# Learning curve for "elite" archers...



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

While we're on the topic of how to define an "elite" archer, something I've often thought about was the difference in learning curve for elites vs. most archers.

It's been my experience that most top level archers were very quick studies who seperated themselves quickly from the other archers with a similar level of experience.

In other words, raw natural talent is a major difference-maker.

This is where I differ from the oft-heard statement that hard work is what seperates the best from the rest. Many times, amatuers are actually out-working the elites. 

John


----------



## fader (May 17, 2010)

Amateurs are digging deep to mine every little nugget of talent. Elites have an endless supply of it. It's a sobering realization for anyone shooting 150 arrows a day to break 300 at 70m and hoping to take Brady's spot on the Olympic team.


----------



## dmassphoto (Feb 8, 2010)

It seems like in just about every sport there's a 70/30 split between raw talent/hard work. 

It seems the mechanics of shooting the bow are easily learned. Humans have been mastering it since before the wheel was invented, after all. I'm learning it's the mental aspects that separates.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

I see it as a two-pronged answer. Yes, the 'elites' are born with more talent, but nobody gets to be the 'best they can be' without similar amounts of hard work, whether that 'best' - given that individual's natural talent ability/capacity - is a 1400 or an 1150. To ascribe Brady's scoring or Oh's scoring, or Park's scoring, or Pace's scoring (not that this is what _you_ personally are doing) to 'natural talent' is to rob them of the tenacity/discipline/sacrifice/effort/WORK that they doubtless invested.

Michael Jordan wasn't the greatest - in the minds of many - because he 'merely had more talent than anyone else' (although he may have, indeed, had more talent), but rather because he had a lot of natural ability (obviously) AND because he worked _at least as hard_ as anyone else (from what I've read, he worked _harder than anyone_ - not only on his 'game', but on his conditioning, too, so that he'd still be at his best late in the game, after other's were fading - indeed, some of his late game heroics can be attributed as much to his conditioning as to his talent) to maximize his natural ability.

An example closer to home - as insufferable as he can sometimes be here - >..gt..> is the 'best announcer/commentator around' not just because he's got a great natural voice, or just because he 'knows' somebody, but because he's obviously worked very hard at it. He was given a great voice, but he _became_ a great announcer through his effort and hard work. These things are always the same in every field.

God assigns a different ceiling to every archer. Whether you get there or not is up to you.

IMO, anyway.


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

Look at Korean archery.......every adult (or almost) can shoot 1300 fita, they have few hundreds of them.....not because they have so many naturaly talented archers, but because they working hard....very very hard. Of course they have system its let them train hard, but my point is: hard work and dedication (not only shooting arrows) is major difference, but as always there will be exceptions IMHO.


----------



## gma (Aug 22, 2012)

I've always said:
"He who <insert competitive activity of choice here> most, wins."

This holds true for the vast majority of "enthusiasts." People occasionally blaze onto the scene and display seemingly exceptional talent. On further investigation, they are usually training more or smarter than you are - often without realizing their routine is "exceptional" compared to others.

And then there is the small group that John mentions. You will usually find that they are also training smarter and perhaps more than you are, but have some inherent physical, mental, and emotional talent. These are those with "pro" potential. No amount of effort will allow us mere mortals to match them.


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

gma said:


> I've always said:
> "He who <insert competitive activity of choice here> most, wins."
> 
> This holds true for the vast majority of "enthusiasts." People occasionally blaze onto the scene and display seemingly exceptional talent. On further investigation, they are usually training more or smarter than you are - often without realizing their routine is "exceptional" compared to others.
> ...


I always find interesting why people divide their sport to: us (mere mortals) and them (elite).....if you realy think like that, then it will become true for you....

I have been in that "elite" group in different sport and i can assure you no one from that "elite" group thinking like that.....I always think I'm where I'm because the way I work ......and if I'm not where I want to be lets have a look what I can do fo it......

yes you need some "talent", but main thing is hard work IMHO


----------



## gma (Aug 22, 2012)

True, hard work and dedication goes a long way. But when we're talking the top of the top, everyone is working hard and smart. What makes the difference then? It comes down to natural "talent" - physical and mental differences that align with the activity. For things like cycling and rowing it's V02 max - which doctors will tell you doesn't respond much to training - you're born with it. For inline and speed skating skating there are physical characteristics - somewhat shorter stature with low center of gravity - that give a distinct advantage. For basketball - well, that's obvious. And no amount of training will change these things.

So what is the "V02 max" equivalent for archery? Eye sight? Inherently "quiet/steady" muscles? Exceptional proprioception? Unusual ability to quiet and focus the mind?


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

Yes there are very physical sports, where you need the basic ability (but again there are exceptions as short basketball players), but thats not apply to archery.....lucky for everyone


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

gma said:


> True, hard work and dedication goes a long way. But when we're talking the top of the top, everyone is working hard and smart. What makes the difference then? It comes down to natural "talent" - physical and mental differences that align with the activity. For things like cycling and rowing it's V02 max - which doctors will tell you doesn't respond much to training - you're born with it. For inline and speed skating skating there are physical characteristics - somewhat shorter stature with low center of gravity - that give a distinct advantage. For basketball - well, that's obvious. And no amount of training will change these things.
> 
> So what is the "V02 max" equivalent for archery? Eye sight? Inherently "quiet/steady" muscles? Exceptional proprioception? Unusual ability to quiet and focus the mind?


getting to the heart of my question, I think.

As a coach of quite a diverse array of archers over the years (from those who have never touched a bow, to world championship and USAT-caliber archers and from ages 3 to 83) there is no question that it's easy to spot talent with some experience. And I mean at any age too. So, that's why I ask the question. Because within just a few shots I can pretty well tell you how much potential that student will have in this sport. It's quite amazing to me how some people who have never even touched a bow before, can often - with very limited instruction - outshoot much more experienced archers. 

Things like simple coordination, balance, ability to get in line and use their back, control their release, control their focus, understand the equipment and the technique, etc. are usually things a student brings with them. Not things they have to learn.

John


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

"Talent" may mean physical make up as well. A person that has the proportions that allow very easy "full alignment" (longer forearms and shorter upper arms, narrow shoulders) "MAY" have some mechanical advantage. A shorter stockier athlete may have better balance just because they have a lower center of gravity. 

This being said, they still need the drive and dedication to reach their full potential. Sometimes because it's "easier" these "natural" athletes may not strive as hard and are often surpassed by another athlete that puts the extra effort in to overcome other shortfalls.

DC


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> getting to the heart of my question, I think.
> 
> As a coach of quite a diverse array of archers over the years (from those who have never touched a bow, to world championship and USAT-caliber archers and from ages 3 to 83) there is no question that it's easy to spot talent with some experience. And I mean at any age too. So, that's why I ask the question. Because within just a few shots I can pretty well tell you how much potential that student will have in this sport. It's quite amazing to me how some people who have never even touched a bow before, can often - with very limited instruction - outshoot much more experienced archers.
> 
> ...


This is true in many sports. In skiing (something I also instruct/teach/coach), It only takes 2-3 turns to get a very good "read" on an athlete. Sometimes for first time skiers we can tell just by the way they walk towards us, if there are going to be issues to overcome.


----------



## nuts&bolts (Mar 25, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> getting to the heart of my question, I think.
> 
> As a coach of quite a diverse array of archers over the years (from those who have never touched a bow, to world championship and USAT-caliber archers and from ages 3 to 83) there is no question that it's easy to spot talent with some experience. And I mean at any age too. So, that's why I ask the question. Because within just a few shots I can pretty well tell you how much potential that student will have in this sport. It's quite amazing to me how some people who have never even touched a bow before, can often - with very limited instruction - outshoot much more experienced archers.
> 
> ...


I agree 100%.

Lots of middle school (12 years old) and high school recurvers where I shoot.
99% are girls.

A few (1 or 2) have amazing maturity, and mental focus.
These two seem to also have an abundance of propioception, physical coordination and an innate ability to take instruction,
and immediately execute the adjustment.

The 12 year old, in particular, is advancing very rapidly.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> This being said, they still need the drive and dedication to reach their full potential. Sometimes because it's "easier" these "natural" athletes may not strive as hard and are often surpassed by another athlete that puts the extra effort in to overcome other shortfalls.


Certainly. It's just that each person's _*potential*_ is different. And we sometimes do students in injustice if we aren't honest about this. What made me think of this is a recently published book on archery where the claim was made that hard work was what seperated the top archers from the others. I think this is not completely true, and that those learning the sport and aspiring to do well need to also be realistic about goal setting based on the physical skills they bring to the table.

How many times has it been said about a champion archer, JOAD Olympian, or other role model that "this is what you can accomplish with hard work and dedication..." Completely leaving out the fact that that person has a particular skill set or aptitude for the activity (be it archery, acting or research) that is not shared by all others. 

It's a bit of a half-truth if you ask me.

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Certainly. It's just that each person's _*potential*_ is different. And we sometimes do students in injustice if we aren't honest about this.


That is a dilemma in sports in general, isn't it? In any competitive sport only a few people in the state, or the country, or the world will win those top competitions. The rest will all be losers in the competitive sense. To what degree is it ethical to encourage kids to work hard to compete when you know that the majority will lose? I think there is value in competing, mind you, but it is the case mathematically that the vast majority of archers cannot win. So, how much do we owe students full and uncompromising support, and how much do we owe them cautionary feedback? I'm merely an instructor not a coach, so I don't have to worry about this much directly, but it is something I'm interested in.

I'd also add that I've heard (though not researched) that kids are more successful when they are praised for their hard work rather than their talent. I think that is a general childhood development thing rather than sports specific, but I'm wondering if it doesn't also apply to archery?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

dchan said:


> This is true in many sports. In skiing (something I also instruct/teach/coach), It only takes 2-3 turns to get a very good "read" on an athlete. Sometimes for first time skiers we can tell just by the way they walk towards us, if there are going to be issues to overcome.


Yes, sometimes raw ability is easy to spot. I also teach stage combat and some people just get it, the movement, the timing, the martial aspect and the acting. But what is really frustrating is seeing some first timer take a lesson, perform brilliantly at stage combat or archery or whatnot and go "meh...". Maybe I'm just jealous :tongue:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yes, it is indeed the effort that should be praised, not the outcome. This is the lesson at the end of the day, I think, and the approach I try to use with my students. Problem is, they don't want to hear praise when someone who works half as hard is kicking their butts day in and day out. That's when it really gets tough. That's when you discover whether a student is mature or not (regardless of their age).

I think it's our responsibility to encourage and challenge our students to try to reach goals that are within their grasp. I think it's irresponsible if we encourage them to set goals that will never be within their reach though. Time for new goals...  

For example, I don't want any golf instructor telling me I can make a living on the PGA tour. Not after all the work I've put into that sport in the past 14 years, having watched my handicap hover within 4 strokes of where it was one year after I started. LOL! Then I see a high school kid come along and shoot a 67. I started playing at age 29 and have put countless more rounds and practice balls in play than that high school kid. So my goals for golf just need to be different than their goals, plain and simple. Archery really is no different.

John


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

I have always looked at it as "if I'm working hard, my opponents might be working twice as hard" and have stuck to that through Junior international rugby, kickboxing, powerlifting, golf and now archery.
The caviat to that is to practice smart. Just endless work on the wrong stuff will only have a negative effect on your progress. You also need to be string mentally. The champs win in their mind while others often lose there.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

wow! I would never have succeeded in the sport of archery if I listened to family, friends and coaches. It took me 10 years to get anywhere and my form was so bad that my dad told me that I should consider another sport. I sure am glad I worked hard, had the tenacity, the drive and love of the sport to keep plugging away. For those 10 years I watched my mom and 2 of my brothers win national titles, my other brothers and dad winning states and regional events and I was just "Rick average." I was the extremely late bloomer of the family but it did not deter me one bit. I personally believe that if you believe it and put in the effort you can succeed. How high is dependent on you. Archery is a sport that does not require a specific VO2 max, or body type, or even equipment since it is virtually available to anyone, but the mental side is the part that separates a warrior and an elite. We have many warriors and very few elites. I get a bit disgusted when I see a natural talent who is lazy. While the person who is unorthodox and keeps working hard has all of my praise and support. The problem with many who do have natural talent do not understand that it does take hard work and understanding of the game to be the best. To me, very few natural talents stick around because when it gets a bit challenging and they have to work a bit more than normal, they loose interest and move on. For those who have natural talent and put in the effort tirelessly become far above an elite. It is extremely rare but worth watching when you see it. What I see from the comments above is that just because someone thinks they are working hard at it, they are not working smart at it. Knowing what you need to do to get consistent 10's under stress requires due diligence and that is hard to come by.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I personally believe that if you believe it and put in the effort you can succeed. How high is dependent on you.


Rick, what would you say to a young archer who has worked incredibly hard, had the best coaching available and best equipment, and is still wallowing in mediocre scores? I've seen my share.

John


----------



## gma (Aug 22, 2012)

And that leads me to my other favorite phrase:

"There's always someone better than you."

If you can accept the truth of the two phrases - "He who (shoots) most wins" and "There's always someone better than you" - and still enjoy the activity, you're doing well.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

> *Rick McKinney*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm glad, too, or I wouldn't have your book and all of your insightful comments on AT  And I think people who have to work for it may be able to give more insights to people like me who weren't born with archery brilliance. (I think innately talented people can struggle with how to teach others to do artificially what they do naturally--kind of like how it would be hard for a bird to teach me how to fly an airplane.)

However, you are unarguably exceptional, not that others may not have stories just like yours but rather in for you to succeed others had to loose, and not just a few. The vast majority have to loose for you to win big. And the more people who loose, the greater your victory. It is the nature of competition, I think. But it means that most archers will devote hundreds, thousands of hours of time to loosing. What is the ratio of time spend by winning archers to all the archers who don't win?

So, what about all the people who were told they couldn't succeed, worked ten years and didn't?

I think that for many their success in school and business is precisely as you have described, they went for it and ignored those who would have held them back. The "meh" grade the founder of Fed Ex got for his hub-centered overnight delivery service got is one of many famous examples. But for all of those kinds of success stories, the ones we hear about because they are so exceptional, how many stories of people spending years banging their head against a performance plateau they can never break through are there? Most archers loose. Most new businesses fail. And yet exceptional achievement often calls for exceptional effort and risk taking... :dontknow:

(Or what John said, always so much more succinct than I am and practical, darn him :tongue)


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Rick, what would you say to a young archer who has worked incredibly hard, had the best coaching available and best equipment, and is still wallowing in mediocre scores? I've seen my share.
> 
> John


John, There is no magic answer, but it depends on the situation. Does this archer love what they are doing? Do they have that passion no matter their performance? Some of us take a lot longer to figure it out of what works and what doesn't work. Those are the ones, in my opinion, go through many lessons (mistakes) that make them a better archer. As I mentioned before, it took me 10 years to become a "good" archer. I finished in the middle of the pack at most major events in the beginning and it took a while before I could start seeing progress. When I was working at it and feeling frustrated, I remember my dad telling me that my form looked fine, it was after the clicker clicked was when all h$!! broke loose. However, I was not really an extrinsic reward seeker. I loved shooting the bow and trying to figure out how it worked. Was I ever frustrated? You bet! I was so mad one day, that as I was pulling my arrows out of the target ( I was actually yanking them out) and tossing them behind me, I realized that none of the arrows were in the shooting lane. They were tossed in weeds of 3 feet high (on both sides of the shooting lane) and disappeared. I spent the next half hour looking for the arrows knowing that dad would not buy any more arrows. Thus the lesson learned of being a bit more patient. As long as you love the challenge and seek to improve yourself I see no reason to tell anyone that they do not have what it takes. Just because they are not good enough right now does not mean that they will not have something click in their head and become good over night. Don't forget, just because they may not become an elite, it is all about the journey and the lessons we learn along the way. Positive encouragement is something that we should always think about giving to those who just might turn out to become a Gold Medalist.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Warbow said:


> I'm glad, too, or I wouldn't have your book and all of your insightful comments on AT  And I think people who have to work for it may be able to give more insights to people like me who weren't born with archery brilliance. (I think innately talented people can struggle with how to teach others to do artificially what they do naturally--kind of like how it would be hard for a bird to teach me how to fly an airplane.)


Thank you Warbow. I enjoyed writing the book and wish I had time to do another. I find that those who struggled have a better chance of giving insight than those who never struggled. After all, those who do not struggle will not know what it is like to figure something out if it is a "gift". 



Warbow said:


> However, you are unarguably exceptional, not that others may not have stories just like yours but rather in for you to succeed others had to loose, and not just a few. The vast majority have to loose for you to win big. And the more people who loose, the greater your victory. It is the nature of competition, I think. But it means that most archers will devote hundreds, thousands of hours of time to loosing. What is the ratio of time spend by winning archers to all the archers who don't win?


I agree that other top archers have similar stories. It takes time and practice to share those experiences whereby it is understood. Communicating to others is a challenge but it can be learned. The person just has to pay attention to the actions of others when they express themselves. And yes, for every win I accomplished I figure it is about 100+ losses that I had before the win. But it was not a loss in my mind, because I learned something from that loss and I gave it 100% effort. There were several events that I did not take home a medal but I felt so excited about how I shot and how I maintained my mental game that I won intrinsically. That to me is far more satisfying than bringing home a medal.



Warbow said:


> So, what about all the people who were told they couldn't succeed, worked ten years and didn't?


Being beaten verbally does not help your mental approach. I think one of the reasons I was successful was that I believed in myself. I had to listen to world renowned coaches and experts a like telling me I did not have what it took. But I never lost faith in myself. I don't know for sure why I was given the gift to win, but I can appreciate those who struggle a lot during their journey to reach the top. The biggest problem I see is that those who did not win gave up too soon.


----------



## cc46 (Jan 22, 2005)

Good thread!

I've been an archer and watched archers for about 18 years, 10 in the 70's and the past 8. I thought then that natural talent trumpted everyone else. I overlooked work. I think now work and mental drive trumps the talent. I've seen many high school aged begineers with extremely good athletic abilities try archery and think it's too complex to become proficient and give up. 

Back in 77, I taught about 250 boys 7 to 16 archery at camp, 2 stood out, with talent and work. The younger one had amazing athletic talent, from a family of gymnasts and was the best in camp that summer. He wanted to out achieve an older sibling who had many records for atheltic achievements at that camp. These kid's came from very competetive families with money. The other boy was 3 years older and wanted to prove to his domineering dad how worthy he was of praise. He was strong and determined. Work the hardest in camp. Both by the end of summer were 520+ at 18m on 40cm face with the best wood arrows I had and a camp bow and no stabilzer. 

This made me think, is it talent or drive? or talent + drive?
It's both and some excel fast others take time to develop.

Later in life both succeeded in business but gave up archery.
Go figure.


----------



## rywessel (Apr 14, 2012)

Been my experience that winners in the top echelons of the sport (any sport) hate losing more than anyone else. It has been said that Michael Jordan hates to loose anything including playing a game of cards against his kids.

Another attribute is that winners believe they can win even if they are less talented than their competition. I recall a study about NCAA track athletes. They tested their VO2 max and other physical attributes and found that the ones that consistently won did not always have the best scores but rather had the highest belief in themselves as being a winner. In effect, they were the best at "lying" to themselves into believing they where the best. 

Too much realism about one's own ability = lower performance.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> er love what they are doing? Do they have that passion no matter their performance?


Not anymore. 

Then what do you tell them?

By some of the reasoning above, every person can be an elite archer if they just work hard enough. LOL.

Now, back to reality. 

The best any individual can do is to work as hard as they can and accept the results that come from that. All else being equal (i.e. each person working as hard as one another) the results will simply fall according to raw talent. 

Fortunately for most, every talented archer does not work as hard as they can.

John


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

John,
I question whether the person had the drive in the first place. Just because they say they want to be an elite, doesn't mean that they are sincere about it. One thing I have learned about archers is that most think they want it but once they run into obstacles that drive drops substantially and they move on to something else or come up with more excuses than the proverbial "Quaker has oats". I sincerely believe that if a person wants it bad enough they will achieve it, but only if they want it bad enough. Unfortunately most do not have that drive, just a wish.


----------



## dmassphoto (Feb 8, 2010)

rywessel said:


> Been my experience that winners in the top echelons of the sport (any sport) hate losing more than anyone else. It has been said that Michael Jordan hates to loose anything including playing a game of cards against his kids.


What about kids who will do anything just to win? I'd be a heck of a lot better at the memory game if my daughter wouldn't switch the cards around when I'm not looking.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I sincerely believe that if a person wants it bad enough they will achieve it, but only if they want it bad enough. Unfortunately most do not have that drive, just a wish.


I agree that most don't have the drive.

Guess I'm more of a realist. If a person wants it bad enough, they will reach their potential. But only their potential. No amount of dedication will overcome genetics. The "secret" is to make reaching one's potential the goal, and not to compare it to what anyone else is capable of.

But we're splitting imaginary hairs here. 

John


----------



## OCBrent (Sep 27, 2007)

dmassphoto said:


> What about kids who will do anything just to win? I'd be a heck of a lot better at the memory game if my daughter wouldn't switch the cards around when I'm not looking.


"If you're not cheating, you're not trying hard enough!"

I got ranked top in the Nation as an Amateur (not Archery), and I made a couple National Teams later in an Endurance Sport. But, I was never one of the top five in the Nation and certainly way lower World wide. I knew a couple guys above me were taking drugs, but it wasn't until later I realized probably just about everyone else was too! I was raised "too well"  and it just wasn't something I was going to do. But now older, I wonder how good I could have been had I taken drugs!! I didn't get cancer before age 45, but also never made any real money at it, and the top couple guys in my sports could actually make a decent living as an athlete too.

Musicians seem to have zero ethical problems in taking Beta Blockers before an important Recital, etc... And if they think it'll make them more creative creating new music, a whole lot of other drugs too!

In the Endurance Sports I was in there was no one at the top of the World rankings that wasn't taking drugs in at least their training period, if not the race itself. And you can throw in all the other top US Sports Baseball, Football, etc... too. 

So, how badly do you want to be an elite? What will you do to remain competitive, level the playing field? Lots of talent, working really hard, isn't enough sometimes either. 

I have no idea what Archery is like at the top, but if you think in the last 50 years only Lance took drugs in the Tour de France, or you believed any of the Baseball or Football players that said they were clean, than you are as naive as I was, and you should look to someone else to give a talk to anyone seriously pursuing being one of the best in the world. 

That way they can decide ahead of time maybe to put their efforts in something where ethics and purity can be assets to success, like Music or Business.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Caroline Dweck covers the "Praise of hard work, rather than ability" in her research, which is covered in her book "Mindset". Everyone should read it. 
People who still believe in "natural ability" should start with "Bounce" by Matthew Syed or "The talent myth" and then read "The Cambridge Manual of Expert Performance" or "Development of Professional Expertise" or the much easier to digest "The road to excellence"

All of your beliefs about "natural ability" will be firmly placed after that. 
Transferable skillsets will enter your vocabulary. 
You'll also realise exactly how much of your own personal potential can be raised if you feel like putting in the work. 

By far the most beneficial thing defined in the above books is the definition of Deliberate Practice and how one can use it to dramatically increase performance in any field. 
YES. 
Any field.


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

the debates about "natural talent" are endless and have no winners.......

my take on this is: I have 2 choices.... either believe in natural talent or not....so lets have a look at benefits of each....

1. Believing in natural talent - there are 2 options for me: I'm talented or not.....If I'm talented in said sport, then good I'm lucky one!! but then when I loose is it because someone worked harder/smarter or they have more talent?? So if they have more talent there is no way I can beat them so I will be looser and its out of my control...
Or I'm not talented so I'm "genetical" looser again

2.Not believing in natural talent - I just believe in hard/smart work so if I loose, someone else deserve it as they worked better then me, but it's all up to me if I want it badly enough.....

So why should I believe in 1st option which not givin me any benefits??

There is big difference between "I would like to be" (most people) and "I want to be" (just few)


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> I agree that most don't have the drive.
> 
> Guess I'm more of a realist. If a person wants it bad enough, they will reach their potential. But only their potential. No amount of dedication will overcome genetics. The "secret" is to make reaching one's potential the goal, and not to compare it to what anyone else is capable of.
> 
> ...


what really concerns me here John is as a coach, parent, advisor, mentor, etc. that we become "negative wizards" and give up on the kids or influence the kid that they just don't have it when in fact they are late bloomers like Rick. I submit as coaches we can't make that judgement and therefore must give each our best effort. I have had several that I just couldn't connect with or gave up on me (and sometimes themselves) but no one I told that they should find another sport. I am not suggesting anyone here has done that, but I struggle too with human nature on some students that this may not be the best use of my time. I fight that and try and give them the best I can, hoping for a delayed reaction and as they mature, some of this will click.


----------



## wurmz (Oct 13, 2012)

TomB said:


> what really concerns me here John is as a coach, parent, advisor, mentor, etc. that we become "negative wizards" and give up on the kids or influence the kid that they just don't have it when in fact they are late bloomers like Rick. I submit as coaches we can't make that judgement and therefore must give each our best effort. I have had several that I just couldn't connect with or gave up on me (and sometimes themselves) but no one I told that they should find another sport. I am not suggesting anyone here has done that, but I struggle too with human nature on some students that this may not be the best use of my time. I fight that and try and give them the best I can, hoping for a delayed reaction and as they mature, some of this will click.


It amazes me when people put limits on themselves and each other, I wonder what our society would be like if everyone taught our only limits are the ones we put on ourselves.

I'm a firm believer that hard work is far greater than raw talent, it just takes time, not a lot of people are willing to put in the time.


Just to clarify, I think raw talent, has a potential for faster growth, but the hard worker is eventually going to surpass the raw talent, if the raw talent doesn't put in hard work as well.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

It's not a "talented or not" question. Everyone has SOME level of natural ability for any given sport. It's just that some have an exceptional gift for sports, and an even smaller group, for a particular sport. I don't care how much some people train, they will never be able to throw a fastball like Randy Johnson. That's just genetics, plain and simple. Sure, he worked his butt off, but he also had a pretty big canvas to paint on too. 

Ar-Pe-Lo, it's not a matter of what you or I believe in. It's a matter of fact. And at the end of the day, your subconscious will know the difference if you are honest with yourself. Coaching kids is like training dogs in a way. They can sniff out the truth or a lie. Maybe not right away, but eventually they do. If I look a kid in the eye and tell them "if you work hard, you can be an Olympian someday..." knowing full well that the chances of that happening are about a billion to one, what have you really done for that child? 

Today's society wants to exist on the Disney channel. It really makes me shake my head because so many kids feel like they were lied to when they finally realize that they have been fed a bunch of sunshine when what they really needed was to just know the truth. 

Preparing kids with the truth ensures that they have the facts they and their parents need to make good decisions for their future. Every time I have a student or parent come to me and state that their goal is to make an Olympic team, I tell them realistically what the chances of that happening are, and that if all goes well, we MIGHT be talking about that in 7-10 years. 

It's much better IMO to be very realistic with students and parents, set intermediate, achievable goals for them to work towards, and even (GASP!) suggest they participate in many sports and activities to see which one they enjoy the most. 

I'll use my own daughter as an example. She is capable of being a top 10 young recurve archer in the U.S. if she puts in the practice time. Like my other two kids, she has a lot of natural archery ability. But compared to what she can do in a swimming pool, it's not even close. The only reason she's a top 10 archer is because the level of competition is so low in this country for archery. When she gets in the pool, it's obvious she has a gift for swimming, and genetically she's built for that sport. Swimming coaches eyes get real big when they see her in the water for the first time. Why? Because they can see it right away, the same way a good archery coach can see it in talented archers within just a few shots.

My point here is that she knows this. When other girls her age - that were competing against her in the pool - come up and tell her, there is no way she doesn't know this, and they know it too. So what purpose would it serve for the coach of one of those other girls to tell them "all you have to do is work hard enough and you can swim faster than anyone else!" ? Within an instant, that young swimmer would lose confidence in that coach, I can assure you.

We need to encourage our young archers, but we also need to be truthful with them. For most, the biggest reason for them to shoot is because they love it. Plain and simple. They may have more talent for another sport, but they love archery so they spend more time shooting. And that's absolutely okay. So it's our job to encourage them to continue learning and maybe - just maybe - they can be that Rick McKinney who finally figured it out and had success. But even if they don't (and most likely they won't) they can enjoy the sport and the friends they make along the way.

John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Some of you are interpreting what I'm saying as negativity. I can assure you that you are not correct. If you saw me coach, you would know I am the first person and the last person at the end of the day to encourage a young archer to do the best they can. I always tell them to "leave the door to excellence" open because you never know when you will walk through it. But there is a fine line between being positive and encouraging and just making up fairy tales. And the kids know the difference. 

I will agree that in archery, hard work most likely IS more important than raw talent because, essentially, the talent pool in our sport is so shallow. In sports like baseball or football, so many kids are working hard that the difference really does become how much natural ability they bring to the table. 

John


----------



## HikerDave (Jan 1, 2011)

Comparing relative performance is a thought trap for young archers. I don't know where my daughter picked this up, but before a tournament she says,

"When you compete in archery you compete against yourself."

Everyone is going to develop at their own pace. At Paseo Vista, I'm not a coach but just another parent. (I do sometimes coach walk-ons before they join the club if they want help.)

One thing that I try to do to mentor new archery parents is to point out to them that the so-called elite members of the club have been shooting for many years. Archery is a difficult sport -- and that difficulty is what makes the sport interesting and worthwhile.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

John,
"For example, I don't want any golf instructor telling me I can make a living on the PGA tour. Not after all the work I've put into that sport in the past 14 years, having watched my handicap hover within 4 strokes of where it was one year after I started. LOL!"

I'm always fascinated by this phenomena - how some people's ceiling is so close to their starting point, no matter how much effort they put into the endeavor. Golf was exactly the same for me - shot an 85 after playing the game for 2 weeks, and 15 years/thousands of hours/many thousands of dollars later an 85 was mostly still a pretty good score for me. Irritating. Stopped playing about 10 years ago. On a baseball trip with some high school buddies 4 years ago, we'd all rented clubs and played a round of golf - I shot an 83, not having touched a club in 6 years (one of my friends laughed that if I'd just held off playing another 10 years or so, maybe I would have broken par .... smart a**). Maybe for some people, their natural 'physical ability' IS their ceiling, and the minute they start studying or thinking about what they're doing is the minute they start going backward.

Rick,
"And yes, for every win I accomplished I figure it is about 100+ losses that I had before the win. But it was not a loss in my mind, because I learned something from that loss and I gave it 100% effort. There were several events that I did not take home a medal but I felt so excited about how I shot and how I maintained my mental game that I won intrinsically. That to me is far more satisfying than bringing home a medal."

That 'way of thinking' is why you'll always be one of my sports heroes


----------



## HikerDave (Jan 1, 2011)

lksseven said:


> John,
> "For example, I don't want any golf instructor telling me I can make a living on the PGA tour. Not after all the work I've put into that sport in the past 14 years, having watched my handicap hover within 4 strokes of where it was one year after I started. LOL!"
> 
> I'm always fascinated by this phenomena - how some people's ceiling is so close to their starting point, no matter how much effort they put into the endeavor. Golf was exactly the same for me - shot an 85 after playing the game for 2 weeks, and 15 years/thousands of hours/many thousands of dollars later an 85 was mostly still a pretty good score for me. Irritating. Stopped playing about 10 years ago. On a baseball trip with some high school buddies 4 years ago, we'd all rented clubs and played a round of golf - I shot an 83, not having touched a club in 6 years (one of my friends laughed that if I'd just held off playing another 10 years or so, maybe I would have broken par .... smart a**). Maybe for some people, their natural 'physical ability' IS their ceiling, and the minute they start studying or thinking about what they're doing is the minute they start going backward.
> ...


We also say "It took Rick McKinney ten years to start winning!" to remind ourselves that success doesn't always come immediately.

That said, I'm seeing some new archers at our club who are shooting very, very well.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

HikerDave, it's interesting for me to coach so many different archers and see ones that have "success" right away, even though you know as a coach that they have reached their ceiling unless they really start to make changes and work hard. Meanwhile, you have to remember to keep encouraging ones you see promise in, even though they haven't been able to put it all together and are getting frustrated.

Ah, it's a balancing act alright.

Surely it's fun to work with a talented archer, but it's more fun to work with an archer who is willing to out-work the more talented ones.

This is one of the beauties of sport to me.

John


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> Ar-Pe-Lo, it's not a matter of what you or I believe in. It's a matter of fact.


I was waiting when someone say this..... So who deciding that this is fact?? On which ground??How many times we seen that some "facts" become obsolete and with another "facts" replacing them? You giving examples...but that is not facts, just examples.....

What about Rick's example? Or my favourite one (as he was my countryman and I met him few times)..... Emil Zatopek - only men in history who won marathon, 10000m and 5000m on same olympic games - he was not best even in his school class, but his desire for winning was legendary (and ultimately self-destructive) and I can assure you it was only because he worked much much harder then others he was sooo good. And we talking about very physical sport here....I have seen his VO2 max results - nothing special, I had better myself.

I don't mean it in bad way, you made your choice I made mine.......it's good we can do that


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

I look at God-given talent as a type of genius. It was said that the first time Beethoven saw a piano as a child, he walked over to it, sat down, and started playing. I see wood and ivory, but he innately saw 'music'. 

John's right, talent is a limiting factor ... at the extreme edge of the envelope. So, being realistic as well as romantic about defining one's goals is important.
X (God-given talent) + Y (work) = Z (outcome). If somebody has more X than you and contributes just as much Y as you, then they'll be better than you. But the extent of all of those variables is unknowable, so predictions of future ceilings are risky. Then, too, for some personality types, being told "you can't do this" isn't 'discouragement' ... it's more like pouring methanol on a fire. That's where having a 'coaching genius' comes into play - knowing when to hold'em and when to fold'em.


----------



## gma (Aug 22, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> If I look a kid in the eye and tell them "if you work hard, you can be an Olympian someday..." knowing full well that the chances of that happening are about a billion to one, what have you really done for that child?


Absolutely agree - that's not a true statement. The truer version is this:
"If you don't work hard, you will never be an Olympian someday. Even if you have all the natural talent in the world."

And the complete version is this:
"But to become an Olympian, it requires some natural talent. You'll need to put in some work to determine if you have that talent. But the FIRST natural talent is you must _LOVE_ [activity]. Not 'develop a love for' - LOVE. And if you find you love [activity], does it matter if you don't have natural Olympic talent? You've found something you can enjoy for the rest of you life."


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

Ahother example that its very hard say what is talent.....

another czech great sportsmen Jan Zelezny - 3x olympic winner in javelin throw and still (and will be for long time) world record holder......everyone always pointed out how different style he using, so naturely looking and because he is smaller guy then others javelin throwers the conclusion was easy - he is just sooo talented.....

well no one pointed out that his father was (maybe still is) national record holder in throwing (in distance)cricket ball and Jan spent his childhood by throwing things around as it was fun and he want be as good as his father......so was it his talent or all these years developing his "fast arm"? 

also he was not strongest one, but I would say smartest one in training as he trained bit different then others....


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Where do I begin? You guys covered a lot over night....  John, I am sure that some people are more talented than others, but I also believe that the talent can be developed in our sport. When I first started in archery, the only world champions were fairly tall, linear (almost boney) guys. However, that has changed to where fluffy, short, tall, can win as well. This is not due to the round used, but archers have gotten smarter and trained wiser. They have started to use all elements required to be a champion and not just their "talent". Due to this ebb and flow of different physical looking champions of today, it is obvious that there is no specific type of physic needed to be a champion. Also, Lee has proven that you can take an archer and develop their form to look incredibly good, good alignment, good shot execution, etc. However, no matter how good the form looks, the mental ability has to be developed and so far that is lacking in many programs and I believe is the key element needed to win. I have seen those "gifted" archers who had perfect form and yet they had no idea of the mental game and no matter how hard they trained, they were not going anywhere due to lack of mental. I have seen people with inferior form win some big events and yet their mental game was so far ahead of others, it was amazing to watch. Does this mean mental is where it is at? No, it is one of several links of a chain needed to become that champion.

As far as telling family or the child about becoming an Olympian, I would never tell them anything except that they need to train and learn the basics (AND HAVE FUN!). Focus on the club events, then the regional events, then national events and so on. Everybody wants it now instead of recognizing that it is a long journey. Although I mentioned in the 8th grade I wanted to go to the Olympics, it was more of a dream than a goal at that time. I put that thought away, not because I knew better, but I was busy learning how to shoot (and it was unrealistic at the time). I never even felt I had a chance to become an Olympian until 1 year before the trials. Telling people they have a lot of talent is a good thing if they have it, but enforcing the idea of truly hard work is ahead of anybody to become the best there is should be expressed. For those who do not have talent, they can be told that their road will be a difficult one, but the only obstacle that will hold them back is themselves. I used to work with about 50 kids at my dad's archery shop. There were some gifted ones and not so gifted ones. I encouraged them all. Some were there to impress mommy and daddy. Some were there to socialize with their friends. Others were there because they had to be and then there were the ones who would virtually live at our store. Each has a different determination and I find it a travesty to hear a coach telling a kid they do not have what it takes. I suggest the coach find another vocation and not discourage a young budding archer. As for realists (John) remember that this is only a journey but an incredible learning tool for life. Whether they reach that goal or not should not be the plan, but more of a life lesson on time management, self image, positive reinforcement, discipline and many other positive assets a child will learn with making the effort to become the best. 

I had three loves when I was a child growing up. I played the clarinet in the school band (Jr. High), was a good pole vaulter and then there was archery. I worked my way up to first chair in band and was looking forward to growing with the clarinet, but when the high school band director told me that I had to play in the summer band in order to continue on, I had to make a choice between archery and band. After all, archery in the summer was what I lived for. That was a no brainer to me since I loved archery far more than band. I gave up the clarinet. I was the city's best pole vaulter for about 3 years in Jr High and then High School. The year before the 1972 Olympic trials came about I had to make a decision between pole vaulting or archery. I recognized I could not do both and yet I loved them both. I chose archery since it was more than love that kept me shooting. I had to tell the coach that I would not be on the track and field team for my senior year. You can imagine his frustration with me since he knew I was going to be city champion again (there were 3 high schools in the city). Although he was angry and told me not to use him as a reference I was more focused on the Olympic trials for archery to worry about what he thought. Why am I explaining this? John, you mentioned your daughter and her talent for swimming. She will have to make a choice some day and when she does it will not be easy. Each person makes choices which leads me to my last comment. Ar-Pe-Lo mentioned you had to make your own choices and I fully agree. I used to hear the top US archers complain about Darrell and I winning all the time back in the day. I thought about what they said and realized that they chose to have a family, a job, other recreational adventures which at that time Darrell and I did not. We chose the direction we wanted to go and they chose theirs. To hear them whine about we were professionals and trained 8+ hours a day and they had to make a living almost brought a tear to my eye (almost). The reality is you make choices in life. And if you notice, the Brady Elison's, the Vic Wunderle's, the Darrell Pace's, etc. made that choice and it is not an easy one for most. 99.9% of today's and yesterday's archers will never put archery as their number one focus and when they recognize that, then they will realize their chances of success is very limited.


----------



## John Hall (Jan 10, 2013)

Great thread! Relevant to this discussion is something I have learned through pursuit of excellence in other areas... it's almost always better to keep your dreams and aspirations to yourself. Not only because stating them publicly can be perceived as arrogance, but also because there is never a shortage of doubters willing to tell you, in one way or another, that you are being unrealistic and will never get there. "You're too old, too busy, too ORDINARY, ... blah blah blah". But my favorite one lately is "too old". I'm 49 years old and just starting out in archery. I may or may not have lofty goals for mastery and achievement in this sport... but I'll never tell! 

John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick, good contribution as usual. 

Only thing I would probably differ with you on is this:


> For those who do not have talent, they can be told that their road will be a difficult one, but the only obstacle that will hold them back is themselves.


I agree that they themselves will be their greatest limiting factor if they allow it, but to say that is their "only" obstacle just isn't a true statement. But it's something I hear people say all the time. Sounds great. Walt Disney made billions from it. People really truly want to believe they are capable of anything if they just try hard enough. Ain't it a wonderful idea!

Your personal example is a very good one though. The way I see it, you knew Darrell was more talented than you and you also knew you had to out-work him if you were going to win. And you still knew that even if you out-worked him, he would still win most days. What I suspect you lived for, was that one day when the stars lined up and you would win. I think that's what we all live for. 

It's just being realistic for someone like Keegan Bradley or Bill Haas to know that they will never be ranked #1 in the world in golf so long as Tiger or Rory are still healthy. So that's just not a realistic goal for them based on their talent level. I am certain they are training and working just as hard, if not harder, than Tiger or Rory. The key is for Keegan and Bill to focus on that one opportunity every so often to beat the #1 ranked golfer. And I'm sure that's what they live for. 

Personally, I had no delusions of making the 2012 Olympic team last year. However, it was more than worth the drive to San Diego, knowing I would win matches against some of the best archers in the U.S., and some of the best in the world. And I did, and that was good enough for me considering where I'm at in my career and in my life.  

It's up to each of us to set realistic goals (or for us as coaches to help our archers set realistic goals) based on Larry's X and Y inputs above. Because setting unrealistic goals is just an exercise in futility that can lead to discouragement. 

John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> but also because there is never a shortage of doubters willing to tell you, in one way or another, that you are being unrealistic and will never get there.


The way I see it, there is also no shortage of sunshine either. Especially in the past 20 years or so. Finding some balance is very important.

John


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

yes agree with this "It's up to each of us to set realistic goals", but don't forget....you need a dream to follow as without a dream you put restrictions on yourself.......


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> And if you notice, the Brady Elison's, the Vic Wunderle's, the Darrell Pace's, etc. made that choice and it is not an easy one for most. 99.9% of today's and yesterday's archers will never put archery as their number one focus and when they recognize that, then they will realize their chances of success is very limited.


Look at the success these archers had very early in their lives though Rick. You make my point for me in some ways. Brady - Jr. World Champion. Vic - Jr. World Champion. Darrell - would have been Jr. World Champion if those had existed in his day. 

Again, the learning curve is slightly different for "most" elite archers. Rick offers us an example of one who differed from the norm (which is where I drew my inspiration in 2003), but looking at the whole, the elites mastered the sport pretty darn quickly.

And success begets success. Had those three archers not seen so much success so soon, would they have continued on their path? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Most likely, even they would have thought it foolish to pursue archery full time without some significant success to inspire them.

Someone once wrote that the popular myth about success being the result of confidence is backwards. They said - "success does not come from confidence, but rather confidence comes from success. And success comes from preparation..." I added to that "Confidence without success is false confidence, and your subconscious always knows the difference." 

John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Ar-Pe-Lo said:


> yes agree with this "It's up to each of us to set realistic goals", but don't forget....you need a dream to follow as without a dream you put restrictions on yourself.......


Guess I see the world a little differently. The way I grew up, dreams were a waste of time. 

The way I see things, it's sufficient, and efficient, to set realistic goals based on your level of talent and ability or willingness to work toward them. Nothing more is needed than that. 

In 2004, I did not have a dream to be on the Olympic team. I never had that dream. It was never a goal of mine, in fact. The goal was to shoot the best I was capable of shooting, and see how far that would take me. I did not set limits on myself for where that might take me. As I tell my students, always leave the door to excellence open because you never know when you might walk through it. 

I also did not set artificial goals, and for that reason, failure was never an option. 

John


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

John, I am not sure you are seeing my point. I fully understand that you feel there are very few talented or gifted archers out there and those who are not talented or gifted are just wasting their time. However, I see it as that many have the talent but refuse to put in the effort it takes to master their talent. Archers with the weirdest form have achieved some incredible levels of accomplishment. Butch Johnson has one of the strangest ways of shooting consistently and so does Michele Frangili but both have won a lot. Even Lee told Butch that he could not help him due to his weird form. And yet, there Butch is still one of the best. I figure most coaches are very limited and can only help in a certain way. Thus, if the archer cannot get the form right or consistency right through one coach it does not mean it is a problem with the archer, it is more a compatibility problem between coach and archer. Getting back to my point of effort. There are very few who really want it bad enough. Just because they say they do and put in the motions does not really mean they truly do. I have seen some archers get to a level and then back off. They hit that plateau and can't seem to get any further. I figure that some are afraid that if they put in 100% that they might fall short so they just will not go that extra distance to find out if they can or can't. Winning isn't the one who brings home the medal. Winning is the one who puts in the best effort and learned something. I guess what I am saying is that everything you have mentioned appears to be an extrinsic value where I put more value into the intrinsic. The battle is all within yourself and no matter how many titles you win, you still just another human out there doing your thing. Eventually it all goes away and what do you have? Memories?  Each accomplishment, no matter how small is a reward to your self esteem and helps you build upon those accomplishments in life. Opps, there I go again, getting philosophical.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Again, the learning curve is slightly different for "most" elite archers. Rick offers us an example of one who differed from the norm (which is where I drew my inspiration in 2003), but looking at the whole, the elites mastered the sport pretty darn quickly.


I have to say that I also consider drive a form of talent since I don't think it can be taught. It seems from Rick's on description that he was athletically talented and extremely focused and driven. To a large degree I think we can call that part of a "talent" for archery. I remember one former adult student expressing an interest in shooting at the Olympics as if they thought it were realistically possible even though they practiced at most once a week, and even then, only indifferently. And while I know I can't predict the future, I am rather certain that student will never be a club champion let alone an Olympian. I don't recall what, if anything, I said to the student at the time. Something polite and politic, I'm sure, since I value our students very much, kids and adults. But that student going to the Olympics? Not gonna happen even with the best coaches in the world, not for that student. They just don't have the talent for drive, not in archery, not in their life. And I don't think that is be being unduly negative, nor do I mean it to be. I just don't see it happening. What can you say? But that being said (or not said) we'll help archers as much as they want and be supportive. :dontknow:

So, I'm not sure what the take away from this thread is yet


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick, I do understand what you're saying. I think we're talking about two different things sometimes...

I believe you and others are misinterpreting my point. I do not feel that there are very few talented or gifted archers out there and those who are not talented or gifted are just wasting their time. Those are your words, not mine. Never said that, I don't think, but that's how people are interpreting what I'm saying.

I would never suggest that learning any sport and working toward personal goals is a waste of time. Especially archery.

What I believe is that talent and work are two bell curves. The degree to which they overlap will determine an archer's success. 

I also believe that many more talented archers probably continued on their path because they saw early success. Again, they gained confidence through the success they had, and that led them to work harder. How many people will continue to work toward a goal without seeing any success? Very few. And I think we would all agree that at some point, it's time to set new goals. But please understand I don't mean that to say they should just give up. Those aren't my words. I don't understand the phrase "give up."

You are absolutely right that there are very few that want it bad enough. There are also those (probably more) that want it worse, but don't have the physical ability. That's just pointing out a fact. Nothing mean or judgemental about that at all. And those are the ones who need to be realistic about their goals and figure out how to just have fun and enjoy the sport, and perhaps give back what they've learned.

I have a pretty good idea where my bell curves line up right now. And I set my personal goals according to that area of overlap. The only problem I have is when archers or coaches set unrealistic goals for themselves or their archers that are well outside of the area under their personal bell curve. Whether that be talent, or ability to work. But I see it almost every day. I don't understand it any more than I understand most sitcoms or Disney movies. But hey, they make people happy right? ha, ha.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

lksseven said:


> I look at God-given talent as a type of genius. It was said that the first time Beethoven saw a piano as a child, he walked over to it, sat down, and started playing. I see wood and ivory, but he innately saw 'music'.
> 
> John's right, talent is a limiting factor ... at the extreme edge of the envelope. So, being realistic as well as romantic about defining one's goals is important.
> X (God-given talent) + Y (work) = Z (outcome). If somebody has more X than you and contributes just as much Y as you, then they'll be better than you. But the extent of all of those variables is unknowable, so predictions of future ceilings are risky. Then, too, for some personality types, being told "you can't do this" isn't 'discouragement' ... it's more like pouring methanol on a fire. That's where having a 'coaching genius' comes into play - knowing when to hold'em and when to fold'em.


Actually, the investigations into Mozart say that his father was a medium level composer and a skilled teacher. Mozart just got dedicated teaching from an early age and had a voracious appetite for it. 
The belief in natural ability is just like fairies. People like to believe in them, but when scientific method starts investigating it, nobody can find anything except people that have said that they've seen them. 

The only natural advantage that isn't obviously physically evident is the ability to learn, which is also dependent on the ability to effectively create neural pathways in the brain and refine them. Some people do it better and faster than others. 

If there was any truth in natural ability, like being born with even simple skills that we all have, somewhere a baby would instantly know how to walk. And that's never happened and never will. 

Everyone who believes in "natural talent" likes to believe that what they have seen is correct and doesn't want to investigate any further because their lack of evidence confirms their belief. This is called "Confirmational bias" 
Most of the world has it because they like to believe in fairytales. 
Anyone who wants to investigate will discover that it doesn't exist. The benefits of this is that it unlocks the truth about work, effort and performance. The knowledge that one can get better is something that anyone can take advantage of. The best methods of training have also been discovered, so people who ignore "natural talent" can now get better at a faster rate. 

Believe what you want though. The simple proof of the matter is that the people at the top of the pile in any endeavour have all been doing it for the longest period of time. 
If natural ability existed, that wouldn't be the case. 
But it is.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

whiz-Oz said:


> If there was any truth in natural ability, like being born with even simple skills that we all have, somewhere a baby would instantly know how to walk. And that's never happened and never will..


Natural ability doesn't mean instant mastery, instead it only means a _higher_ innate aptitude. Some people can see color better than others. That is a simple fact. Some people have a better kinesthetic sense. Some people are taller. Some shorter. There is no question that we are born with different attitudes to some degree, but that are abilities formed not only through our genetic potential, but also through the neural plasticity of early development and our social upbringing. The question is not whether some people have more initial aptitude for certain sports, that much really isn't arguable, but rather how limiting such factors are.

Which is just to say I think you are vastly overstating your point.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

When you're dealing with massive levels of fairytale, it has to be done. 
There's no doubt that we all have different potentials, but the level to which we'll reach them can't be defined. 
Tanks of different sizes will all remain empty unless they're filled. 

What makes champions can be generally defined though. Archery is absolutely no different to anything else in that regard. Attitude, motivation and opportunity. 
They keep coming up in all investigations.


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> Guess I see the world a little differently. The way I grew up, dreams were a waste of time.
> 
> The way I see things, it's sufficient, and efficient, to set realistic goals based on your level of talent and ability or willingness to work toward them. Nothing more is needed than that.
> 
> ...


Yes you in different things which is fine as this is your choice


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

whiz-Oz said:


> Actually, the investigations into Mozart say that his father was a medium level composer and a skilled teacher. Mozart just got dedicated teaching from an early age and had a voracious appetite for it.
> The belief in natural ability is just like fairies. People like to believe in them, but when scientific method starts investigating it, nobody can find anything except people that have said that they've seen them.
> 
> The only natural advantage that isn't obviously physically evident is the ability to learn, which is also dependent on the ability to effectively create neural pathways in the brain and refine them. Some people do it better and faster than others.
> ...


thank you for this, fully agree......and all big champions I know (from track&field) confirms that.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

I think drive is the single most commonality amongst the top performers in any sport. Some work more or less, some have a natural coordination, some have some discipline or work ethic, but drive is what is the extra push. Drive to get up and practice when its not popular ( non olympic year) or not optimum ( rain, cold, snow etc). Drive to get you to your goals. Drive to be better. 



Chris


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

whiz-Oz said:


> Attitude, motivation and opportunity.
> They keep coming up in all investigations.


True enough, from what little I know, but I think the drive and will power implied there may also be a talent. I don't know that you can teach will power per se, though I think that we also learn our work ethic from our upbringing, so I can't say how much of that is nature vs. nurture.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Damn. Just realized I can't completely ignore Whiz if people keep quoting him. Oh well...


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Whiz,

Thanks for the correcting me that it was Mozart, not Beethoven! But, then you explain Mozart's 'natural talent and genius for music' (he was writing and playing music when he was 4 years old!) by stating "Actually, the investigations into Mozart say that his father was a medium level composer and a skilled teacher. Mozart just got dedicated teaching from an early age and had a voracious appetite for it. "

Huh? So, every good music teacher in the world has had a 4 year old Mozart-equal music genius running around? Come on.......


"The belief in natural ability is just like fairies. People like to believe in them, but when scientific method starts investigating it, nobody can find anything except people that have said that they've seen them. "

You should go watch a bunch of 1st or 2nd graders play softball or baseball for the first time. About 15 seconds of observing will be all that's needed to dispel you of the notion that "natural ability" is a fairy tale. 

"The simple proof of the matter is that the people at the top of the pile in any endeavor have all been doing it for the longest period of time. If natural ability existed, that wouldn't be the case."

Yeah, right, that's why the MVP's in different sports are always the 20 year veterans, right? Not!
How could your comment above even begin to explain a Willie Mays, or a Bob Feller, or a Mike Tyson? Or a Billy Sims - who one college coach declared, after watching Sims as an 8th grader, "I've just seen the greatest running back in football history". Or any other of a thousand other magnificent practitioners of their respective sports when they were 18, or 20, or 22?

I've read the theories of 10,000 hours and the anecdotal examples of it (Beatles, Bill Joy, etc), and I think its got a LOT of validity in explaining a lot of scenarios. But it's not the end all, and it certainly doesn't declare that "natural talent" is a fairy tale.


----------



## N7709K (Dec 17, 2008)

here's how i see it:

natural talent matters, but out of all the elite archers I know 99.5% of them received the proper coaching from an early age. Their talent is coupled with the needed instruction at the vital times in learning and developing the process.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

You make a great point, and include something that has not been covered yet. Good instruction at an early age. 

And I'm a coach! ha, ha. Thanks for reminding us all just how formative the right instruction can be to an athlete's future.

John


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

gma said:


> True, hard work and dedication goes a long way. But when we're talking the top of the top, everyone is working hard and smart. What makes the difference then? It comes down to natural "talent" - physical and mental differences that align with the activity. For things like cycling and rowing it's V02 max - which doctors will tell you doesn't respond much to training - you're born with it. For inline and speed skating skating there are physical characteristics - somewhat shorter stature with low center of gravity - that give a distinct advantage. For basketball - well, that's obvious. And no amount of training will change these things.
> 
> So what is the "V02 max" equivalent for archery? Eye sight? Inherently "quiet/steady" muscles? Exceptional proprioception? Unusual ability to quiet and focus the mind?


:thumbs_up

Which is also exactly why some archers can be extremely successful aiming Totally Instinctively where others struggle or never master it.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

I think if some people would study autism and child prodigies... they would begin to see there is something genetic and measurable that can show how some people can be genetically gifted to excel in athletic endeavors when compared to others.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Which is also exactly why some archers can be extremely successful aiming Totally Instinctively where others struggle or never master it.


Seriously Ray? Leatherwall getting boring for you? ha, ha. 

As much as you and I both would love to see it happen, a "Totally Instinctive" archer never wins target archery events of a National scale. Never.

Sorry bud.

John


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Seriously Ray? Leatherwall getting boring for you? ha, ha.
> 
> As much as you and I both would love to see it happen, a "Totally Instinctive" archer never wins target archery events of a National scale. Never.
> 
> Sorry bud.


No need to apologize, John...but what do you consider National scale and what doesn't? 

It's unfortunate you seem to find humor or annoyance with my statement regarding Instinctive Aiming...but your remarks are quite common among many target archers.

Instinctive Aiming fits perfectly into this discussion because it requires a greater amount of natural hand and eye coordination to even come close to what most other target archers using different aiming techniques are capable of shooting in most typical target archery competitions.

What's also interesting...is where there's a will...there is often a way. Human ingenuity can often overcome issues where other people may be more gifted.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> but what do you consider National scale and what doesn't?


Pretty simple. NFAA Nationals (Indoor or outdoor), USArchery (NAA) Nationals (Indoor or outdoor). U.S. Field Nationals, etc. In other words, legitimate national championship target events.

Ray, the only humor is in the idea that "totally instinctive" archers are winning any serious target events at any level. They aren't. 

That's just stating a fact. Not passing judgement on anyone's preferred method of aiming a bow. Try not to take it personally. Aim however you want. Nobody really cares.



> but your remarks are quite common among many target archers.


Maybe because we actually show up at major target archery events?


John


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> In other words, legitimate national championship target events.


What about World events? National and World 3D competitions? 



limbwalker said:


> Ray, the only humor is in the idea that "totally instinctive" archers are winning any serious target events at any level.


3D is a target event...and taken very seriously. Are you trying to say 3D is not a serious type of competition? Totally Instinctive archers have won some of those events.

I know Steve Morley has claimed to have won some titles overseas in Field Archery aiming Totally Instinctively during the early part of his archery career.



limbwalker said:


> Try not to take it personally.


What makes you think I'm taking it personally? 



limbwalker said:


> Nobody really cares.


Nobody???? If that was true there wouldn't be videos, books, papers and or websites about the different aiming techniques trying to help guide and teach archers into aiming techniques that may fit their goals and abilities more effectively.



limbwalker said:


> Maybe because we actually show up at major target archery events?


Most Instinctive archers are primarily bowhunters who occasionally go to some local 3D shoots so chances are their not going to travel to compete when it's not high on their list as it may be for the typical competitive target archer.

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> What makes you think I'm taking it personally?


Your post above.

Am I the only one that finds any discussion of "instinctive" aiming out of place on a thread about "elite" archers?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Your post above.


So what did I say in my post above that makes you think I'm taking ANYTHING you say personally? 



limbwalker said:


> Am I the only one that finds any discussion of "instinctive" aiming out of place on a thread about "elite" archers?


Why is there anything wrong with discussing an aiming technique that requires more 'natural' ability to excel in when the discussion includes the discussion of 'natural' ability and archery related issues? 

The only reason why I see anyone wanting to not discuss it is because it some how offends them in some way.

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## EABB (Sep 23, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Why is there anything wrong with discussing an aiming technique that requires more 'natural' ability to excel in when the discussion includes the discussion of 'natural' ability and archery related issues?
> 
> The only reason why I see anyone wanting to not discuss it is because it some how offends them in some way.


The way you put it is like saying "compound archers are more talented than recurve archers because more of them reach 1400 (versus 1 recurve archer in history)", it is just wrong, it's like comparing apples whit oranges, totally different things. If i recall correctly from some other post the elite of the instictive scene shoots an average FITA round (or WA round ) just below the 1200, and thats the top instictive archers of the world, they shoot a score that gets you nowhere on the recurve scene, where 99% of the shooters of any world event shoot at the very least 1300, and the real top archers are just above the 1350's. So now i ask... does that means that the elite of the instictive scene sucks because they shoot 200 points less? 

Any form of archery requires both talent and hard work, and im sure most of you can relate, given two archers whit the same talent the one who works harder will be the one to come on top, that point that hard work gives could be the difference on winning or losing, and the opposite its true aswell, im aware that know that im merely a recreational archer i have no hopes of reaching the scores i had while i was a competitive archer, im the same person, the same "talent", but i simply dont put the same work anymore!


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Seriously, the instinctive argument has come over here now. It's ruined the Trad board and has no place here IMHO.
Even if true instinctive shooting really existed, it would lose its effectiveness outside of PO so why would a top target archer want to handicap them self. Closest analogy I can think of would be running a NASCAR in an F1 event.


----------



## tomah (Aug 15, 2011)

Rick McKinney said:


> After all, those who do not struggle will not know what it is like to figure something out if it is a "gift".


this!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Why is there anything wrong with discussing an aiming technique that requires more 'natural' ability to excel in


First, that is a flawed argument. You need no more natural ability to aim without a sight than you do with one. Nonsense.

Second,


> Seriously, the instinctive argument has come over here now. It's ruined the Trad board and has no place here IMHO.


Agreed.

Finally, the target does not care how you aim. Neither does the scorecard. There's no room in the little box where you write the arrow values for an explanation of how it got there.

John


----------



## tomah (Aug 15, 2011)

from what ive seen and noticed (my wife says im extremely observant for my own good), the mental aspect is huge. if you shot a bad arrow, you absolutely can not let it get to you. you have to regain focus and get your head back in the game for that next arrow.

i mean, i know i am no expert in archery. hell, i dont even win tournaments, but i know that if your head is not there, you will not win. you will not win in the present and you will not win in the future.

there are some people at the shop that can shoot lights out. seeing some amazing oly recurve shooters come in that shoot for the JDT, ive noticed that one person in particular can shoot like 290's at 18m, but when they get that bug up their ass when they shot an 8, everything goes to hell. ive even seen them throw competitions because they were so pissed, they just shot to finish the match. slamming their from stabilizer into the ground, throwing their bows into their bowstand. this attitude and unwillingness to regain focus and try harder will only amplify later in life. the stakes will be higher and the competition will only get better.

so long winded story short, MENTAL MENTAL MENTAL!


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Several years ago I found this formula for individual performance capacity (IPC). It applies here I think:
IPC= (a+w+p-i) * s

a= ability
w= willingness
p = perserverence
I = interference 
s = speed or velocity


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Tom, is that natural ability, or developed ability? 

Tomah, of course you are correct. Archery, like golf, is 90% mental once the basics have been learned. Which is why this whole discussion is fun to consider, but probably moot. LOL. 

John


----------



## tomah (Aug 15, 2011)

lol sorry


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

There is no such thing as instinctive shooting since your peripheral vision is always making adjustments. Hence, a form of aiming. And, no, a so called instinctive shooter may have a good day but day in and day out one with aiming skills will stomp him. Go back in the leather wall and post, "which is better three fingers under or split fingers." It will be a field day for you.

John, regarding talent.....look at golf. If a kid isn't a scratch player by the time he's in high school he'll probably never see the PGA.

However, I agree with Rick on this. Drive is the biggest factor in a persons success at almost any endeavor. Mix in talent and the road will be easier, but without drive talent isn't worth a cup of coffee. (I definite Drive to mean work ethic also). Rick is correct in suggesting that a young person with talent can often times quite when they run into those with equal talent, from that point on it's all work. What once came easy is now a real challenge.

So, it does come down to the basic's of the perfect storm. Drive, talent or learned talent, and sweat. Luck? yup it's part of it...having the parents (finances) that can support the activity is a big thing now. Jay Barrs comes to mind. Didn't he really muscle through what would be considered bad shooting form, sleep in the back seat of his car to go to tournaments......that's a combination that defines "Drive". But, today, I doubt that could happen.

Whiz, science will never truly figure out the mystery of the cosmos. Answers of the heart will never be found in a book. Dedication cannot be programed.
Sit on a stump, smell a turnip, feel the air and take a deep breath. It holds meaning that can't be defined.:wink:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Wow...even the mere mentioning of Instinctive Aiming rattles the cages of archers over here.

Pretty sad, IMO...that a simple aiming technique can cause so many issues with some people when the aiming technique itself lends itself to this topic.

I'm sorry if I upset anyone by bringing up the aiming technique.

I have found that the majority of archers that have issues discussing it...really don't understand it and see the technique no different than Gap Aiming.

It's being made apparent that no one here really wants to discuss it and already has their preconceived opinions on the subject of Instinctive Aiming...so I'll just leave it at that and if anyone wants to discuss it on a mature and respectful atmosphere PM me or just ask a question and it will be answered.

Ray :shade:







Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Wow...even the mere mentioning of Instinctive Aiming rattles the cages of archers over here.
> 
> Pretty sad, IMO...that a simple aiming technique can cause so many issues with some people when the aiming technique itself lends itself to this topic.
> 
> ...


I have seen some great barebow shooters pulling 100lb bows shoot instinctive and hit targets accurately. But that accuracy is 20 yards or less. I have yet to see that aiming style hit accurately at further distances, especially at 70 and 90 meters. Though i have to say i do not go to 3D and field barebow competitions. Please enlighten me if i am wrong. But for the tournaments i do go to, thats why the scores there are in the 1200s for a Fita for an instinctive shooter and much higher for shooters with a sight. Why would i want to use an aiming style that hampers me and will guarantee i am not competitive? 

This is like the uneducated comments you see on youtube on a Olympic recurve video. Usually stating "why do they have all those things sticking out from the bow, they should shoot a real bow like i do" blah, blah, blah. Yet, never see these idiots at a real event shooting their real bow. Which of course they would not even be in the ballpark shooting 70 or 90 meters. If you want to shoot instinctive, then great. Thats awesome, enjoy archery in the form you like. But this is NAA, FITA, Collegiate Archery and JOAD thread. Not the instinctive barebow, traditional thread. So dont expect that method of shooting to find a large reception. 

It wont find a home here anymore than debates on feathers versus modern vanes, wood shafts vs carbon, or back quivers vs hip quivers. etc etc etc. There are many forms of archery and each valid in their own discipline. Enjoy your instinctive shooting. Seriously, but for me, it has no place in olympic recurve which is the discipline i choose to shoot. 


Chris


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

John,

"There's no room in the little box where you write the arrow values for an explanation of how it got there."

If I write small, I can usually get all of my explanations on the back of the scorecard.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

A mental guru who coached me in a different sport once told me the you need skill to compete, you need will to be a champion, but to be a great champion the will must be greater than the skill.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

chrstphr said:


> Why would i want to use an aiming style that hampers me and will guarantee i am not competitive?


EXACTLY!

There's a reason why most archers choose a different aiming technique over Instinctive Aiming for target competitions that involve targets set at distances 25yrds. and over. 

If Instinctive Aiming was no different than Gap Aiming or any other barebow aiming technique there would be no need to learn a different aiming technique for competitions involving shooting at longer distances. 

Steve Morley who is a World Champion Field Archer still uses Instinctive Aiming for most of his close shots.



chrstphr said:


> So dont expect that method of shooting to find a large reception.


LOL...reception??? ...Why shouldn't it be received? It's just a simple aiming technique that is just one of the options while aiming a bow without sights? 



chrstphr said:


> Seriously, but for me, it has no place in olympic recurve which is the discipline i choose to shoot.


Is this forum about Olympic shooting only...or does it also include Barebow also?

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

I have not shot against any Olympic recurve archers who do not use a sight. I also have not seen any in the Olympic footage and world cup events. Perhaps i am mistaken. I equate barebow to traditional which has its own forum threads. While there is a barebow division in the NAA and at FITA tournaments, it is a separate discipline and quite different from Olympic recurve. There are also crossbow divisions, yet i do not see any topics on crossbow gear or techniques etc in this Forum thread. Different discipline. 

And i personally hope all my Olympic recurve competitors do away with their sights and use instinctive aiming when they compete against me. 


Chris


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

"And i personally hope all my Olympic recurve competitors do away with their sights and use instinctive aiming when they compete against me. "

:rock:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

chrstphr said:


> While there is a barebow division in the NAA and at FITA tournaments, it is a separate discipline and quite different from Olympic recurve.


Barebow is a separate division of NAA and FITA...BUT...there is nothing in the title to this forum that states this is an Olympic Archery ONLY forum. 

Just do a simple search on this forum and there are other threads and posts discussing barebow topics. In fact...let me save you the time...there were about 195 threads started with 'barebow' in the title of the thread in this forum.



chrstphr said:


> And i personally hope all my Olympic recurve competitors do away with their sights and use instinctive aiming when they compete against me.


I'm sure you do...and there's a reason why :wink:

Again...it amazes me how the simple mentioning of Instinctive Aiming stirs such emotion and resistance with such a simple aiming technique with some people. 

A person has to wonder when certain people don't even want to see Instinctive Aiming discussed here....who's taking it personally.

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

I dont get your point. Not taking it personal at all. And not surprised that not many are interested here since...

I dont see how this fits with learning curve of elite archers which is the original topic. Perhaps you should start your own topic about instinctive shooting and then maybe others will post about it. Otherwise i see it as hijacking the thread. 

I already stated if you use it and enjoy shooting instinctive, then great. Its awesome. Glad you benefit from it. Honestly. 

what it has to do with the learning curve of an elite archer i dont know. And i certainly dont see its use in most of the top archers recurve or compound aside from the barebow traditional divisions. Anymore so than string walking or gap shooting.

How does instinctive aiming aid or hamper the learning curve of an elite archer? 



Chris


----------



## Blades (Jun 25, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Again...it amazes me how the simple mentioning of Instinctive Aiming stirs such emotion and resistance with such a simple aiming technique with some people.
> 
> A person has to wonder when certain people don't even want to see Instinctive Aiming discussed here....who's taking it personally.


Because it is a discussion and argument we have all heard many times before, in the traditional section. None of us are taking it "personally", we are all just sick of hearing about it.

The thread is about the learning curve for "elite" archers. In this forum, the standard is and shall remain that when talking about "elite" archers in the FITA forum, you are talking about FITA/Olympic shooters, many of whom post here. When talking about the "elites" in the traditional forum, that is where the talk about Hill, Bear, etc are, and the other "elite" traditional/instinctive/etc shooters is, and where it should be.

To come in and start asking about things that are not really related, and then keep posting about them, derailing the thread, is annoying and a bit of a waste of time. We were all discussing and interesting topic, and hearing the opinions of many respected archers, including Mr. McKinney himself. It would be preferable to the OP, as well as those contributing and viewing, if the thread got back on topic. 

And as such, here are my thoughts on the original topic. 

The idea of "natural ability" vs hard work is an interesting question, and I dont think there is a single answer, just as there is no single answer for the "correct" version of form, or aiming. I only picked up a bow in june. Last week, I shot a 286 NFAA indoor round. I was damn proud of myself. I only got there because I shot every single day this summer, and spent my nights watching youtube clips and reading this forum, teaching myself proper form. I got a new bow in September, and I was finally looked at by a coach (3 actually) in October. I was asked how long I had been shooting, and told them, and all 3 were very surprised, and told me I had a lot of _potential_, not talent. I continued to work hard, shooting as often as I can, and just took first at the State indoor competition in my division, beating my friend and fellow OSU shooter by 40 points both days. 

Now, I don't think of myself as a "gifted" archer, or have any "natural" archery ability. I worked my ass off for 3 months to even be able to hit a block target consistently. And I am going to keep working until I am satisfied with my shooting level. Do I want to go to the Olympics? Yes. Do I know I need to work for it? Absolutely. But I wasn't told that I had potential to go to the Olympics. I was told that if I kept working hard, I could do well. Those coaches saw something in me that I didnt think I had, and their push is what drove me to try and push myself to compete. Now that ball is rolling, and I don't want it to stop. 

So "natural" ability or not, Im going to keep pushing myself, and keep having fun. And I hope to see some of you guys at the trials in a few years.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

chrstphr said:


> I dont get your point. I dont see how this fits with learning curve of elite archers which is the original topic.


Than if you don't understand something...please ask before making any definitive assumptions.

The point is...if you believe Instinctive Aiming in fact exists and you understand what's involved with it...you will understand why it was even brought up.

Here's an example that may help shed some light on this.

For most target archers not aiming Instinctively...hitting a 12" diameter balloon at 50yrds. is extremely or at least reasonably easy...but for the archer aiming Totally Instinctively...not so much.

Why is that?

IMO...based on what I've researched...Instinctive Aiming requires the most amount of raw hand and eye coordination in regards to proprioception/kinesthesia and motor/muscle memory.

There's a reason why some catch onto it very quickly while others struggle with it or never do...and I believe it has something to do with a genetic gift.

I believe that most high level athletes have this.

In regards to archery...I believe most top performing Olympic archers or any other successful archer for that matter...would also most likely excel aiming Instinctively.

I only brought up this....NOT to try and prove Instinctive Aiming is a better aiming technique...but how it could be a good indicator of raw talent.

Just so everyone knows....yes...I can and do aim Instinctively when the shot calls for it...but my primary aiming technique is Gap.

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Hey look, Ray found a new place to play! 

Ray, give it a rest. You're making an argument nobody can prove anyway. Not you, not anyone else. Nobody can "prove" beyond a shadow of a doubt that your beloved "instinctive" archers are actually using instinct alone, and not aiming in some way. And furthermore, nobody really cares. Until we get "style" points added to our scorecards, myself and every other barebow shooter will continue to aim like hell when it comes to major target competitions. If they DO start to award "style points" (or "macho points" if you prefer) then I'll just claim that I aim "instinctively" and collect those too. 



> Wow...even the mere mentioning of Instinctive Aiming rattles the cages of archers over here.


Ray, one reason I frequent this forum is because this is the home of reality, not myth. We discuss real results and real techniques that are used to win real national and international tournaments. 

Whenever I wax romantic and want to make believe I have superpowers, I grab my longbow and declare to the world that I'm an instinctive archer...

And if I don't respond to your posts in the future, it's only because I have - just - added you to my ignore list. Please try not to take it personally.

John


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

They basically are aiming instinctively (subconsciously) but instead of referencing a learned sight picture composed of sight window,arrow point, knuckles ,riser shapes etc. they are simply referencing their aperture/sight pin. It's done in the same manner too; it's a comfortable and repeatable visual aiming device which they are NOT focusing on intently, you just let go and let things float. Focus is on the feel of the shot and the target not the aiming device itself. The best instinctive shots still learned a sight picture, just like the guys with a sight did; they are both sight pictures. The more you get use to your sight picture ( be it your gap or aperture) the more "instinctive" things become. Steve Morley and all the other high level trad shooters are gap shooters that have practiced the use of their sight picture to repletion.. It's become second nature; instinctive. None of these guys can hold a candle to high level target shooters(or even medium level target shooters) because they don't have the skill. If the top level target shooters wanted to learn how to gap and then spent years practicing that method they would most likely have the best scores; they ARE the athletes with the best aiming skills and the best game that's why they go to target circles to compete as the best shoot there. average target shooter skill usually translates to ultra high trad skill.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

chrstphr quipped:

And i personally hope all my Olympic recurve competitors do away with their sights and use instinctive aiming when they compete against me.

That's funny!

Ray's reply:

I'm sure you do...and there's a reason why "

That's boorish! But probably instinctive...


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

No trad/instinctive/3d longbow champ is going to pick up a target rig because then they become average to good instead of being at the top of the heap. And no high level target archer is going to hang up their fita rig to go play 3d because that would effectively remove them from competing with the best archers in the world. I can shoot much higher scores with my sight and target rig than I can with my longbow ( which I shoot best instinctively btw) I'm just not under any illusions as to why its the case. Everyone aims, don't fool yourself and don't think that letting your subconscious do most of the aiming is something that only trad shooters do.


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

So subconscious/instinctive/minimal focus on sight picture is most likely synonymous with high level skill and or natural ability but it is definitely not privy domain to trad shooters and what some people like to call instinctive shooting (ie learned sight picture).


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Ahhh...so out come the personal attacks. PATHETIC! 

As far as a genetic component being discovered or proven in regards to inherent athletic ability in certain people...I believe one will be discovered.

I've been a fitness trainer, athletic coach and PT aide for over 25yrs. and can easily recognise the people who are more gifted with superior balance and superior hand and eye coordination. It's even easier to witness in adolescents.

It's really no different than studying the brain in regards to intelligence and how some people are genetically more intelligent than others...except we have tests that help determine that...but no real definitive tests that test inherent athletic ability...that I'm aware of.

Some of you need to check your egos or insecurities at the door because it's becoming more and more apparent who the people are who are making mountains out of mole hills over a simple aiming technique...when it does NOT need to be.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

If someone is positing their instinctive shooting abilities somehow equals superiority then learn how to shoot with an even more easily referenced sight picture (an actual target sight) and let your superiority shine through. The great thing about a sight on a target bow is that it removes the element of favorable gap pictures and effectively levels the playing field with regards to aiming, you'll then see skill, rather than favorable point-on distances, winning the matches.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

And if anyone believes that I believe Instinctive Aiming is based on pure instinct as it relates to the Bio 101 definition we all learned in elementary school...you would be wrong!

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

Not directing at you personally ray, more towards people who seem to follow the logic of a superiority in instinctive aiming. You and I have a lot in common with regards to careers from what I can gather. Most of those little studs running circles around other kids on day 1 of PE in second grade probably have been in a very dynamic movement environment from crawling stage. I've seen way too many athletic brothers and sisters with gigantic gaps in ability to say its mostly genetic or inherited skills. There is unquestionably a genetic component but most of it is skill in my opinion. Sometimes the background skills/exposures are buried or unrecognizable and the performance or "natural ability" is really just a high or relevant skill transfer not natural ability.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Ryan,

Let me be the first to thank you for NOT taking this discussion personally with your last post and just discussing the evidence :thumbs_up

This is how the discussion should have gone instead of the way it did.



ryan b. said:


> Most of those little studs running circles around other kids on day 1 of PE in second grade probably have been in a very dynamic movement environment from crawling stage.


I agree. That definitely applies.



ryan b. said:


> There is unquestionably a genetic component but most of it is skill in my opinion.


My thoughts EXACTLY! :thumbs_up

That's EXACTLY what I was trying to show by mentioning Instinctive Aiming and how it can be an indicator that a genetic component does in fact exist. It's unfortunate that some people got so offended or upset by that. 

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Ray, there's a discovered gene for instinctive aiming now! Come on, Ray, this is getting ridiculous! For forums where the "no-aiming gift" is acceptable science, not so out of place, but here, of all places??


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Sanford said:


> Ray, there's a discovered gene for instinctive aiming now! Come on, Ray, this is getting ridiculous!


What in the world are you talking about or is this just another lame attempt on making poor assumptions?

I guess it's just human nature for some people to not want to acknowledge or accept that some people are just more naturally gifted in certain areas than others. I guess it sucks always getting picked last for the dodgeball team :wink:

There may be a genetic component that is discovered within certain individuals who have superior balance and proprioceptive/kinesthesia abilities...which can than help explain why some archers can learn to aim Instinctively quicker and more accurately than other people.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

There could be a gene that exerts influence on the way one aims subconsciously while performing other learned motor-tasks (it's not an archery or instinctively aiming a bow gene..it would have other influences as well). ..Or it could be the quality of the motor tasks(where genetics do have some determining result) allow one to subconsciously aim with little interference. There are probably hundreds of other scenarios and variables as well. I think the "problem" is in assuming the dissimilar skill and gene traits rather than looking for commonality and connectedness amongst various shooting sports, hand eye coordination and transfer of trained skills etc.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

ryan b. said:


> There could be a gene that exerts influence on the way one aims subconsciously while performing other learned motor-tasks (it's not an archery or instinctively aiming a bow gene..it would have other influences as well). ..Or it could be the quality of the motor tasks(where genetics do have some determining result) allow one to subconsciously aim with little interference. There are probably hundreds of other scenarios and variables as well.


Ding...Ding...Ding...someone else is getting it! :thumbs_up

Instinctive Aiming was ONLY mentioned as an example.

Ray :shade:




Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

There is merit to what ray is saying. Take someone with great genes for motor learning and a background of relevant skill transfer then couple that with some sound coaching and look out! The thing is there are probably some genes that do help but more importantly there aren't a lot which interfere. We aren't programmed to suck at sport. We might lack a good environment and coaching but there aren't many innately poor shots. Most poor shooting stems from poor programming. Skill still matters most. An averagely gened potential archer could easily surpass someone with superior genetics and poor practice habits. Also, gene expression is very relevant here--some things have to be triggered or given the chance to be expressed; its not all hard wired. It's also important to remember that sport is not completely or even dominantly dependent on physical traits. Lack height? Mitigate with speed and direction change. Only average linear speed? Compensate with good hands and field awareness. I'm not personally highly skilled in any elite way but I have been privaliged to work with highly qualified athletes and ( like John and the other high level guys always reiterate) once the basics are rooted its generally a mental game. This is true even in sports like track and field, wrestling and weightlifting, where it APPEARS physical traits and kinesthetic values should predominate. It's not always the strongest and fastest who do the best.. Lots of times those guys can't put it together for competition.


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

Also consider that the highest level athletes with the toughest mental games most likely gravitated towards learning skills in more profitable and glamorous sports than archery. We might push our scores higher if archery was our national sport instead of the typical American sports but I still don't believe that favorable genetics would be the all encompassing factor or even the predominant one. Look at what the Koreans do and compare it to other countries. There system of selection only produces slightly more favorable results. The Americans have a very small pond to scoop people from and lots of other countries have funky ( arguably less biomechanicly efficient) techniques compared to say the Korean system of more universalized technique and larger genetic pool to select talent from but it's still the other components that pave the way to success in sport.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

ryan b. said:


> There is merit to what ray is saying. Take someone with great genes for motor learning and a background of relevant skill transfer then couple that with some sound coaching and look out! The thing is there are probably some genes that do help but more importantly there aren't a lot which interfere. We aren't programmed to suck at sport. We might lack a good environment and coaching but there aren't many innately poor shots. Most poor shooting stems from poor programming. Skill still matters most. An averagely gened potential archer could easily surpass someone with superior genetics and poor practice habits. Also, gene expression is very relevant here--some things have to be triggered or given the chance to be expressed; its not all hard wired. It's also important to remember that sport is not completely or even dominantly dependent on physical traits. Lack height? Mitigate with speed and direction change. Only average linear speed? Compensate with good hands and field awareness. I'm not personally highly skilled in any elite way but I have been privaliged to work with highly qualified athletes and ( like John and the other high level guys always reiterate) once the basics are rooted its generally a mental game. This is true even in sports like track and field, wrestling and weightlifting, where it APPEARS physical traits and kinesthetic values should predominate. It's not always the strongest and fastest who do the best.. Lots of times those guys can't put it together for competition.


Ryan,

Again....THANK YOU SOOOOO MUCH for not distorting my comments into something there were NEVER meant to be.

I'm NOT trying to belittle ANYONE'S skill or aiming technique. 

I respect ANYONE who puts the effort into becoming the top of their class...whether it's in athletics, art, music, medicine, science...whatever.

I just choose to recognize that there is most likely a genetic component involved.

I'm also fascinated how the human body can overcome obstacles and persevere through hard work, discipline, ingenuity and proper training.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> What in the world are you talking about or is this just another lame attempt on making poor assumptions?
> 
> I guess it's just human nature for some people to not want to acknowledge or accept that some people are just more naturally gifted in certain areas than others. I guess it sucks always getting picked last for the dodgeball team :wink:
> 
> ...


Ray I don't think getting picked last at dodgeball had so much to do with innate kinesthetic abilities in so much as it had to do with prior exposure to playing games similar to dodgeball. There was also always that lackluster athlete, maybe the funny fat kid, that could get into the best athletes head so bad and make him so mad he fouled out or lost his superior performance edge in his anger. Just something to think about. So there may be a performance gene but most of it still has to do with things that are not physical. Maybe that's not the right way to put it. Mental edge is the final deciding factor on high level stages. Sure an incredible overall athlete will probably be superior in the short run just remember what makes the best the best. And when someone figures out the entire picture on sport performance And skill acquisition please pm ASAP!


Ps sorry for the poorly constructed posts and grammar. I'm stuck on my couch with my new iphone ( no swype.. are you kidding me) nursing a wrestling injury!


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

ryan b. said:


> Ray I don't think getting picked last at dodgeball had so much to do with innate kinesthetic abilities in so much as it had to do with prior exposure to playing games similar to dodgeball.!


LOL...that was said more tongue in cheek as in dishing back what was being thrown at me :wink:

Ray :shade:


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

ryan b. said:


> Mental edge is the final deciding factor on high level stages.


I don't necessarily believe it's the deciding factor for every athlete...BUT...I believe it's extremely important to the success or failure of an elite athlete.

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

Yeah I gotcha I just wanted to give a nod towards mental/spiritual abilities since we seemed to be focusing so much on physical traits. And for the record I'm not in any kind of denial when it comes to superior physical skills. I've coined the term "Kinesthetic demons" to define some of the amazing athletes I've worked with (i.e. no prior practice and learning how to land back flips in one day..really). Still, nobody blows it mentally and wins, Not at any level. Mental toughness/focus and direction of attitude/spirit will often save you when physical factors or even skill begin to break down ( due to injury or fatigue). But lose that mental edge and even world class can become nothing in a heart beat.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

ryan b. said:


> I've coined the term "Kinesthetic demons" to define some of the amazing athletes I've worked with (i.e. no prior practice and learning how to land back flips in one day..really).


LOL...I'm not surprised. I've witnessed a few people like that. I just called them gifted or a prodigy.

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> LOL...I'm not surprised. I've witnessed a few people like that. I just called them gifted or a prodigy.
> 
> Ray :shade:
> 
> ...


So what I'm positing here is that this "ability" stems more from the arsenal of related/transferable skills than it does innate ability. Acquiring this toolbox of transferable and relevant skills may be due to genes responsible for kinesthetic awareness, motor learning, visualization techniques, relaxation abilities, spatial awareness and even more obscure or less definable traits such as positive mental outlooks. Sometimes skill acquisition has more to do with smarts than with muscles but I will agree the variables are highly interwoven and there is no one right way.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

ryan b. said:


> So what I'm positing here is that this "ability" stems more from the arsenal of related/transferable skills than it does innate ability. Acquiring this toolbox of transferable and relevant skills may be due to genes responsible for kinesthetic awareness, motor learning, visualization techniques, relaxation abilities, spatial awareness and even more obscure or less definable traits such as positive mental outlooks. Sometimes skill acquisition has more to do with smarts than with muscles but I will agree the variables are highly interwoven and there is no one right way.


:thumbs_up

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

this started out as a great topic and thread and degenerated into mush. Sorry to say I'm out. 



Chris


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

chrstphr said:


> this started out as a great topic and thread and degenerated into mush.


It did unfortunately degenerate into some unneeded mush because some people got upset or made poor assumptions on my motivation with the mere mentioning of a specific aiming technique when it could have gone just as respectful and informative as the conversation between Ryan and I did.

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

I'm disagreeing and discussing some things with ray and positive is coming out of it. It seems like people did get disagreeable. Ray included from how I read things (sorry ray that's how it came across even if it wasn't your intent) and im sure it didnt come across great to some other readers as well. I was simply trying to comment on the broad subject of the thread while also attempting to engage ray into a more productive conversation as I wanted to give my 2cents on some of the things I saw differently in his posts. I've learned a lot from this thread and from AT and all the great people on here. I feel this thread could keep going strong. If I'm adding to the mush ill just stop posting and continue to enjoy reading on this thread. Thanks,


----------



## Str8 Shooter (Oct 15, 2005)

Interesting thread and even more interesting hijack going on. 

I thought I'd share some thoughts as someone who has been involved in athletics since childhood. I've had fair to middlin' success in a few different sports at various level, been fortunate enough to work with some really excellent athletes and have been coached by some extremely high level people. I like to think I'm observant and objective and I know there are definitely components which have to come together to make someone successful. 

In most athletic events physical ability is certainly a factor. Certain physical traits can make it easier for an athlete to succeed. Strength levels, percentage of fast twitch/slow twitch muscle fibers, etc... all things on a genetic level that we can't influence to a great degree which contribute to a persons level of physical potential. I know some people don't believe these things will matter in the long run but they do. In college I threw hammer, an event that blends strength, speed and technical skill. I wanted to do other throws but my specialty was hammer. One year we had a guy try out for the team and his best aptitude was to throw javelin. He was told he could train with the team for one year and if he was able to throw a certain distance he could remain on the team. He worked his tail off, didn't miss workouts and put extra time into developing the form needed to throw well. After one year of intensive training he threw maybe 15 feet further than he started with and well short of the distance he needed to remain on the team. To make matters worse for him, myself and a few other throwers (all with similar backgrounds and strength levels) were able to throw 50-60 feet past his qualifying distance with no javelin training and no running approaches. Some people have the right physical combos, some don't.

Work ethic is certainly another factor which can never be overlooked. A person must have the desire to work hard, overcome problems and just put the time in to succeed. Hard work is good but it has to be smart. I know lots of people who work hard but not smart and consequently burn excess energy without a comensurate increase in skill or performance. Hard work will allow a person to exceed someone with more talent but less work ethic. In high school one of my training partners for wrestling was a 4 time state qualifer, nationally ranked and one of the most physically gifted people I've ever met. You ever meet a 285 pound kid who had ridiculous strength and speed levels, fantastic balance and a horrible work ethic? I did. He was able to do extremely well up to a state level competition but as soon as he competed with people who had similar talent and actually put the work in he was totally outmatched and outclassed. He relied far to much on his abilities he didn't have to work towards and when that failed he failed. Which brings me to the next point.

Mental attitude is really the divider when you get athletes who are equally talented and put in similar amounts of focused training. As I said earlier, I've had the fortune of working with some truly exceptional coaches. I worked with wrestling coaches who were NCAA champions and two olympic medal winners. In collegiate track my coach was another NCAA champion who worked with a world reknowned strength coach and with the world record holder for hammer throw. A very good friend of mine is a former world champion powerlifter and archer. If there is one thing I have learned from being around so many gifted and successful people it is their ability to overcome adversity, turn obstacles into pathways and their overwhelming belief in themselves. Rick McKinney stated earlier that it's good he never listened to others or he would've quit. I bet he knew, deep down even when people disagreed, that he was going to succeed even if things didn't go as planned, even if his worst rival showed up, even if everyone said it wouldn't happen. That type of belief and confidence can't be taught or bought. It has to be earned and not everyone can get it. Some call it arrogance or cockiness but what it really is a belief that is so powerful and consuming that it allows a gifted, hard working person to become exceptional. People like to bring up the oddball talent who had unorthodox form or methods and succeeded against the odds. I believe it is these people who had this type of confidence and thats why they rose to the top and became household names.

Archery is a little different from some of the other sports I mentioned. The physical skills needed aren't necessarily the overtly physical traits other athletes need. Archery is a sport where consistent fine motor skills are needed not strength or speed. We archers can adjust the mass weight and draw weight of our equipment to match our physical strength and ablitity. This mitigates much of the raw physical presence other sports require. So, my personal belief is the main thing that seperates the average person from the elite is working intelligently and dilligently and developing a strong mental game.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Str8,

Excellent post - thank you.

"Archery is a sport where consistent fine motor skills are needed not strength or speed. We archers can adjust the mass weight and draw weight of our equipment to match our physical strength and ablitity. This mitigates much of the raw physical presence other sports require. So, my personal belief is the main thing that seperates the average person from the elite is working intelligently and dilligently and developing a strong mental game."

The underlined section affirms (at least as I read it) the thrust of Rick McKinney's viewpoint. 

Given your above quote (with which I agree), I wonder what other sports are highly correlative with this particular mix of skills/requirements? Racing car drivers (with the added required attribute of great physical courage) came to my mind as I read your post.


----------



## HikerDave (Jan 1, 2011)

Str8 Shooter said:


> Interesting thread and even more interesting hijack going on.
> 
> I thought I'd share some thoughts as someone who has been involved in athletics since childhood. I've had fair to middlin' success in a few different sports at various level, been fortunate enough to work with some really excellent athletes and have been coached by some extremely high level people. I like to think I'm observant and objective and I know there are definitely components which have to come together to make someone successful.
> 
> ...


Great post. I have a minor quibble about belief in oneself not being a learned trait.

-That type of belief and confidence can't be taught or bought. It has to be earned and not everyone can get it.

What if self confidence can be taught and nurtured? Perhaps what McKinney had is more like resilience -- the ability to hold on to one's self confidence when everyone out there is trying to take it away.

The one big thing that I learned in my level 3 coaching class, taught by Ed Votruba, is the importance of protecting the archer's self image. To do this we have to always remain positive in our language and outlook in addition to using techniques such as gradually increasing shooting distances so the archers get used to shooting in the gold.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lksseven said:


> Str8,
> 
> Excellent post - thank you.
> 
> ...


I agree with this in principle. It certainly does level the playing field quite a bit. 

I'd like for someone to then explain to me a couple of things then...

Why do we always see a few archers who have been competing for many years, working their butts off, and still consistently place 4th or 5th in their respective divisions. I can think of quite a few I know personally that work much harder, know much more about the sport, and have a much higher archery I.Q. than the people who are consistently beating them. Explain those then.

Also, again looking at the "elites" - Brady was shooting 1300's at the age of 18. I'm sure Vic was too. Butch was a championship archer within a couple years of picking up the bow. Darrell was a world class archer while still a teen. All of these archer's accomplishments at an early age or soon into their career were well documented. Not sure about Huish, but I suspect the same was true with him. Rod White is another that was clearly talented at a very early age. How long was it before Jennifer Hardy was winning with a recurve. A couple years after first picking up a bow? Miranda Leek was shooting scores in Louisville as a teen that would have placed in the adult men's division.

So, why then do we see incredible performances within a few years for most of the elite archers?

Can anyone name a single elite archer outside of Rick that didn't really start putting together outstanding performances within two or three years of picking up a bow? Not "good" archers, but elite archers. That is my point. Some people are just born with a gift for this sport. It's silly to just ignore that fact. 

This takes nothing away from those archer's work ethic. Nothing at all, because they all worked their tails off. But to ignore the fact that there are a LOT of "B" level archers working just as hard does a disservice to many amateur competitors. That's what got me going on this to begin with. The suggestion that if someone isn't an elite archer, they just aren't working hard enough or smart enough. Baloney, I say. There's a little more to it than that.

I say this is the norm, not the exception. Rick was an exception to this rule. But I'm talking about the greater majority of the truly elite archers, all showing incredible promise within the first few years. 

John


----------



## tomah (Aug 15, 2011)

maybe its just destiny


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

ryan b. said:


> Ray included from how I read things (sorry ray that's how it came across even if it wasn't your intent) and im sure it didnt come across great to some other readers as well.


Ryan...there should be nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone if it's done respectfully and without poor assumptions. Unfortunately...that's not always the case...and the mere mentioning of the phrase...Instinctive Aiming...seems to stir emotions in some people. I already apologized if it upset anyone...but there's really no reason why it can't be discussed...especially when it can be an indicator of specific genetic gifts that influence a person's proprioceptive/kinesthetic and motor/muscle memory abilities.

Most of us here have already agreed and acknowledged how not all of us are created exactly the same...therefore some of us will excel in athletics, while others may excel in astrophysics.

I believe there is definitely a genetic component involved with most 'elite' athletes...but I will also acknowledge...that it is NOT the ONLY aspect that creates an 'elite' athlete. A person, who may not be as gifted, may become a far better athlete by dedication, motivation, hard work, ingenuity and proper guidance than a gifted person who doesn't share the same motivation, hard work, ingenuity and proper guidance.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

HikerDave said:


> What if self confidence can be taught and nurtured? Perhaps what McKinney had is more like resilience -- the ability to hold on to one's self confidence when everyone out there is trying to take it away.
> 
> The one big thing that I learned in my level 3 coaching class, taught by Ed Votruba, is the importance of protecting the archer's self image. To do this we have to always remain positive in our language and outlook in addition to using techniques such as gradually increasing shooting distances so the archers get used to shooting in the gold.


:thumbs_up

Words have more power than what some people understand....and when a coach understands this and knows how to build up the self confidence of their students with positive words of encouragement and affirmation combined with specific training techniques that also build confidence...'elite' athletes will be 'created' :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

John,

Your position is spot-on. God-given talent in a specific area is a real thing, and the examples are everywhere around us, including the ones you mention. I have read that Greg Norman didn't pickup a golf club until he was 18 or nineteen or 24 or some such, and was shooting par from the pro tees in less than two years. A natural (I think his wine is supposed to be really good, too).

My favorite example is Affirmed and Alydar. What a magnificent pair of competitors - iron strikes iron, and both are sharpened. Was Affirmed just naturally 12" faster than Alydar - with equal measures of heart/will/training - or did he have equal talent/training but just an iota more 'will' in the closing rush of the homestretch? I guess mostly I don't really care - I'm just so thrilled at what these champions allowed all of us to see. Affirmed could have never been the legendary/heart stopping champion that he was without Alydar pushing him to reveal the full measure of his greatness (maybe like Pace-McKinney, too; or Ali-Frazier). They go into history forever joined at the hip, forever dependent on the other - one to beat, one to chase.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I have no idea what Ray is writing, but it just dawned on me how much more sense it would make for him to go after the use of clickers than aiming styles.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> I have no idea what Ray is writing, but it just dawned on me how much more sense it would make for him to go after the use of clickers than aiming styles.


Maybe so...

I have to note, though, that I consider Ray one of the "good guys" in the trad forum. Not that I always agree with him nor that other people in the forum aren't good people, but that Ray's post seem to be pretty grounded in reality and physiology.

That, and I should note that much of this thread is above my pay grade, but even for those who's pay grade covers it I suspect the published data is still tenuous :dontknow:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

We have our own version of "instinctive" archers in fita recurve. They insist on shooting without clickers. Same mindset. Makes no difference to me one way or the other. I wish all the guys at the Olympic trials had preferred to shoot without their clickers.

John


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> I have no idea what Ray is writing, but it just dawned on me how much more sense it would make for him to go after the use of clickers than aiming styles.


Another perfect example of the kind of remarks that degrade these threads.

Look at John's remarks right after I originally mentioned the phrase Instinctive Aiming.

There was NOTHING in my original post that had any negative connotation to it...implied or otherwise.

Sad...that some people can get so upset by the mere mentioning of an aiming technique.

If John would have just asked for clarification rather than turn this into something personal for him....this would have stayed on topic as Ryan and I kept it.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Warbow said:


> Maybe so...
> 
> I have to note, though, that I consider Ray one of the "good guys" in the trad forum. Not that I always agree with him nor that other people in the forum aren't good people, but that Ray's post seem to be pretty grounded in reality and physiology.
> 
> That, and I should note that much of this thread is above my pay grade, but even for those who's pay grade covers it I suspect the published data is still tenuous :dontknow:


Thanks, Warbow! :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

I am really struggling at what you are alluding to John. I fully understand that you feel some have talent and others do not, but I think everybody has the talent, it is just that it takes longer for others to get there and some will never find it because they have not figured out how to get there. Unfortunately some of the really talented ones that takes some time to get where they need to go quit too soon, thus they never get to prove that they had the talent in the first place. Now, why is it that these "gifted" ones take off and climb so quickly? I think it has a lot to do with their mental approach. They really believe they can do it and with the right guidance they travel up the ladder of success rather well. However, this is not always the case. I really don't think you can put a Darrell in the same category the likes of Butch or Vic or Jenny or anyone else for that matter. This guy was gifted and he worked as hard if not harder than anyone else. He is the anomaly without question. I don't think people realize that he owned 16 of the 20 possible world records at one time. He owned the Total world record for 14 years increasing by 71 points. In other words that is no one like him. 

Back to the mental. You mentioned that you got close to your golf score but stayed in one particular spot for years. Mentally you were trapped and could not figure out how to get out of that. I felt that same thing in my archery in the early years. I heard the good comments about my form and I was working hard enough but could not get out of that plateau to be an "elite". One day I was working on my pole vaulting and did some imagery by accident. I went a foot and a half higher than I ever did before. I figured there was something to this mental thing and started working on it with my archery. After a little trial and error I found what worked and it did put me in that "elite" status. Some people already have mental ability and others have part of it and become good a lots of things but never a master of one. Then there are others will probably never figure it out because they are either too stubborn to think that they need mental work. When I talk with most archers they say mental is important but most don't even make the effort to learn how to work and develop it. It would be like people admitting they are not mentally tough. Most people talk a good game but most do not realize that they could be so mentally weak thus they don't really put in the effort in the mental side versus the physical side. 

The perfect example of my comment that anyone can be an elite is how the rest of the world is or has caught up to the Koreans. Look at the Mexican team. Look at the Ukraine team, the Indonesian and Indian teams. Many of these countries were so far behind years ago but now they have "elites" just about everywhere you go. They have put all of the pieces together and now they are as good as anyone else in the world. Yes, the Koreans are still number one, but you can see that others are figuring out that hard work, good coaching and a good mental game will put them right up there with the Koreans. Most of the US archers haven't figured that out yet.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Rick McKinney said:


> Now, why is it that these "gifted" ones take off and climb so quickly? I think it has a lot to do with their mental approach. They really believe they can do it and with the right guidance they travel up the ladder of success rather well.
> 
> Some people already have mental ability and others have part of it and become good a lots of things but never a master of one. Then there are others will probably never figure it out because they are either too stubborn to think that they need mental work. When I talk with most archers they say mental is important but most don't even make the effort to learn how to work and develop it. It would be like people admitting they are not mentally tough. Most people talk a good game but most do not realize that they could be so mentally weak thus they don't really put in the effort in the mental side versus the physical side.


:thumbs_up

The brain is where it's at...whether it's in regards to exceptional focus, concentration and imagination and exceptional proprioception, balance and coordination.

Each of those areas can be improved under most...if not all normal circumstances.

Where there's a will...there's a way....and when you combine all of the above with someone who has a genetic gift...we witness an athlete that dominates their sport.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Rick McKinney said:


> 1) ...... I fully understand that you feel some have talent and others do not, but I think everybody has the talent, it is just that it takes longer for others to get there and some will never find it because they have not figured out how to get there. ....
> .........
> 2) The perfect example of my comment that anyone can be an elite is how the rest of the world is or has caught up to the Koreans. Look at the Mexican team. Look at the Ukraine team, the Indonesian and Indian teams. Many of these countries were so far behind years ago but now they have "elites" just about everywhere you go. They have put all of the pieces together and now they are as good as anyone else in the world. Yes, the Koreans are still number one, but you can see that others are figuring out that hard work, good coaching and a good mental game will put them right up there with the Koreans. Most of the US archers haven't figured that out yet.


1) Rick, I fully agree with ... you and John, both. But there are two levels of talent in archery. Pure talent and capacituy to handle it by yourself, and raw talent were talent is there but you need someone to help you to make it coming out. 
Rick Mckinney, Darrel Pace, Alessandro Rivolta, Giancarlo Ferrari, Simon Fairwether, Kim So Nyung, Jang Jong Ho, Oh Kyo Moon, among those I have been enough lucky to observe, had the the first kind of talent, while there are leterally hundreds of archers having the the second type of talent. Then we go to point 2
2) with the help of good coach, these hundreds of archers can sort out their talent, refine it and become elite archers at international level (Mexican, tens of Koreans, Indians, Malaysians, Japanese, Dutches, US and so on ...). If they don't have this support, they wil remain forever in the mid high level without becoming a really elite archer.

I have seen and I continue to see hundreds of archers around that can get much more from their shooting than they are getting now, but as they are from category 2 without good coaching, they will never do. 
Recently I have been able to observe two archers that are for sure in this category. One has tens of years of experience and the other one is shooting since a couple of years only. One has goot close to become an elite archer by himself, or being category 1, the other has started too late in archery, but surely had the potential do do same. They both are and have been limited in development only because they have never had access to proper advanced coaching at the right time. 

Last but not least, one comment is also very necessary here. 
To be an elite archer does not mean to be a Champion. There are probably around 80 or more really Elite archers presently active in in the world, but among them, no more than 10 to 20 have the "Champion" additional chromosome that will allow them or have already allowed them to write their names in History of archery (Olympic Games and World Championships). Champions are the elite of the elite archers, IMHO.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> A
> If John would have just asked for clarification rather than turn this into something personal for him....this would have stayed on topic as Ryan and I kept it.
> 
> Ray :shade:


not really, the topic was learning curve of Elite archers, not Instinctive aiming. You hijacked the thread and took it off topic. 

Chris


----------



## tori_mish (Jan 13, 2013)

Hey guys. Interesting thread, and I've just spent the last two cups of tea reading through all five pages. Amusing 'hijack' midway, good to see the thread is back on track once again.

I welcome the comments from the experienced archers here, but feel that I'd like to add a few things. Rick has bought up two interesting words ... 'intrinsic' and 'extrinsic'. These motivators aren't discussed enough, and I feel that they should be understood. I've come across a very concise article on humankinetics.com that clearly defines the two terms. To quote a few paragraphs from this article:

*Quote*

_Many athletes and coaches ask us to identify the main difference between intrinsic motivation and self-motivation (which you assessed previously). Intrinsic motivation is about enjoyment and immersion in an activity, whereas self-motivation can involve an internal pressure to perform well, which is part of personality. Intrinsic motivation comes with a complete absence of any internal or external pressure to perform well. Most people can recall a time from their childhood when they were playing a game with friends that was so enjoyable that they were entirely engrossed in what they were doing; it didn’t matter who won the game, and the time just flew by because they were having such a great time.

Our own research has shown that athletes who have the best motivational outcomes, such as persistence, a positive attitude, and unflinching concentration, tend to be both extrinsically and intrinsically motivated. Athletes who are predominantly extrinsically motivated tend to become discouraged when they do not perform to expectations and can experience a downturn in form. Conversely, athletes who are predominantly intrinsically motivated often do not have the competitive drive to become champions. This is because they tend to enjoy mastering the tasks that comprise their chosen discipline, but they lack a strong competitive streak in their personalities._

*Endquote*

I encourage any forum readers/posters not familiar with intrinsic/extrinsic motivators to read the full article: http://www.humankinetics.com/excerp...ntrinsic-and-extrinsic-motivation-for-success

I'd like to thank Rick for his contributions; he has shown in his career that a true LOVE for the sport, a true love of archery is what has carried him through. Rick seems to be a very intrinsically motivated individual, and his simple joy for shooting, as well as his real desire to shoot better carried him to the top. My partner and I began archery about 18 months ago, and also fell in love with the sport. We can't get enough of shooting, and work together to improve each others' game. I enjoy practice as much as I enjoy competition, and I learn from both. I spend hours on my archery range, shooting, talking to myself, and trying to understand nuances of shooting form and their effects on the shot. It's a pleasurable and meditative activity.

My partner and I have also seen some very good early success in the sport; and I think it's because we love what we're doing. We listen, observe and process information from 'elite' archers, or more experienced competitors. We don't have a particular coach, other than each other and our determined analytic approach. I read EVERYTHING I can, watch everything, listen and try to put into action the things that I think will help me improve as an archer. I shot barebow for a year, and did very well in both IFAA (WFAC) and in local/national tournaments. I switched to Olympic a few months ago, and broke a state record at my first FITA field event (this was a surprise, I didn't think anything of the score until someone commented that it was very good). I believe in myself and my ability to improve. I don't see why I can't improve. Physically I'm in good shape, and I apply myself to my game. If there is a problem, I think (I have an average intellect and iron will) that I can make adjustments. I think most everyone can, if they believe they can. 

BUT. To improve you have to be intrinsically motivated - you have to really enjoy the sport. I've seen archers who shooting because they're extrinsically motivated - they're there to win, not because they enjoy the act of shooting. I've spoken to archers that feel practice is a chore. Really? You're shooting arrows - each arrow is a moment in time, a short sliver of 'present'. Each arrow is a crystallization of our ability to act in the moment. Also - advice to other archers whether they be experienced or newbies - do away with the useless emotion of 'regret'. You can't change your last arrow. You can only concentrate on the arrow on your string, at that moment. Love the arrow, the shot, the flow - and let it rip into the target with all your concentration. Then ... whether it's a 10 or a miss ... let it go. LEARN from that arrow, of course - try to understand why it didn't go in the X/10 or 3D animal or whatever you're shooting at ... but let it go, and concentrate on the next arrow.

I have worked as a professional rock-climbing instructor for the past 15 years. I think that the sport of rock-climbing has really helped me in archery. When climbing - lead climbing or solo climbing - you MUST be concentrating in the moment. You can't waste your time with useless mental baggage. You have to execute the correct moves, place your feet on the right edge, and crimp just the right hold, and make DAMNED sure that the gear you place is PERFECT ... if you don't - you can die.

I love to shoot, I'm motivated by my love for archery and I don't see any real limitations on how far I can take it. I am working hard, having a great time, and meeting new friends. I don't think you can 'force' intrinsic motivation or love for a particular activity. John's comments are somewhat contrasting to those of Rick. What I'd say to John ... is that perhaps those people you denote as being on the bell curve that will never make the top echelons of elite archery ... perhaps those people just don't have the love nor the intrinsic motivation for the sport? Perhaps they're there because someone else told them they could win a tourney, or be an Olympic competitor? They have to KNOW that they can do it, in themselves - and not outside of themselves. They really have to have self belief for the self actualization to occur.

Tori out


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Tori, I am speechless.... Your explanation is spot on in my opinion. At least it is what I believe. I struggled about the intrinsic versus extrinsic until I read the article you recommended, which explains some concerns I had. I have always felt that intrinsic motivation is what most need to achieve a high level of success but the "self-motivation" was something I was not able to identify. Extrinsic motivation to me has been a weak component to achieve a high level of success. Most people loose interest once they cannot achieve a level they are seeking if they are extrinsically motivated. Hitting roadblocks or obstacles stops an extrinsically motivated person quicker than anything. 

Let’s expand this idea of the archer struggling to achieve a higher level but appears to be stuck. When they are having a difficult time improving, it may not be just the problem with the archer. It may be the compatibility of the coach and archer. I would like to suggest that possibly as a coach who feels that the archer cannot achieve any higher level, to consider passing the archer on to another coach who just might be more compatible with the archer, or at least advance the archer to the next level. 

I went through several coaches over the years to improve my game. Each coach gave me a wealth of information but after a period of time, the information the coach could offer was exhausted and I went to another coach. There is no one coach who has all of the answers. I know some of you think that this is not true, but I have yet to meet any one person who has all of the answers. Obviously, having a main coach who let’s you talk and work with other coaches is a great coach since they do not feel threatened. But realistically you cannot expect one person to give you all of the answers. 

Thanks Tori for the information. On a side note, it is interesting that you are from Australia. During the 1983 World Championships the Aussies brought with them a sport psychologist. I was fortunate enough to talk with him and he mentioned some ideas on imagery. I put those ideas to practice during the event and I attribute those suggestions to my success. It was a small piece of the puzzle that helped give me a more complete picture of what I needed to do.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick, no question the mental game is what seperates the top few from the rest. 

Regarding my golf game,


> Mentally you were trapped and could not figure out how to get out of that.


Yea, trapped by a inside out swing path that I had ingrained on my own before ever getting any lessons, and I've never received what I'd consider "proper" instruction, so in my eyes, it's just that. Nothing more. I figured out how to coach myself ( with your book by my side) onto an Olympic archery team, but not the PGA. Pity, since the PGA pays better. 

Incidentally, I shot 76 on Sunday without having touched a golf club since the first week of September, so I think - like Larry - I just need some more time off and I'll be in the 60's... ha, ha.



> Each coach gave me a wealth of information but after a period of time, the information the coach could offer was exhausted and I went to another coach. There is no one coach who has all of the answers


Truer words have not been spoken. People really need to understand this. I've passed off students in the past and am very close to needing to do it again, or at the very least collaborate with another coach if they are to continue to advance.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

John,

"Incidentally, I shot 76 on Sunday without having touched a golf club since the first week of September, so I think - like Larry - I just need some more time off and I'll be in the 60's... ha, ha."

:cheers:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

chrstphr said:


> not really, the topic was learning curve of Elite archers, not Instinctive aiming. You hijacked the thread and took it off topic.


Yes really. Just because you don't see the relevancy of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The hijacking was created by everyone who got upset by the mere mentioning of an aiming technique and how they don't understand why it was mentioned.

Making poor assumptions and taking something personally is what derails these threads.

Ryan and my conversation is the perfect example of how to discuss disagreements or how to question a comment by asking for clarification.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Having passion for what you do or what you pursue will always play a roll in the level of success an individual will experience along their journey.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## John_K (Oct 30, 2011)

tori_mish said:


> BUT. To improve you have to be intrinsically motivated - you have to really enjoy the sport. I've seen archers who shooting because they're extrinsically motivated - they're there to win, not because they enjoy the act of shooting. I've spoken to archers that feel practice is a chore. Really? You're shooting arrows - each arrow is a moment in time, a short sliver of 'present'. Each arrow is a crystallization of our ability to act in the moment. Also - advice to other archers whether they be experienced or newbies - do away with the useless emotion of 'regret'. You can't change your last arrow. You can only concentrate on the arrow on your string, at that moment. Love the arrow, the shot, the flow - and let it rip into the target with all your concentration. Then ... whether it's a 10 or a miss ... let it go. LEARN from that arrow, of course - try to understand why it didn't go in the X/10 or 3D animal or whatever you're shooting at ... but let it go, and concentrate on the next arrow.


This should be required reading for every archer, IMHO.

Thank you, Tori


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> I agree with this in principle. It certainly does level the playing field quite a bit.
> 
> I'd like for someone to then explain to me a couple of things then...
> 
> ...


John, again you just giving examples not facts.......lets have a look at your example Brady.....he got his first compound bow at age 7, his father was a shooter and Brady enjoyed and loved to shoot....is it that surprising he shot 1300 at 18??

Other people may be quite good after few years, but do we know their previous life?

You saying you can see talent straight away when you teach kids......but what you see is the skills what the kids learned in their previous life, not what they have been born with.

I'm yet to see study that can proof we are born with archery/rowing/cycling talent - don't mix it up with physical predisposition.


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

tori_mish said:


> Hey guys. Interesting thread, and I've just spent the last two cups of tea reading through all five pages. Amusing 'hijack' midway, good to see the thread is back on track once again.
> 
> I welcome the comments from the experienced archers here, but feel that I'd like to add a few things. Rick has bought up two interesting words ... 'intrinsic' and 'extrinsic'. These motivators aren't discussed enough, and I feel that they should be understood. I've come across a very concise article on humankinetics.com that clearly defines the two terms. To quote a few paragraphs from this article:
> 
> ...


Thank you so much, that's exellent post...... 100% agree


----------



## Velvetme (Apr 12, 2012)

These are all really thought provoking comments, and I especially like Tori's intrinsic motivation theme. It really does make me wonder where I fit in, which is really none of my business in the first place. My business is shooting, and keep learning. I always knew I would be able to shoot a 290 when I started but what does that mean? I may work harder than some of the other 1st years, and not as much as others but I sure love it. I still cannot shoot a 280! Maybe I lean towards intrinsic motivation, and not competition

This past weekend at one of the indoor nationals events I spent some time talking to a prominent JDT kid, who I find a personal inspiration. I was talking to his coach who told me stories of just how driven this young man is to get better, how he practices, his journal of archery, his home made string jig... The last item was of particular discord with this coach because it came as a response to someone's somewhat nasty comment about this young archers string. not having his own jig, the 14 year old kid went home and built one himself.

The coach was insensed on the behalf of this 14 year old prodigy that another coach might say so something so crass, and she looked at me for support. I didn't agree. I was so proud of this boy, not that it had happenend but that he rose to the challenge. He found internal motivation in response to a hurtful external situation. This kid exemplifies what you need to be a success in this sport, he has the raw talent, he has access to some of the best (and not so) coaches in the world, but he is the type of person that makes his own success. No single positive event can be as formative and demonstrative of your own personal ability as a rough moment. I can see John and Ricks point, but ultimately I think I choose to be like this one boy. Yes, the raw talent is there but where would he be without those prickles and stings? What might be not accomplished if he hadn't been challenged all along and hurt? Hurt and failure prove your metal in the end, it all depends on what you do with it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

This is really starting to get amusing to me in some ways...

Great discussion above about intrinsic motivation, and surely that's key to every championship athlete. However, to say that only championship athletes are intrinsically motivated would be incorrect, as there are many, many intrinsically motivated "average" archers out there who work as hard and as smart as the elites, but for whatever reason just lack the physical abilities to get the job done. 

Before starting this thread, I just never realized how deep the myth of "if you just TRY hard enough" went in today's society. It goes much deeper than I imagined. 

Now, having read that, some are going to lash out and say I'm willing to give up on anyone that doesn't show promise within a few years, and that I believe hard work has little to do with success. That would be wrong. That's not what I'm trying to say at all.

But when I read things like this...



> John, again you just giving examples not facts.......lets have a look at your example Brady.....he got his first compound bow at age 7, his father was a shooter and Brady enjoyed and loved to shoot....is it that surprising he shot 1300 at 18??


First of all, real life examples ARE facts, thank you very much. And, yes, it IS surprising that he shot 1300 at 18 at the adult distances, because (and I refer to my beloved statistics here) when you look at how many other young men got their first bows around age 7, had a father that was a shooter, and never even came CLOSE to 1300 at age 18, it only helps to prove my point. That the elites have a natural gift, that when combined with the same amount of work and instruction as most others, allows them to just be better at what they do.

Again, Rick makes my argument for me when he notes that Darrell simply did things nobody else could do. Yes, he worked hard, but so did Rick. Yes, Jake works his butt off, but still Brady will beat him most days. Why? Because of exactly what I'm trying to point out. That some just have "it" (whatever it is) and some just don't.

That's not an indictment of their soul. Lighten up folks. 

What I'm trying to avoid is a generation of young people who buy into the myth that if a person just works hard enough they can be an elite athlete. Sorry, but Disney tells that story much better... 

By stating that, you are basically telling those who have worked hard all their life and have not reached the elite level that they just haven't worked hard enough or smart enough. And that's a disservice to them and discredits their effort IMO.

Too bad we can't just award points based on effort sometimes. I know I'd probably never win another archery tournament, but a whole lot of archers who work much harder than I do would finally get the credit they deserve.

John


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

And again, we don't know how brady was training/loving archery at early years compared to others.......

Real life examples of succesfull young athletes are not facts of existence of talent...IMHO of course.

Not sure who of us living in dreamland 

btw. - If "talent" is existing and is so obvious, why no one "proove" it with sciencework ??


And not everything is in our hands of course, at early age its primary up to our parents how they raise us up........if a kid sitting all the time front of TV and PC, they have no chance as a teenager in most sport as their deficit in motoric skills is too big to catch up


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Ar-Pe-Lo said:


> btw. - If "talent" is existing and is so obvious, why no one "proove" it with sciencework ??


Are there tests to indicate higher intelligence?

I just don't think any tests have been created to indicate a true genetic gift for sports such as archery because it's not necessarily that big of a deal...when there are SOOOO MANY different variables that help create 'elite' athletes besides being just genetically gifted.

It's also only been a short time since we've been able to start translating genetic code...so maybe that genetic gift has not yet been discovered but will be in time.

In regards to human nature....where there's a will...there's a way...for anyone to overcome obstacles and percevere in chasing their dreams.

In regards to developing a test to help indicate who may become the next big thing in archery...it will have to involve testing and/or studing proprioceptive/kinesthesia abilities, balance, coordination rather than speed and agility...but as I've said before...all of those things can be improved upon through proper training.

I just believe that a person with a gift in that area may just pick up archery quicker...and under the right guidance, motivation and hard work....they may dominate the sport...and become a champion of champions. Again...there are so many other things that shape 'elite' athletes that don't involve having a genetic gift...but that does not mean it doesn't exist.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

John,
I am not sure if you read the piece that Tori_mish recommended but it is worth the effort to read. She has stated there are 3 types of motivation and what I read was that she implied (correct me if I am wrong Tori) you needed all three in a specific blend to make it work in order to become an elite or better yet, a champion. As a matter of fact, those who have mainly intrinsic motivation will have a hard time getting very good because they just enjoy shooting but not really care if they win or loose. I have yet to find the perfect physical archer. However, I have seen many poor physical archers who have reached the elite status and the only explanation is their drive and mental approach. When I went to Japan for the first time, years ago, I was very depressed watching the archers shoot. There were at least 100 that had far better form and technique than I had. I was freaking out, thinking I was not going to do very well. The next day, when they blew the whistle for score, that form went right out the window! I had never seen such a complete melt down by so many archers at one time. I won handily and it was not because of my form but more of my shot consistency. Learning how to get that shot consistency requires the 3 types of motivation. Most people have not been able to figure it out, but I still believe that if they do, they will become an elite. I have no scientific evidence but I firmly believe that those who do have the Disney mentality (as you put it :wink: ), have a far better chance of success than the negative realism approach. 

And just because Brady is the better archer right now over Jake does not mean that Jake cannot overtake Brady. You mentioned that Darrell was better over me but yet in the end I shot the higher scores and although he may have the 2 Gold Medals, I got him on World Titles and the Dallon medal. It sure did take me longer to get there, but that's what I keep pointing out. I was not the prodigal archery child as Darrell was but I still held my own. I really want those kids to have dreams and aspirations to achieve a higher level than anyone else. I want them to believe that they can do it if they put their mind to it. They need that dream, hope and desire to look forward to. Will they be crushed if they do not succeed? Yes, if they are mainly an extrinsically motivated person. But those who have the intrinsic drive will achieve far more in life than those who do not.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> negative realism


Why is it that realism is always viewed as being negative? Again, I attribute that to today's "make a wish" society. Realism is just realism. Not good or bad, just facts. 

If we want to discuss the power of positive thinking, then that's another thread for another day. I know it exists, but that's not what I'm interested in discussing on this thread. I'm strictly thinking of physical abilities that are innate to an individual. There is no question at all that some people are just more physically gifted than others. That's all I'm saying. Take it where you want.

It astounds me how willing some folks are to either ignore that simple truth, or redirect the argument to another aspect of performance.

Lucky for most folks that physical talent alone does not determine championships.



> I really want those kids to have dreams and aspirations to achieve a higher level than anyone else. I want them to believe that they can do it if they put their mind to it.


As do I. But I'm not going to lie to a kid either. That's where I draw the line. When I see coaches or parents filling kids with ideas that are simply unrealistic, it makes me wonder who is there for whom. 

And if you don't think I've surprised an archer or their parents a time or two by telling them just how MUCH potential I think they have, you're only looking at one side of my argument. It goes both ways. In fact, as a coach I have rarely, if ever, suggested a kid take up another sport. I would never do that. I want as many people to continue to enjoy archery as possible. So please don't put those words in my mouth. What I have done on several occasions is to serve up a strong dose of reality - both for kids who aren't putting enough effort in to get the results they think they deserve, and for those who didn't think they were capable of the things that were truly within their reach. That's the kind of reality our kids need.

But we're poking holes in clouds now. Not much point in it. This topic has taken a lot of turns.

John


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

How a person deals with reality...has alot to do with their personality.

An analytical type personality (left brain thinker) may need to know facts grounded in reality to help them succeed...while an emotional more creative type personality (right brain thinkers) may need imagination and visions that step out of reality to help them succeed.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

You are right John. I don't think either one of us is convinced of the other's argument. However, I have seen it work, not just for me but others. I have watched archers leave one coach and improved remarkably. I have seen a coach work with lots of archers and watched their slow growth from 1000 point FITA shooters to 1250 shooters in about 3-4 years. I have watched some incredibly gifted coaches share archers with other coaches in order to get more from the archer with success. Although I can understand why you believe the way you do, I am just not one of those that agree with you. I think what you are saying is that some are "gifted" athletically thus improve greatly over a very short period of time while others are not so gifted and they do not reach their potential. It does make it harder to get to the higher level if you are all thumbs in the beginning but with time, good guidance and effort it could be achieved. At least I think so. :smile:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

And that's why people love you Rick. 

I think we agree on probably 90% which means I'm only 10% wrong.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Rick,

_"Al Muller did not use a clicker and at 90 meters during practice nobody could beat him. NOBODY! He could shoot 50+ scores at 90 meters on an 80 cm face. He was incredible to watch. I am not making this up. I watched him do this time and again. But when the whistle blew he was lucky to break 1200 on a FITA round. He told me one time, “I know I am the best there is, but I just can’t prove it!”"_

Just at quick glance, your statement above (from "Top 20 modern Olympic Recurve archers from the U.S.?" thread) seems to affirm both John's original contention regarding "natural talent" and also _your_ contention about that mental perspicacity and discipline and stick-to-itiveness can bring virtually anyone to the top. If not "natural talent advantage", how else to explain such an incredible physical performance as you describe Al Muller having? And your point is affirmed in that the reason he fell by the wayside was mental/psychological ... What say you?


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

All your arguments are defeated by all the studies. You're doing exactly what I stated. People who like to believe in natural ability observe just the tip of the iceberg and proclaim it to be as big as they can see, because they can see it. 
If you look under the water, you see a crapload more. You're just wilfully denying it. 
I don't have to even bother explaining this, because I've read a large part of the research. It encompasses everything that you've noted. This isn't me quoting my unjustified opinion. I'm just pointing at the HUGE volume of actual research that destroys what you want to believe. 
Anyone who doesn't want to believe it will be just as free to waste their time looking for "gifted" individuals as they want. Rick is right. Limbwalker is not. Rick is supported by scientific method. Anyone who believes in natural ability just doesn't want to go looking for the actual truth. That's their choice. It won't stop people who want to get better, actually getting better. 



lksseven said:


> Whiz,
> 
> Thanks for the correcting me that it was Mozart, not Beethoven! But, then you explain Mozart's 'natural talent and genius for music' (he was writing and playing music when he was 4 years old!) by stating "Actually, the investigations into Mozart say that his father was a medium level composer and a skilled teacher. Mozart just got dedicated teaching from an early age and had a voracious appetite for it. "
> 
> ...


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Andy,

Please address the following two questions, which have a common thread (exact down the the decimal point answers are not possible here in the real world, of course - but there is enough anecdotal evidence to draw conclusions from):

1) In your educated guess/anecdotal knowledge, how many (what percentage) major league pitchers were also the pitchers on their little league teams? 

2) In group A, put all of the major league pitchers who also play golf, and spend X number of hours a year playing/practicing golf. In group B, put all golfers in the general population who spend the same X number of hours playing/practicing golf as does group A. Now, what would be your educated guess of the percentage of group A who have single digit golf handicaps, versus the percentage of group B who have single digit golf handicaps?

What would your honest and open surmise lead you to conclude about the subject of 'natural ability' ?


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Frankly, those telling that natural abillity does not exist should also be able to explain why there are in the world thousands of specialized people in all sports paid a lot to scout around for natural talents to try to identify them as ealrly as possible, and why a natural talented football (soccer) player can be paid several million US$ at the age of 12 ...


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

lksseven said:


> Rick,
> Just at quick glance, your statement above (from "Top 20 modern Olympic Recurve archers from the U.S.?" thread) seems to affirm both John's original contention regarding "natural talent" and also _your_ contention about that mental perspicacity and discipline and stick-to-itiveness can bring virtually anyone to the top. If not "natural talent advantage", how else to explain such an incredible physical performance as you describe Al Muller having? And your point is affirmed in that the reason he fell by the wayside was mental/psychological ... What say you?


lksseven, I have no idea where you got the idea that Al Muller had "natural talent" from my statement. I was saying he was a good archer except during for score. Al had reached and surpassed his peak when I first came out to play. I don't really know much about Al during his early years. I don't know how long it took him to get to the elite's but I can tell you he used a Black Widow bow of about 54#. Used his left eye while shooting right handed. Used one of the first front center stabilizers and had it cocked down so it did not get in the way of his sight at 90 meters. And he was very cantankerous! I recall one time some lady sat in his chair while talking to me and he came up and told her that he did not bring that chair 600 miles for a woman to sweat in it. Please get out of the chair! Nobody sat in Al's chair!


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Rick,

I love the woman/sweat story (I'll bet she still tells that story, too!). He sounds like a real character.

Oh, just at quick glance, your description of him seems to argue for "other than natural ability as a springboard, how else would a guy with all of those shooting anomalies be able to shoot so amazingly (even if he had trouble 'converting' during official scoring)? 

And, of course, you're right - nobody sat in Al's chair (or anyone else's chair but his own chair, for that matter). That's why I guess this discussion/debate can never have a "well, we finally settled _that_ question" - everyone is imprisoned only to see clearly the view from his own seat and no one else's. I'm humorously reminded of that great scene in the Woody Allen movie Annie Hall, where Woody Allen and Diane Keaton are separately confiding in their friends (who are also their respective therapists) during a dinner party:

Diane Keaton's friend/Therapist: “Do you have sex often? “
Diane Keaton: ”Constantly, I’d say three times a week”
Woody Allen's friend/Therapist: “How often do you sleep together?”
Woody Allen: “Hardly ever, maybe three times a week”.

I'm kind of like Larry Tate (Bewitched) on this issue of 'natural ability (a partial nod to God) differences gives a head start and ultimately defines a ceiling - all else being equal' versus 'mental tenacity/sustained commitment overcomes all' ... "I believe strongly both ways" (... i.e. I think both you AND John are right).


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Iksseven, I am not trying to just prove my point. I feel it is important to not discourage anyone who wants to work at it. You just don't know if you are a "natural" and it comes easy (which in my opinion creates laziness) or you appear not to have any talent at all in the beginning, what the end results will be. If you love it and want to do it, then do it. If eventually you come out on top, then the hard work was worth it. If you didn't make it to the top, then still the hard work was worth it. After all, giving it 100% is what we all should try to do, no matter what we are trying to accomplish. I just don't want people giving up on the clumsy "untalented" ones because of their own one sided opinion of who is "talented" and who is not.


----------



## Travis Shaw (Feb 28, 2011)

Ar-Pe-Lo said:


> I always find interesting why people divide their sport to: us (mere mortals) and them (elite).....if you realy think like that, then it will become true for you....
> 
> I have been in that "elite" group in different sport and i can assure you no one from that "elite" group thinking like that.....I always think I'm where I'm because the way I work ......and if I'm not where I want to be lets have a look what I can do fo it......
> 
> yes you need some "talent", but main thing is hard work IMHO


 I agree raw talent only gets so far a work ethic of a person to me defines them.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Vittorio said:


> Frankly, those telling that natural abillity does not exist should also be able to explain why there are in the world thousands of specialized people in all sports paid a lot to scout around for natural talents to try to identify them as ealrly as possible, and why a natural talented football (soccer) player can be paid several million US$ at the age of 12 ...


They look for talent. Not natural talent. If they looked for natural talent, they'd be looking at babies. Not people who have had an opportunity to train for a proportion of their lives. 

Anyone here who still believes in "natural talent" ie, someone is born with some mysterious gift is, and I will state it categorically, continuing to state their belief WITHOUT actually consulting the evidence which proves beyond doubt that it does not exist. 

Here we have two groups of people with opinions. 
1. People who don't bother to investigate and say that what they have seen, which they have taken at face value to be correct.
2. People who are qualified scientists who have done exhaustive investigation, who say that it doesn't, and is a result of prior learning. 

Every time I point this out, I say that the evidence of the research is pretty simple to find. I love that people refute this, because I don't have to do any work personally. 
The onus is always on people who want me to prove it, to just simply go and read something like "The Talent Myth" by Colvin or "Bounce" by Matthew Syed. 
Essentially, you are all cowards.. 
COWARDS who don't want to actually learn anything. 
COWARDS that your little belief might get totally, utterly destroyed. (because it will)
Cowards that you maybe won't have an excuse to hide behind.
The truth is that effort and work creates expertise. 

For people who would actually LIKE to learn something, "The Road to Excellence - The acquisition of Expert Performance in the Arts and Sciences, Sports and Games" has graphs and the break down of real scientific investigation. Lots of it. 
Overwhelmingly correlative proof that what you believe with your simple, surface level observation, tempered with ignorance of the facts, DOES NOT EXIST. 

Yeah, keep asking me to personally prove it and I'll keep pointing you towards EXPERTS that you'll stay away from, because you know that you'll be destroyed. 
Cowards do that. 
They don't like their belief system being annihilated. 
This discussion would totally END here if people cared about been correct, rather than being right. 

Everyone would go and consult EXPERTS rather than quote what they like which they think backs up their statements. 
All I have to do is ask how much investigation has been done into the developmental history of anyone who is supposed to have "talent" and there is ALWAYS an explanation. 
Provided someone wants to get it. But it's such less work to not do that, because it looks favourable to the "God given talent" people's argument. 


"Natural talent" believers only believe it because they refuse to accept the research which is OVERWHELMING that it doesn't exist. 
It's not my job to have to personally make you read it. 
Believe what you want.
Anyone with a clue, knows that you're wrong. Now you can all get mad if you like, being wrong and all. 
Why don't you man up and actually do some reading so that you can be educated?

Oooh, too much work? 
Cowards.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I just don't want people giving up on the clumsy "untalented" ones because of their own one sided opinion of who is "talented" and who is not.


Again, Rick, I hope you're not trying to fit those words in my mouth. I would dare anyone to find a single student I've ever "given up" on. Even the clumsiest - in fact - especially the clumsiest - get a LOT of my time. Because my approach to coaching is to coach the whole person. Not just in archery, but in life. And as you say, competition really is about effort and not achievement. It's a flaw of humankind that we celebrate, and focus on, the achievements.

But this is a totally seperate discussion vs. the fact that there are those who simply express more talent and attain greater proficiency at a much earlier age than others, due almost entirely to talent alone. 

John


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Rick McKinney said:


> Iksseven, I am not trying to just prove my point. I feel it is important to not discourage anyone who wants to work at it. You just don't know if you are a "natural" and it comes easy (which in my opinion creates laziness) or you appear not to have any talent at all in the beginning, what the end results will be. If you love it and want to do it, then do it. If eventually you come out on top, then the hard work was worth it. If you didn't make it to the top, then still the hard work was worth it. After all, giving it 100% is what we all should try to do, no matter what we are trying to accomplish. I just don't want people giving up on the clumsy "untalented" ones because of their own one sided opinion of who is "talented" and who is not.


I COMPLETELY AGREE with every word of this, Rick. 

But just from the purely conversational position of "are some people born with more natural ability for this thing or that thing than the natural ability endowed on some other people?" - as opposed to the issue of "so, given that some people will more readily 'take' to an endeavor, how do we as coaches manage to give each student what he or she needs to maximize their ability and dream?" - it's hard to imagine that, other than Andy, there are people who would claim that every human is born with the same exact quotient of abilities.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Andy,

Your position is akin to someone claiming that all people are the same height. Some people are born to be 6 feet tall, some 5feet 6inches. In the same vein, some people's nerve synapses fire at a faster rate than others, resulting in quicker reflexes. Some people are born to be this, some people are born to be that, partly based upon their 'natural' attributes for a given activity. Any 3rd grader on the playground knows that. My cat knows that - hence his correct decision to chase bunnies, but not coyotes. 

Do you really think that any horse in the pasture can be Secretariat "if he just works hard enough and long enough at it"? Is every horse breeder in Kentucky, or Australia, a crazy coward? 

You're a very talented, accomplished photographer. Do you really contend that no one on the planet has more of an instinctive, natural eye for composition/color/light/movement than any other person on the planet?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Larry, I really hate to point this out... but are you actually arguing with Whiz?


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

John,

I know, right?


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

lksseven said:


> Andy,
> 
> Your position is akin to someone claiming that all people are the same height. Some people are born to be 6 feet tall, some 5feet 6inches. In the same vein, some people's nerve synapses fire at a faster rate than others, resulting in quicker reflexes. Some people are born to be this, some people are born to be that, partly based upon their 'natural' attributes for a given activity. Any 3rd grader on the playground knows that. My cat knows that - hence his correct decision to chase bunnies, but not coyotes.
> 
> ...


As far as i'm aware selective human breeding has been severly frowned upon in the past.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

lksseven said:


> Andy,
> 
> Your position is akin to someone claiming that all people are the same height. Some people are born to be 6 feet tall, some 5feet 6inches. In the same vein, some people's nerve synapses fire at a faster rate than others, resulting in quicker reflexes. Some people are born to be this, some people are born to be that, partly based upon their 'natural' attributes for a given activity. Any 3rd grader on the playground knows that. My cat knows that - hence his correct decision to chase bunnies, but not coyotes.
> 
> ...


Actually, no. My position is NOT that. My position is that because we are not born with the neural patterns in our brains that are responsible for any dedicated skill, that any dedicated skill comes from learning it. Thus, nobody is naturally gifted with anything other than physical attributes. Oh, the "faster reflexes" has also been pretty much disproven to exist other than a couple of milliseconds either way. Nobody has significantly faster than average neural processes that allow them to react faster to a random event. 

So, right now, I'm going to put my money where my mouth is. I'm willing to buy four people two books each which will comprehensively lay the understanding of the fallacies of "natural talent" Iksseven, you're automatically included as one person who needs to read these two books, which I expect that you'll find entertaining, even though they comprehensively demolish all that you've argued for. 

(For even more fun, they reference the studies and investigations that they mention, so they back up their assertions on peer reviewed, respected scientific periodicals"

All I ask is that everyone publicly say here in this thread that they're taking me up on my offer, then PM me their delivery address. I'll pay for the books to be delivered to that address. 

So there you go. I will pay for four people to be educated, should they want to expend the effort of learning something. Then I will have at least four people who know the truth and can encourage other people to work towards their goals, rather than wasting time looking for their gift. 
This concept of gift searching is probably one of the most destructive things one can tell someone who is young. "Just look for that one thing that you're awesome at" confines them to a life of wasted effort. 
The truth is much more empowering. 
You can be a lot better at almost anything if you put the effort in. 

So, who's up for it and who's going to be a coward because their assertions will get demolished if they learn the truth? 
Yes. I'm going to win here, so anyone who has an open mind but believes in natural ability is going to get a lot of respect if they put their hand up. I'd prefer natural ability acolytes first. You've got the most to lose.
And you're going to change your mind.


----------



## pencarrow (Oct 3, 2003)

Andy:
I don't have a dog in this fight, but might I suggest you post the titles of these books then we all can become enlightened. I for one. On second thought that won't work, your targets probably won't participate. You know, ignorance is bliss.
Cheers
Fritz


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Andy,

"Thus, nobody is naturally gifted with anything other than physical attributes. " ... But, that's the encapsulated premise of John's original post - that some are 'naturally gifted' with more of certain physical attributes than others' !! That's all! No one is saying that Brady or Darrell or Rick or Park Sung Hyun popped out of the womb shooting 1350+ Fitas. Just that his presence at the top is a fortuitous and rare blend of excellent physical attributes to enable him + burning motivation to drive him + accommodating circumstances to allow him + superb work ethic to bake the cake. 

I'm not opposed to reading and assessing information I haven't read before. I'll agree to read your books. But I don't want you to spend your money on my education - I can do that myself. Just give me the book titles and I'll get them and peruse. 

But you haven't attempted to answer my questions (which has zero $$$ cost) about the major league pitchers. Anecdotal observation of patterns and trends in the physical world is part of the scientific model, no?

You too easily dismiss physical differences as irrelevant, when in fact they are real and significant in certain situations. Evidence abounds everywhere one looks of how slight physical differences in speed or strength are deal breakers.

Regarding reflexes, a few milliseconds is all the difference in the world in some activities. A few milliseconds difference in an archery release after the clicker goes; a 98mph fastball from 60 feet away - a few milliseconds advantage to 'decide IF to swing and to START the swing' is all the difference in the world. Why do you think Willie Mays, later in his career, had to open his batting stance? He did it because, late in his thirties, his reflexes had slowed slightly (and I mean 'slightly', he was still magnificent late in his career - but a few milliseconds can be all the difference in the world) and he could no longer get around on a major league fastball - under your position, he should have been getting better as a hitter because he'd been doing it longer and becoming more of an 'expert' with each passing at-bat. But that's not the way the world works. Expertise and pattern recognition is intrinsic to improvement (to Rick's point, and yours), but the amount/degree of raw ingredients are also a fact of the calculus (to John's point).


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Again, Rick, I hope you're not trying to fit those words in my mouth.
> John


John, this discussion is for generic consideration. I do raise my hackles when the not so "talented" kids can't get a break. It isn't easy to work with the challenging ones but it is good for the soul.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> It isn't easy to work with the challenging ones but it is good for the soul.


Agree 100%

I often relish the opportunity to work with "difficult" students, and have done pretty well with the ones that have been sent my way, I think...


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Agree 100%
> 
> I often relish the opportunity to work with "difficult" students, and have done pretty well with the ones that have been sent my way, I think...


Indeed. Anyone can_ look_ like a brilliant coach if they just work with people with lots of obvious talent, where ever that comes from. I would think that being able to bring out the best in *everybody* (or near about everybody) is the sign of a truly good coach.

As to talent vs. coaching, does Vittorio have really good genes? Or is he just a good parent an coach. Or a combination of the two? :dontknow:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

LOL!

That age-old, "does the coach make the student or the student make the coach?" question... 



> ndeed. Anyone can look like a brilliant coach if they just work with people with lots of obvious talent, where ever that comes from.


And we've never seen a time in archery when so many were so worried about looking like a brilliant coach...


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> And we've never seen a time in archery when so many were so worried about looking like a brilliant coach...


I'm just going to get me one of those burgundy shirts with "COACH" printed on the back. That ought to do it. And maybe a picture of me posing with Coach Lee.... :embara:

Oh, and "JDT" (not Jr. Dream Team, of course, uhm, "Just Doing Training" :dontknow: )

Anyway, I think your JOAD program shows that opportunity matters. If you weren't there making it happen it wouldn't be happening. It isn't like your small town is littered with deposits of Red Kryptonite that makes everyone there talented archers


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I prefer to look at it as "mining talent"  LOL!


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> I prefer to look at it as "mining talent"  LOL!


It's the "strip mining" of talent that I'm worried about :mg: 

You don't want to leave the archery talent pool a barren wasteland littered with the burnt husks of JDT/BEST/RA's :embara:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Oh, no worries, I'm a fully qualified emotional restoration professional...


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Oh, no worries, I'm a fully qualified emotional restoration professional...


Well, as long as you are trained in ER. Don't want any of that stuff getting into the waterways...


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Under your definitions, can a sixty something become an "elite" archer or has the natural ability diminished too much at that stage of life? I don't want to put in all that hard work if there is no point. (no pun intended)


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Entirely depends on who's definition of "elite" you want to use, I think. 

I think we have pretty well overused the "elite" label at this point of the thread... ha, ha.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Entirely depends on who's definition of "elite" you want to use, I think.
> 
> I think we have pretty well overused the "elite" label at this point of the thread... ha, ha.


John, why are you still here when I hear you should now be on the "trad" forum?:teeth:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

LOL! Yea, right? 

Hey, if you can't reach "elite" status in your existing dicipline, then fish around until you find one where you can, right? ha, ha, ha.

Because you're a nobody if your not an "elite" dontchaknow... 

John


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

e-mail, e-commerce, e-lite, 

i guess e-lite would be the watered down version of the real thing. :smile:


Chris


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

You can give all the anecdotal observations you like. 
Millisecond differences come down to anticipatory times based on training. They're not the singular differentiator based on speed of nerve impulse transmission. I could also ask you all sorts of questions about cricket players and Australian rules football. Both sports you'll have no interest or knowledge in. The world doesn't follow American sports. 
If you truly believe that physical characteristics give advantages, then the sports science world would already be doing biopsy and genetic tests to save money and time by training the best people available. 
The big money sports would do it exclusively. 
And Michael Jordan would have been as awesome in baseball as he was in basketball. 

The precursor books to further investigation are:
Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else by Geoff Colvin
Bounce: The Myth of Talent and the Power of Practice by Matthew Syed

Those two are what I consider to be the best in the field. Bounce even references some genetic studies into Kenyan long distance runners and fast twitch / slow twitch muscle proportions for those that still cling to its superiority theories

The Talent Code: Greatness Isn't Born. It's Grown. Here's How. by Daniel Coyle is also very good but I prefer the top two.


Coyle also has a new one: The little book of Talent but I haven't covered that one yet. 

Once someone has read through the most readable of the three, if you have any doubts left, you can get the reference text, but it's big dollars. 
The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance
ISBN: 052184097X

Just read the top two. They will cover everything that you might wonder about. Then you'll be well armed to smash the concept of what is natural and what is learned.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Andy,

I'll read your books. 

"Millisecond differences come down to anticipatory times based on training." ... this is, I'm sure, true in many scenarios. But in other just-pure-scenarios, it's absolutely not comprehensively true. Do your own experiment - for 10 people, hold a ruler perpendicular just above their hand, centered in the gap with their thumb and index finger about 2 inches apart. The exercise is that you release the ruler, and they pinch their thumb and finger together to grab the ruler as it falls through their hand. then measure where they grabbed the ruler. You'll be surprised at how different will be some of the reaction times. And I don't think there's a lot of 'ruler grabbing' training going on, even down under. Nothing but raw visual transmission/communication/reaction abilities. 

Apologies about the baseball questions - I was guilty of an American arrogant assumption there. The answer, fyi, is that almost 100% of major league baseball pitchers were also the pitchers on their little league teams when they first started playing baseball. The reason is that the kids with the most natural athletic ability are usually picked to be the pitcher because it's the most critical position. Question 2: the answer is that a huge % of major league pitchers who also play golf regularly are single digit handicap or scratch golfers, while the % of general population golfers who are single digit or scratch golfers is very very low. Why? Because the major league pitchers have marvelous natural hand/eye coordination and sense of athletic touch - which serves them so well in both pitching and golf.

Why Michael Jordan wasn't as good at baseball as basketball (and he was very good at all aspects of baseball except he couldn't hit the curve ball)? That's easy - basketballs don't curve! Even being the best basketball player in history and having world class athletic ability is no guarantee that you can hit a major league curveball, which is arguably the single most difficult thing to do in sports. 

The horse racing world spends a lot of time and money (and believes in) the real facts of genetic characteristics and naturally occurring/passed on physical attributes. The western world doesn't do much of that because of the philosophical/ethical issues. In other words, we don't do it because it's "base" - we don't 'not' do it because it's baseless.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

whiz-Oz said:


> You can give all the anecdotal observations you like.
> Millisecond differences come down to anticipatory times based on training. They're not the singular differentiator based on speed of nerve impulse transmission. I could also ask you all sorts of questions about cricket players and Australian rules football. Both sports you'll have no interest or knowledge in. The world doesn't follow American sports. (snip).


And pardon the slightly arrogant response back - not everyone follows Cricket and Footy either. And in a fit of irony, there's more Footy followers in my neck of the woods than there are Cricket followers. Part of it is that Footy seems more exciting than a 5 day Test.

Back to the original train of thought - thank you also for posting those book titles. They seem to be ones that I'd love to read up on.

Regarding age and becoming an elite archer - I don't see why one could not be an elite archer at ANY age. Technology can help that along immensely, whether it be medical technology, or arrow technology.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Anyone who says or claims genetics does NOT play a roll in athletics or talent in ANY specific area of human capability...is just WRONG, IMO.

Just because a few books have been published that claim there is no genetic component in regards to natural talent for a given endeavor does NOT mean it doesn't exist.

Medicine has come a LONG ways in the past 100yrs. but that does NOT mean we are far enough ahead or advanced enough to be able to find the gentic code for specific innate gifts/talents.

The Bible talks about people being born with gifts/talents.

Child prodigies exist.

Tests exist to determine a person's IQ which can be attributed to genetics.

I know this may rattle some cages...but to deny that genetics does NOT play a roll in any of this...is like saying God doesn't exist just because you can't see him.

Anyone who believes that natural talent is all that it takes to become an elite athlete would be gravely mistaken...just as anyone who believes that sheer hard work, determination and proper training is all it takes...would be wrong.

The human mind and body can overcome and adapt to meet nearly any challenge...it's when you combine everything regarding proper training, hard work and a natural gift that something really amazing can be witnessed.

I'm just amazed that some people don't believe that genetics can NOT play a roll in an athletes abilities in regards to an inherent genetic gift/talent.

A little research on the web will show their are plenty of books that support both beliefs...but for me...for as long as I've worked in the fitness, medical and sports related industries...it's plain as day for me to recognize that some people are genetically gifted to excel in certain areas quicker and further than many people who do not have those same genetic gifts/talents.

Ray :shade:


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

So if you believe in what you can't see, Ray, you must also believe in fairies, goblins, gnomes and all the other gods that you can't see. 
If you believe in only one thing you can't see, then obviously you must believe in all the things you can't see. Otherwise, how do you know that they're not there?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I know this may rattle some cages...but to deny that genetics does NOT play a roll in any of this...is like saying God doesn't exist just because you can't see him.


Not really a good analogy BW. I don't think an invisible and undetectable entity is a good analogy for talent, which is something that has measurable, quantifiable qualities to it. 

However, I agree that it is silly to argue that genetics has no role in talent. Genetics have a role in everything. The only question is **how much** of a role. Whiz admitted to overstating his claim earlier in this thread, making exudes that the overbroad claims are justified as a rhetorical device. I disagree. He should only make as much of a claim as is supportable, not more.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

whiz-Oz said:


> So if you believe in what you can't see, Ray, you must also believe in fairies, goblins, gnomes and all the other gods that you can't see.


I personally have yet to see any evidence that faeries, goblins or gnomes exist...BUT...I do see evidence all around me that an Almighty Creator exists and how people can and have been genetically gifted in many different areas ranging from intelligence, athletics, art and music to name a few.

I also believe in the possibility of new species being discovered... even though I've never seen them.

Science is always making new discoveries and continually rewriting their books...so I only put as much faith into those books as history has shown to repeat itself with new discoveries and the rewriting of books.

I think science and medicine are great and fascinating... BUT...I personally have a different level of faith in them as you and others may share.

I already see where this is headed and issues of faith regarding science or religious beliefs are usually unproductive...so I won't debate those issues further.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Warbow said:


> I don't think an invisible and undetectable entity is a good analogy for talent, which is something that has measurable, quantifiable qualities to it.


Where you see an invisible and undetectable entity...I see the signature of a creator...like a painting I've seen...yet have never seen the artist.



Warbow said:


> He should only make as much of a claim as is supportable, not more.


I agree! :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Andy,

"So if you believe in what you can't see, Ray, you must also believe in fairies, goblins, gnomes and all the other gods that you can't see."

It follows then, that you do not believe that 'love' or 'compassion' or radio waves exist (to list only a couple of examples of things that cannot themselves be seen; only the results or affects or manifestations can be seen). What about 'life' itself? One second it's there, the next instant it's gone - what's the difference? All of the tangible 'matter' is still there ... but the person's animating life force, his/her soul, is gone ... But how can it be 'gone' if it never existed, since it's not tangible and visible. Please explain that, Mr. Atomist. So are we all just part of the Matrix, and we're just a figment of someone's imagination in an incubator farm?


----------



## Jeb-D. (Sep 21, 2011)

A hard working non-gifted person might be able to keep up with natural talent if the natural talent is lazy. But if natural talent applies themselves then forget about it. I've witnessed this with several things throughout my life and I'm not even that old. 

One example that sticks out is that about 10-15 years ago a bunch of kids in my neighborhood were into skateboarding (self included). We all put in the same amount of time on the board, but the outcome varied hugely. One kid in particular progressed very rapidly and made it pro within a few years (which is extremely difficult, you'd probably have better chance at becoming an Olympic archer). Some kids desperately worked their butts off, had a lot of passion, and were able to pick the brains of their more advanced peers, but still progressed very slowly. They could have put in 10x the time and only have made it to middle of the pack (still far from the natrual talent kid). 

I like to think everyone is blessed with an equal amount natural talent, but it is applied to different things for different people and some will never discover what that something is. Or your like me, who is pretty good and many things, but exceptional at nothing.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jeb-D. said:


> A hard working non-gifted person might be able to keep up with natural talent if the natural talent is lazy. But if natural talent applies themselves then forget about it. I've witnessed this with several things throughout my life and I'm not even that old.
> 
> One example that sticks out is that about 10-15 years ago a bunch of kids in my neighborhood were into skateboarding (self included). We all put in the same amount of time on the board, but the outcome varied hugely. One kid in particular progressed very rapidly and made it pro within a few years (which is extremely difficult, you'd probably have better chance at becoming an Olympic archer). Some kids desperately worked their butts off, had a lot of passion, and were able to pick the brains of their more advanced peers, but still progressed very slowly. They could have put in 10x the time and only have made it to middle of the pack (still far from the natrual talent kid).
> 
> I like to think everyone is blessed with an equal amount natural talent, but it is applied to different things for different people and some will never discover what that something is. Or your like me, who is pretty good and many things, but exceptional at nothing.


Which is largely my position on this topic... 

I find it a bit insulting to those who don't harbor as much natural talent, but who work as hard as anyone, for anyone to imply that they just aren't working hard enough. 

Working hard and working smart are different though, and I completely get that. So I would put what I call "archery I.Q." into the "natural talent" category. Some folks just have it. Some never will.

John


----------



## Humdinger (Apr 4, 2012)

Jeb-D. said:


> A hard working non-gifted person might be able to keep up with natural talent if the natural talent is lazy. But if natural talent applies themselves then forget about it. I've witnessed this with several things throughout my life and I'm not even that old.
> 
> One example that sticks out is that about 10-15 years ago a bunch of kids in my neighborhood were into skateboarding (self included). We all put in the same amount of time on the board, but the outcome varied hugely. One kid in particular progressed very rapidly and made it pro within a few years (which is extremely difficult, you'd probably have better chance at becoming an Olympic archer). Some kids desperately worked their butts off, had a lot of passion, and were able to pick the brains of their more advanced peers, but still progressed very slowly. They could have put in 10x the time and only have made it to middle of the pack (still far from the natrual talent kid).
> 
> I like to think everyone is blessed with an equal amount natural talent, but it is applied to different things for different people and some will never discover what that something is. Or your like me, who is pretty good and many things, but exceptional at nothing.


Nicely put! This is how i feel and can relate as i also was involved in many sports from Baseball, BMX, Skateboarding, Motorcycle Road racing, Golf, You name it. I was better than most of my peers at all of them, but mastered none. As some of my friends went on to become AMA superstars, BMX greats, Skateboarding Pro's.. I kept bouncing from one sport to the next. I would get to a point were i felt complacent and stopped trying as hard and eventually moved on to the next sport. Had i kept going in each one of those sports i probably be one of the best. Was it talent...? I think i had the mental and physical ability to perform these sports at a higher level then most which i feel i was lucky. However i worked harder and studied each sport like i was obsessed. My friends had the passion to keep with the sports although there progression was far slower.. In the end they all made careers in their sports. The many years they put in is what did it. 

Every pro i know in any sport has the same mind set that it Takes 10 years to master something and be top of your field


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

Drawing, painting, playing musical instruments...things I would love to be just decent at doing. Stick figures are all I can draw. Do I really just need to try harder and practice more? I'm pretty sure I've known many people who instantly with no effort at all draw or play guitar immensely better than me. They are decent the first time they try it. I struggle for years to be really bad at these things. It is my BELIEF that talent is real; but that's just a belief based on anecdotal life experience, I could be terribly wrong. But jeez, it just seems that different people pick up quicker on different things. That's talent, right?


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

whiz-Oz said:


> So if you believe in what you can't see, Ray, you must also believe in fairies, goblins, gnomes and all the other gods that you can't see.
> If you believe in only one thing you can't see, then obviously you must believe in all the things you can't see. Otherwise, how do you know that they're not there?


How about molecules, atoms, protons, electricity, the wind, radio waves, magnetism, air? I've never seen any of these things. But I BELIEVE they are real. Don't believe in ghosts or goblins though. Gremlins might be real, but I'm not committing to that until I succeed in my constant efforts to catch one.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

lksseven said:


> Andy,
> 
> "So if you believe in what you can't see, Ray, you must also believe in fairies, goblins, gnomes and all the other gods that you can't see."
> 
> It follows then, that you do not believe that 'love' or 'compassion' or radio waves exist (to list only a couple of examples of things that cannot themselves be seen; only the results or affects or manifestations can be seen). What about 'life' itself? One second it's there, the next instant it's gone - what's the difference? All of the tangible 'matter' is still there ... but the person's animating life force, his/her soul, is gone ... But how can it be 'gone' if it never existed, since it's not tangible and visible. Please explain that, Mr. Atomist. So are we all just part of the Matrix, and we're just a figment of someone's imagination in an incubator farm?


Actually, it follows that I'm asking a question. I'm not making a statement of my beliefs so your examples are irrelevant.

You're trying to be so argumentative that you miss context. 

But for people who can't be bothered to buy some books, here's a study on people who went looking for innate abilities. 
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Py104/howe.innate.html

And to present both sides of the argument, here's a presentation of the affirmative. 
https://www2.bc.edu/~winner/pdf/talent_in_visual_arts.pdf

You all may wish to decide which is on the shakiest ground.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

BLACK WOLF said:


> A little research on the web will show their are plenty of books that support both beliefs...


Actually, I can't find any that support "natural" or "innate" ability. Studies that have actual proof of it are very short on the ground too. 
If you point me towards some, I'll read them.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Anyone who does not believe in the existence of innate "talent" has never watched the early auditions for American Idol.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Seattlepop said:


> Anyone who does not believe in the existence of innate "talent" has never watched the early auditions for American Idol.


LOL!!!!!! :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

whiz-Oz said:


> Actually, I can't find any that support "natural" or "innate" ability. Studies that have actual proof of it are very short on the ground too.
> If you point me towards some, I'll read them.


Here's a link - http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/08/training-talent-10000-hours-and-genes.html

Ray :shade:


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Here's a link - http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/08/training-talent-10000-hours-and-genes.html
> 
> Ray :shade:


Great link, Ray. Sorry Whiz, I think it is pretty clear you are way over stating your case.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

> ....If you want to produce a champion, a gold medal, then you must start out with the right raw materials. Everyone will improve as a result of training. Some, the lucky few, will start out at a level that is higher than the rest, and will improve more rapidly through training. That this is linked to genes is, in my reading of the evidence, unquestionable.


Really great link... Thanks!. I will keep a copy of this document for future reference ...


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Warbow said:


> Great link, Ray.





Vittorio said:


> Really great link... Thanks!.


Thanks and you're both welcome.

Maybe it will help put it into perspective why I even mentioned Instinctive Aiming in this discussion and how there was really no need for ANYONE to get upset about it....especially, John.

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

That article seriously loses it at the end. Relating the advanced ability of the Polgar sisters to having a genetic component is rather incredible considering that their father is a psychologist who set out to comprehensively demonstrate that chess playing skills could be developed to a high order by high intensity training. 
Nobody else has ever done what he has done and so nobody has ever got the same results. Claiming that it has a genetic component because it has been so successful is incomprehensible. 
That article just says that everyone has different genetic potential. That's pretty damn obvious. 
Note that he doesn't say that everyone is born with inherited skill or natural ability. 
Some people have a very very hard time in separating the two.


----------



## HikerDave (Jan 1, 2011)

whiz-Oz said:


> That article seriously loses it at the end. Relating the advanced ability of the Polgar sisters to having a genetic component is rather incredible considering that their father is a psychologist who set out to comprehensively demonstrate that chess playing skills could be developed to a high order by high intensity training.
> Nobody else has ever done what he has done and so nobody has ever got the same results. Claiming that it has a genetic component because it has been so successful is incomprehensible.
> That article just says that everyone has different genetic potential. That's pretty damn obvious.
> Note that he doesn't say that everyone is born with inherited skill or natural ability.
> Some people have a very very hard time in separating the two.


The article is thought-provoking, but as I read it I had to wonder about the applicability to archery. Oxygen uptake or complex reasoning skills or quickness don't seem to be needed skills. An archer only walks a few kilometers, and the first archer to the line doesn't win the tournament.

Perhaps one inherited trait needed for success in archery competition is a strong desire to compete. Do some people respond differently to the rewards of competition than others? Possibly the persistence needed is also an inherited trait.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

HikerDave said:


> Perhaps one inherited trait needed for success in archery competition is a strong desire to compete. Do some people respond differently to the rewards of competition than others? Possibly the persistence needed is also an inherited trait.


Absolutely!

An archer's personality plays a major role in their current and potential abilities...which is at least partially an inhereted trait.

The fact is...there are sooo many different variables that factor into creating elite athletes...that it is NOT just genetics, proper training or working hard enough....but it should be quite obvious...that genetics will always play a roll in an elite athlete's abilities to some degree.

If different genetic potential exists between people...than the specific genetic trait that applies specifically to a sport can be considered a gift or an innate ability that has yet to be discovered or developed to it's full potential.

Ray :shade:


----------



## John Hall (Jan 10, 2013)

I'm currently reading Lanny Bassham's material on Mental Management. He's a 2-time Olympian (1972-silver, 1976-gold) and multiple world champion in Intl. rifle shooting. He is convinced that champions are "made", not born, and he uses himself as his primary evidence. Terrible at all sports from a young age, he accidentally found out that he could shoot a rifle as well as the average person. He says that being ridiculed by peers for being so below average in every other sport he tried, gave him the incentive to become an Olympian before he ever picked up a rifle for the first time. It's a great story if you haven't heard it. Here's it is in his own words:

http://youtu.be/CRvgbzr2abA (Lanny speaks starting at 1:15)

http://youtu.be/57K9WTxStko

John


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

John Hall said:


> He is convinced that champions are "made", not born, and he uses himself as his primary evidence.


Most of us here agree with that.

A person with a genetic gift/talent must develop it and pursue it to see it's full potential.

In the shooting sports...it's much harder to see what the gentic gift is...as when researching sports that involve strength, speed and or endurance.

Ray :shade:


----------

