indication that the archer is "blocking" the most important joints in the body to ensure the balance and stability - using the gravity. The hips forward are moving the spine in a specific position. Through it the skeleton is following. When hips are not perpendicular on the target, the shoulders are not perpendicular on the target either. The natural movement of the shoulders will raise the bow following a position that is at an angle toward the target if someone would look from above. The bent wrist is just one of the subtle things the archer is doing to achieve the natural upward movement of the shoulders. The bent wrist is not going against the way the joint is moving naturally. When the bow is up above the target, the archer using the gravity is doing two things: drawing the bow using the most natural movement of the string hand elbow joint and is slightly rotating the hips to get in line with the target. From here the archer is using respiration and core muscles to shoot the arrow. The shoulder and the hand movement when the arrow left the bow is an indication the archer used the right muscles to go thought the clicker and release, it is not an indication regarding what the archer needs to use. 
Based on above I see the same 2 principles used by korean archers. If I am wrong, my bad.


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

Chris and I had a very interesting hour long call where he presented his ideas and we compared what we think about archery technique. We tend to agree on the basic principles, and where we seem to have differed most is in terminology. body movements

Chris pleads ignorance of the anatomy and biomechanics, but what I found was support for my long standing belief. That is that coaches and athletes who develop and promote shooting with least effort and least stress on the body inherently understand the basic principles. They (and he in this case) may lack the anatomical knowledge and the terminology of body movements, but they get the basic principle of getting what you can from mechanical advantage of the skeletal alignment with least effort from muscles.

As it turns out, much of what he teaches is very much aligned with what I have concluded, but he presents it in a simple and convincing manner. My only criticism is that he needs to spend less time criticizing others and more on using examples of archers that demonstrate the technique and focus on the essentials. I will leave the details for him to present as he wishes.

Again, if we develop a common language around anatomically correct terminology, we would go a long way toward converging on the ideas that work.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Draven Olary said:


> No, you just think 2D. The joints are working in 3D. More bow hand "aligned" with the target, higher the drawing motion starts - to get the most efficiency from the joints. This will make the "arrow plane" to come very close to the body giving that impression of "linear". But in reality they draw using the same principles used by NTS pointing toward efficiency, not "visual impression".


From high flying birds eye view, this road looks linear/straight. It's the relevant essence of the discussion - are you drawing "in line" or are you drawing "outside the line and then trying to get back in-line"? That the body moves in multiple planes and arcs is an irrelevant given to what we're talking about. To the specific point, I take Chris to be describing the current Korean method of drawing. If it makes the discussion more fluid, I'm happy to substitute "Korean" for "linear" 








The trail of the Linear draw describes a basic straight-back-through-the-body-draw with skeleton and forces balanced and aligned. It aspires to a linear line. 
The trail of NTS draws outside a natural force balance line, then comes back in - not anything like the skeletal alignment and almost effortless force balance in a proper "Korean" draw.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

lcaillo said:


> My only criticism is that he needs to spend less time criticizing others and more on using examples of archers that demonstrate the technique and focus on the essentials.


 To be fair, Icallo asked me specifically in the thread to explain to him the differences between NTS and the linear shot, so i addressed that first in our video call. That is referenced in the below quote. 




lcaillo said:


> Please explain, Chris. What constitutes a linear draw vs angular and what makes you so certain that any hybrid is going to produce injuries? I think there is much merit in your ideas, but when you make such statements without really explaining the criteria for your descriptions and logic behind the conclusions (like "will injure you. Period.") you start to lose me. Lots of people actually shot with some hybrid of NTS and other methods, but I don't think that in itself is what causes injury. Now when you get an inefficient movement combined with excessive draw weight and excessive practice reps, I can see that being a problem.
> I would really like to understand the biomechanical justification for some of the claims that are made.




Nothing NTS is included or involved in my seminar. Nor is Coach Lee or anything NTS referenced.

I have no desire to teach any part of NTS or spend time on it in my seminar. As it is i cant include all of the linear shot in a one hour seminar. 

My seminar is only Linear and getting archers inline easily. This is where i feel the future of US coaching is headed. 


Chris


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

rjbishop said:


> I still disagree. NTS has created a larger pool of young archers shooting higher scores than other methods in the past. Youre discounting talented kids like Jack Williams, Alex Bourdage, Trenton Cowels, Megan Tan, and Lanola Shepherd who are or at one point where were shooting at the world level using NTS or at least their own spin of it. Heck, right now Jack is leading the Pan Am trials down in AZ with a scorching 687 on his first day. Trenton steamrolled his way through the Youth Olympics in both the qualifications and eliminations and took gold. Lanola was shooting very well herself shooting in the world cup circuit and even took a few medals until life changes warranted her moving back home and taking time away from shooting. Its these talented kids that I think will be the next archery giants and will be setting all the records in the near future. I think from our perspective, its easy to be myopic and only observe the "celebrity" archers at the top and deduce that NTS must not be a successful system because Brady and Mackenzie arent winning every single title, but for me, I see some of these kids dominating cadet and jr who are coming up and I see how they've really benefited from the NTS fruit now that it has had time to fully ripen. I believe in its infancy, NTS was a convoluted system that didnt work for many but I believe now that it is more refined, its working great for many. Just look at the scores in the younger divisions over the years and you will see that. Cadets and juniors have been shooting scores since NTS took over that were previously unthinkable. If there were any archers in the cadet and junior divisions that were capable of shooting 680+ prior to coach lee, I'd love to know who. I think the low stats you see with NTS over the years are more from archers who were already established at the top using a different method who tried to transition and it threw them off. I believe these kids who have shot it since day one are going to change that.


Not trying to be a pr*ck, but do I take this on faith, or has someone done a comparison investigation? Would love to be able to get schooled up on stats like this.

Well, ok. But three young women in those Trials ongoing - Casey, Inga, and Brianna - Casey and Inga don't shoot NTS, and Brianna I don't know one way or the other (does someone here know?). And Mackenzie seems to be slumping from relevance (14th in Trials ranking round) the last few months .... harder to maintain NTS methodology longterm (higher physical demands?)? Or just other things not relevant to this discussion? 

Is there anyway to pull up scores at national outdoor or indoor results, and discern who is shooting NTS or who isn't? Is anyone keeping stats like this on a website somewhere. Would love to see that, too. It would be pretty easy for USA Archery to start compiling that, as just a line item on the registration form of tournaments ("what shooting method do you currently employ - NTS, Linear, Icelandic, Whooping Crane, ??")



But the point is, that Jack or Lanola or ??? is shooting high scores with an NTS method doesn't 'prove' the chops of NTS. It could just as easily be interpreted that these are examples of archers who are so talented and motivated that even NTS method can't hold them back. Not exactly saying that's what I'm saying, just that specific examples don't logically or necessarily, by themselves, suggest the bigger picture.

And the nagging question for me is "if NTS is so great, and here comes the avalanche of American NTS domination worldwide, where are the imitators and the band wagon jump-ons? Where are the other archers around the world clammering to get onto the 'better way'? 

Again, I'm just a guy with some - but limited - information and observation and time to puzzle on the common sense of the styles from a logical filter, the trying of each style as a personal filter, and a look around at who's doing what as an anecdotal filter.


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

chrstphr said:


> I have never heard of archery form giving a mental injury.
> 
> 
> Chris


I think you have. It is shown right here in this very thread


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

chrstphr said:


> My seminar is only Linear and getting archers inline easily. This is where i feel the future of US coaching is headed.
> 
> 
> Chris


I think this is the best attitude. Nothing is worst than teaching a system in which it comes a point when the Coaches are asking themselves “Then what?”


----------



## waxyjaywalker (Apr 10, 2013)

Ya know, i wonder if there's a thread on a Korean archery forum somewhere out there where archers discuss schools of thought and the history of their development. There's gotta be high scoring enthusiasts in Korea too. Or European forums. The whole NTS thing is so... American. I wonder where the conversation in say, Italy, is headed with regards to form.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

rjbishop said:


> I still disagree. NTS has created a larger pool of young archers shooting higher scores than other methods in the past. Youre discounting talented kids like Jack Williams, Alex Bourdage, Trenton Cowels, Megan Tan, and Lanola Shepherd who are or at one point where were shooting at the world level using NTS or at least their own spin of it. Heck, right now Jack is leading the Pan Am trials down in AZ with a scorching 687 on his first day. Trenton steamrolled his way through the Youth Olympics in both the qualifications and eliminations and took gold. Lanola was shooting very well herself shooting in the world cup circuit and even took a few medals until life changes warranted her moving back home and taking time away from shooting. Its these talented kids that I think will be the next archery giants and will be setting all the records in the near future. I think from our perspective, its easy to be myopic and only observe the "celebrity" archers at the top and deduce that NTS must not be a successful system because Brady and Mackenzie arent winning every single title, but for me, I see some of these kids dominating cadet and jr who are coming up and I see how they've really benefited from the NTS fruit now that it has had time to fully ripen. I believe in its infancy, NTS was a convoluted system that didnt work for many but I believe now that it is more refined, its working great for many. Just look at the scores in the younger divisions over the years and you will see that. Cadets and juniors have been shooting scores since NTS took over that were previously unthinkable. If there were any archers in the cadet and junior divisions that were capable of shooting 680+ prior to coach lee, I'd love to know who. I think the low stats you see with NTS over the years are more from archers who were already established at the top using a different method who tried to transition and it threw them off. I believe these kids who have shot it since day one are going to change that.


You can disagree all you want, but your examples only prove my point.

I've said from day 1 that strong young men can make Lee's technique work.

If you want to use Lanola as an example, then let's talk about all the injuries she's been dealing with, and what the sports med folks at the OTC told me about them. 

I don't make these statements without a good deal of data and 1st hand information.

Finally, if most of the top young talent in the US were systematically herded into a single form, guess what form would look best on paper?


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

limbwalker said:


> I've said from day 1 that strong young men can make Lee's technique work.


Interesting. KSL said the most important thing for an archer is his capacity to think. 
KSL failed to teach a way of thinking if a Coach looks back to the System and all he sees is “big muscles can make it work”.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> I keep hearing this, but our women's program was but one match away from going 0 for 3 on fielding full teams since NTS arrived. That's not a "good" record.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yep, remember the "Gun barrel bit". I asked Don Rabska what that meant and Rabska laughed-he said Lee doesn't know guns-and you do, so his analogy fails but when he explained what was "the power triangle" it made sense. Lee's "gun barrel didn't but then again, I suppose Lee was used to speaking to people who have zero firearms experience, not someone closing in on a million rounds of practice.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Draven Olary said:


> Interesting. KSL said the most important thing for an archer is his capacity to think.
> KSL failed to teach a way of thinking if a Coach looks back to the System and all he sees is “big muscles can make it work”.


I just look at data. I'm a scientist. Opinions and fancy books and products don't convince me.


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

chrstphr said:


> To be fair, Icallo asked me specifically in the thread to explain to him the differences between NTS and the linear shot, so i addressed that first in our video call. That is referenced in the below quote.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, Chris structured what he presented to me to answer my questions relative to his responses to my questions re: NTS that were posed here. Cudos to him for doing exactly what was asked of him. 

My point with respect to NTS is that overall I believe it to be a useful system, but mostly flawed in terms of its inconsistency in delivery and complexity. Some of the specific applications of NTS and the KSL methods are inconsistent and very confusing. Chris, in responding to questions relative to NTS may have given the impression of being anti-NTS to a degree that is unfai to his perspective. After getting into detail of his perpective and what he intends, I believe that he could really care less about pitting his system of teaching against NTS until it does damage to the students that he has tried to help. 

Correct me if I am wrong, Chris, but that is what I took away from our discussion. You appear to be primarily interested in delivering effective coacihing and your purpose is not to demean NTS and KSL. You just have something to deliver that seems to be much more intuitive, effective, and efficient.

After clarifying our views, it is clear to me that my conclusions about shooting form are closer to the Linear perspective that Chris promotes than to the KSL methods. But there remain may ways to skin a cat. for anyone that NTS works for, I say go that direction. Form most, however, I suspect that Chris' way of teaching form may be more digestible and more effective.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

Draven Olary said:


> Interesting. KSL said the most important thing for an archer is his capacity to think.
> KSL failed to teach a way of thinking if a Coach looks back to the System and all he sees is “big muscles can make it work”.


Are you sure it was KSL who said an archer must be a good thinker? The statement I best remember from KSL is that he wanted to coach USA Christian archers because it is necessary to KSL to shoot with an empty mind and US Christians are the best at having an empty mind. I'm not getting smart here. That's what KSL said.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Yes lcallo, you are correct. I could care less that someone shoots NTS. 

I do not like my students injured by its elements, or it being forced on them.

Chris


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

limbwalker said:


> Draven Olary said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting. KSL said the most important thing for an archer is his capacity to think.
> ...


With all the respect, you are not a scientist if you kept your “beginner” opinions. Raw data? According to KSL someone can’t get through clicker correctly without breathing correctly. Expansion in the raw physical explanation is push in all directions, aka push-push. Not push-pull. Having just one person understanding this - Brady Ellison - is the measure of the lack of making himself understood. The question still remains though. If one understood why not the others? But it is rhetorical, no answer needed.


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

TER said:


> Draven Olary said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting. KSL said the most important thing for an archer is his capacity to think.
> ...


Yes. It’s a quality that pushes the archer to have a mindful practice. 

https://youtu.be/HGe_bQ85w9I

First 25 seconds should clear the doubts, and kill the rumours about “empty mind”


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

TER said:


> Are you sure it was KSL who said an archer must be a good thinker? The statement I best remember from KSL is that he wanted to coach USA Christian archers because it is necessary to KSL to shoot with an empty mind and US Christians are the best at having an empty mind. I'm not getting smart here. That's what KSL said.


You and I are remembering this the same way. He has said this in a variety of ways over the years. Those of us who worked with him when he first arrived were told people were "like fish... can only focus for 3 seconds..." 

I would agree however that all the top archers are also very good, practical thinkers who have one thing in common - the ability to learn quickly and predict outcomes. They don't waste much time on the learning curve. But this is part of being a logical person with good "archery sense."


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Draven Olary said:


> With all the respect, you are not a scientist if you kept your “beginner” opinions.


Just checked. My degree still says otherwise. 

Well, I'm sorry this thread has once again gotten off course. A few folks seem obsessed with KSL and I'm interested in what the future may hold for instruction in the U.S. 

Good to know Canada already has their expert. Must have something to do with all of Crispin's success.


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

There is one common aspect of the mechanics of drawing that is so fundamental yet so misunderstood and that is the movement of the scapulae. What KSL describes about it and what actually happens in a linear draw are not really different. I don't see much on his current description of steps on his web site that describes what is being called an angular draw. What was taught to me by a NTS coach that amounted to an outside the line draw was that the purpose was to get the scapula in the draw side retracted to get in line so that the shot could be completed with downward rotation of the scapula. Regardless of how you get there, I believe the key idea is that expansion can only occur with a slight scapular depression (or downward rotation). The linear draw finishes this way, as does KSL's description as currently published. One can pull through with the deltoid or one can rotate the scapula to expand in either system. I think the goal of both is the scapular movement. If not, it should be.

Breathing, blood pressure, or any other presumed cause for expansion is a distraction from the basic mechanics of the system. If you are going to move the shoulders apart you can only do so with movement in the scapulae. In my mind, understanding those movements are key to any system.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

(sigh) I guess we just aren't going to get off this obsession with linear vs angular draw. 


Moving on...


----------

