# NTS Questions & Answers



## Dacer

Kaminski had some shoulder issues from what I understand, that lead him to having a lower elbow and setup position than whats shown in other places in the book. 

The wording is, perhaps, unclear and poorly chosen in that figure. I believe the idea that's trying to be conveyed is that the focus should be on moving the LAN2 spot to draw - and that onc shouldn't focus on moving the end of the elbow or moving the draw hand. Focus on the elbow could lead to a linear draw, and focusing on moving the hand will probably cause you to use you biceps, partially or more, in drawing. 

But Idk. I've read a couple books and I occasionally hit the target so i could be completely wrong and mistaken.


----------



## limbwalker

> The wording is, perhaps, unclear and poorly chosen* in that figure*


Just in that figure? 

Lars Anderson - despite performing some amazing archery - got blasted far and wide for his outrageous claims and rhetoric, and yet the attempts we've seen at explaining and rationalizing BEST/NTS have in many cases, been just as egregious.

Move Lan 2 but not the elbow and not the drawing hand. LOL.

Heck, that's not even the same location as the "Lan2" that was described to us original JDT coaches in 2007.

It's this kind of nonsense that makes rational, objective people question what's being fed to them.

The delivery of this technique has been nothing short of a disaster.

Professionals do better work than this.


----------



## Warbow

I have to wonder if some of these gaffs are what happens when you combine a charismatic leader with a sport where it can be hard to tell science from confident nonsense and superstition, such that the leader really believes what he says is actually true and nobody is willing to call him on it.

There's a video online of martial arts master Yanagi Ryuken who had been teaching his no contact chi punching system to students - who, lo and behold, would fly backwards every time he demonstrated his technique. Having cooperative, credulous students and sycophants for TAs helped the master's misunderstanding of the validity of his magical technique become engrained. The master confidently posted a $5,000 purse for an MMA fighter to take him on to demonstrate his power. The result makes me feel bad for the MMA fighter as the Kiai Masters's silly no-contact chi punches do nothing and he drops like a rock after being hit by an actual punch by an MMA fighter.

Anyway, my point is that Lee is passing on his wisdom in a way that even patent nonsense like his looking too far to the side of your eye openings nonsense is passed along credulously by USAA as they edited the Human Kinetics book "Archery", because, in part, nobody "outranks" him, and because he's in a partially closed loop. I'm not sure if or how it is really possible to address this going forward because there is no opportunity for a clear cut test of nonsense vs. fact as in the kiai master vs. MMA fighter. But we can demand *actual* science, not assertion or pseudoscience, rather than merely accept claims when made. :dontknow:


----------



## chrstphr

I have yet to understand why or how anyone sees this as a viable system. 

I can find no one who shoots it as its supposed to. I can find no track record for it being successful or even working. And i dont count Jake or Brady as a success with it as neither i am told shoot it the way its supposed to be shot. So far i can find no one shooting it on the world stage or local stage correctly. I have shown videos of archers supposedly using the form to USAA level 4 coaches etc, and am told in every instance, thats not NTS. I have much respect for Coach Lee as a person, but the system is a side show tonic. 

My disdain for it is not a secret. 


Chris


----------



## limbwalker

Chris, what you say often seems to be the case... When you challenge it, you are told by the NTS advocates "that is not true NTS" or "it's a flexible system, and is just a guideline..." When you ask what hard and fast aspects of NTS must be done, you are told "none really" and so it goes...

I guess I've been shooting NTS all along and just didn't give myself enough credit.


----------



## Warbow

limbwalker said:


> Chris, what you say often seems to be the case... When you challenge it, you are told by the NTS advocates "that is not true NTS" or "it's a flexible system, and is just a guideline..." When you ask what hard and fast aspects of NTS must be done, you are told "none really" and so it goes...


Well, this is why I'd like to see a video of "pure" NTS, and a document that defines NTS non-negotiable along with the variations and their correct application. 

I'm reminded of Justice Potter Stewart's concurrence to a 1964 US Supreme Court ruling:

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it,"


----------



## Dacer

Its pretty clear that ArcheryTalk is definitely not the place to seek clarification on aspects of NTS. Every single thread about NTS devolves into an Anti-NTS back and forth.


----------



## Seattlepop

Note the disclaimer under the picture at Fig.1 that this is not the ideal, that in fact the hand should be at least nose high. I think it is intended to show the direction of Lan2, which I also think most people don't understand. A good example, or at least the one what I try to emulate regarding this particular motion, can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIeBGcaETYw Yes, that one. 

Start here: :23-:25 In just those two seconds, notice how her should/arm unit moves backward just before the elbow begins to move. Also see at :41-:43, :50-:52, :58-1:00, 1:10-1:11. Notice especially the movement between :48-:52. This movement is also what aligns her shoulders with target #8. You can see it happen right before your eyes. At :48 her shoulders are parallel with the target line. As a result of the Lan2 movement in the two seconds that follow, her shoulders are aligned with target #8. There is some front shoulder movement into alignment, but the major move is Lan2. 

In her hands its a work of art. 

If only *sigh*.


----------



## Warbow

Dacer said:


> Its pretty clear that ArcheryTalk is definitely not the place to seek clarification on aspects of NTS. Every single thread about NTS devolves into an Anti-NTS back and forth.


Part of the problem is that there is almost nobody on earth qualified to clarify NTS. John is a former Olympian and used to coach the original JDT and knows a lot about NTS, but even he can't say for sure what it is or isn't these days. If the clarification doesn't come from Lee himself, or Terry or one of the other direct assistants to Lee, then the clarifications are often more *speculation* - and that is a major issue with the idea that NTS is actually a "national" system. The so called National Training System really remains proprietary to Coach Lee, and tellingly, I think, no details of the system can be found on the USAA site, but you can find details of the system on **Coach Lee's** personal site, including the new "KSL Shot Cycle IV". The system is based on something akin to Divine Command Theory, NTS is whatever Coach Lee says it is. 

I certainly can't clarify NTS, but I would like to see it clarified - and I've called for that many times, even in this thread. There have been some really helpful posts by Terry here, but that is not something that happens often. USAA is not a fan of AT, and declines to make any official comments here where they don't control the message.


----------



## chrstphr

Dacer said:


> Its pretty clear that ArcheryTalk is definitely not the place to seek clarification on aspects of NTS. Every single thread about NTS devolves into an Anti-NTS back and forth.


it wouldnt if clear, concise, consistent answers were given to questions posted. Videos and photos are encouraged. However, the NTS system becomes smoke and mirrors when we ask questions to pin it down. 

And that is in countless threads. If you cant explain it, show it, and demonstrate it, then its smoke and mirrors and deserves the skepticism. 

Chris


----------



## Bob Furman

Seattlepop said:


> Note the disclaimer under the picture at Fig.1 that this is not the ideal, that in fact the hand should be at least nose high. I think it is intended to show the direction of Lan2, which I also think most people don't understand. A good example, or at least the one what I try to emulate regarding this particular motion, can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIeBGcaETYw Yes, that one.
> 
> Start here: :23-:25 In just those two seconds, notice how her should/arm unit moves backward just before the elbow begins to move. Also see at :41-:43, :50-:52, :58-1:00, 1:10-1:11. Notice especially the movement between :48-:52. This movement is also what aligns her shoulders with target #8. You can see it happen right before your eyes. At :48 her shoulders are parallel with the target line. As a result of the Lan2 movement in the two seconds that follow, her shoulders are aligned with target #8. There is some front shoulder movement into alignment, but the major move is Lan2.
> 
> In her hands its a work of art.
> 
> If only *sigh*.


Not to bash you or NTS (I'm in favor of a National Training System that is easily taught), but isn't it amazing that this is all done with a "Linear" draw....


----------



## DreamOn

"It's a conspiracy man.." --In the voice of Fillmore from the "Cars" movie.


----------



## kshet26

I neither love nor hate NTS, but a lot of this seems like a messaging problem. NTS has never been a rigid binary method, but that fact is only said in whispers by USAA staff and high-level coaches. The mantra of NTS should be: _This is a method devised to get to holding using a generic set of guidelines. *It doesn't fit everyone. It REQUIRES customization. But to customize you first must know what doesn't work.*_ As Coach Laney has stated there are only a few aspects to NTS that are non-negotiable. Even then those are pretty loose in their definition. I think that the fact that there is so much detailed, precisely-worded literature on NTS does it a disservice. It makes it sound less fluid than I think it's supposed to be.

I feel like at least one aspect of NTS will fit everyone, but the entirety of NTS fits no one. The problem that a good coach can solve is to figure out what parts need deviation. NTS is sort of like a trend line.

There are certainly simpler methods though.


----------



## Bob Furman

So can anyone list the non-negotiable NTS Form techniques????


----------



## Warbow

Bob Furman said:


> So can anyone list the non-negotiable NTS Form techniques????


Well, according to Terry, non-linear draw and "holding" - a term that NTS uses to included "Barrel of the Gun" bow arm alignment in line with the back, as well as alignment of the draw arm. (You'd have to scroll through the whole thread to see if I missed any others :dontknow: Continuous draw is probably one, too. But I don't recall if Terry mentioned that specifically...)

Terry said how you get there isn't the important thing, but that you get there. It was an interesting thread, with a take on NTS that was informative and much less mysterious than many.


----------



## Last_Bastion

Warbow said:


> Well, according to Terry, non-linear draw and "holding" - a term that NTS uses to included "Barrel of the Gun" bow arm alignment in line with the back, as well as alignment of the draw arm. (You'd have to scroll through the whole thread to see if I missed any others :dontknow: )
> 
> Terry said how you get there isn't the important thing, but that you get there. It was an interesting thread, with a take on NTS that was informative and much less mysterious than many.



If that's so, then why is NTS even needed? I'm not trying to be snide, by the way, just expressing confusion.

If it doesn't matter how you get there, just that you get there, then even a "guideline system" would be totally superfluous! All you need at that point is a coach with a decent eye to help you get that alignment without being constricted by a structured system.


----------



## Warbow

Last_Bastion said:


> If that's so, then why is NTS even needed? I'm not trying to be snide, by the way, just expressing confusion.
> 
> If it doesn't matter how you get there, just that you get there, then even a "guideline system" would be totally superfluous! All you need at that point is a coach with a decent eye to help you get that alignment without being constricted by a structured system.


An excellent question. 

I don't really know if the "it doesn't matter how you get there" is something that is merely said in response to a request for what the non-negotiables are or whether that is really the philosophy that will be stuck to on the spot at the OTC. 

Here is Terry's first go at listing the "non-negotiables" of NTS:



bownut-tl. said:


> Bone-on-bone alignment
> Strong stable bowarm
> Good use of back tension
> Angular draw
> Getting to holding position
> 
> Terry





bownut-tl. said:


> Originally Posted by Warbow View Post
> Question for you, *other than angular draw, are there any national level systems that don't embody all of the nonnegotiables you cited?*
> 
> 
> 
> *I am not aware of any.* However, I can't speak for them in terms of how much importance they play or how they define them. For example, when NTS says use a strong bowarm, we are saying it is fully exended, (not hyper), tight triceps muscles and the arm is rigid. I have heard other archers say they have a strong bowarm, but it is relaxed. They simply meant they don't let it drop at release.
> 
> Terry
Click to expand...

So, long pre-draw set, horizontal hand bow grip, 3 finger hook, percent pressure of string on each finger in hook. weight 60% on balls of fee, open stance, wound up core, candy cane set up, continuous draw, etc., all theoretically "negotiable".

Also, my thanks to Terry for providing these points of clarification. It's a much needed thing, something USAA still has a long way to go on.


----------



## Bob Furman

I believe the thread Warbow is referring to is located at:

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=954064&highlight=KSL


My only complaint is that this thread was created in 2008. Much has changed. Perhaps Terry can update?


Please correct me if needed.


----------



## Warbow

Bob Furman said:


> I believe the thread Warbow is referring to is located at:
> 
> http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=954064&highlight=KSL
> 
> 
> My only complaint is that this thread was created in 2008. Much has changed. Perhaps Terry can update?
> 
> 
> Please correct me if needed.


That was an excellent one.

The quotes I posted from Terry in this thread are from here, from January of this year:

www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2392185

You can also click on the little double arrow "view post" graphic next to Terry's bownut-ti handle on the quotes to go straight to the individual quotes in the thread.

Terry's posts really been the some of most interesting and helpful posts on NTS.


----------



## limbwalker

> John is a former Olympian and used to coach the original JDT and knows a lot about NTS


Couple of clarifications. There is no such thing as a "former" Olympian, just as there is no such thing as a "former" Marine. 

Now, with that out of the way... there are a lot of people, including most of the current JDT coaches, who either don't realize, or ignore the fact that myself and a small group of other coaches (Jim Noble, Jackie Fiala, Chelsea Barker and Gary Holstein) were the first group of coaches in the U.S. to learn directly from Lee at the OTC. We all saw version 1.0 of this thing. And believe me, that group I just named is a bunch of smart, smart, smart people. I graduated college with a 3.4 gpa and consider myself the slow one of that entire group. So it's not like we were slow learners, hard headed, stubborn or set in our ways. In fact, we were hand-selected by Lee himself because we were NOT set in our ways or predisposed to a certain way of teaching. All of us - every single one of us - were there to learn so we could teach this new method to the young charges we were given - at the time, the very best and brightest teenage recurve archers in the U.S.

And how many of those five original coaches do you see teaching NTS now? Hmmm? Ever wonder why the retention was so poor?

So when I talk about the former "BEST" method - since renamed NTS, and get "corrected" by someone who came along years after me and got version 3.4 or 4.2, it does make me chuckle a little bit. 

I wonder, who exactly do they think taught us what we learned in 2006/2007? Some different coach? 

I do love to walk up and down the lines at Nationals these days and see all the JDT shirts, knowing that most of them have no idea who it was that came up with the name "Junior Dream Team." 

So this topic is like a family secret to some of us. Sure, you can impress folks from the next town over, and you can impress your friends, but your family? Your family knows where you came from.

Carry on.


----------



## Warbow

limbwalker said:


> Couple of clarifications. There is no such thing as a "former" Olympian, just as there is no such thing as a "former" Marine.


I suppose "Ex Con" is also a bit of a misnomer, too... :dontknow: :wink:

But, good to know the etiquette for using the Olympian title.


----------



## limbwalker

Warbow said:


> I suppose "Ex Con" is also a bit of a misnomer, too... :dontknow: :wink:
> 
> But, good to know the etiquette for using the Olympian title.


No, "ex con" is accurate. Someone who is no longer a convict is an "ex con." But someone who earned the title Marine or Olympian, is always a Marine, or Olympian.


----------



## limbwalker

Warbow said:


> I suppose "Ex Con" is also a bit of a misnomer, too... :dontknow: :wink:
> 
> But, good to know the etiquette for using the Olympian title.


No, "ex con" is accurate. Someone who is no longer a convict is an "ex con." But someone who earned the title Marine or Olympian, is always a Marine, or Olympian. 

They did not begin referring to any of our Olympic team members as "former Olympians" the moment the flame was extinguished. Nor should they.


----------



## Warbow

limbwalker said:


> No, "ex con" is accurate. Someone who is no longer a convict is an "ex con." But someone who earned the title Marine or Olympian, is always a Marine, or Olympian.


Excellent, now I know who to go with these questions. Not really sure why they are called "ex cons" though. Ex *prisoners* sure, but ex cons? Not so much. Their convictions haven't been vacated at the end of their sentences. :dontknow:

So, about NTS, if you could wave a wand and change the US coaching system, what would you put in place of what we have now?


----------



## theminoritydude

Engineers.


----------



## chrstphr

I attended one of the first seminars to the archery public in 2006 at the Arizona cup or Nationals ( i forget which) . I remember his book was out and i was going to buy it and have him autograph it. After the seminar, i went up to Coach Lee and asked to buy his book and he told me point blank, not to buy it. He said to wait until the revised edition came out to buy it as the first edition had too many things in it that were changed and no longer correct. 

By the time the second version was out, i was hearing that it was recommended to not use the revised version, but that they were going back to the first version of the system. At that point i decided the book was not for me, nor the system. 


Chris


----------



## Warbow

chrstphr said:


> I attended one of the first seminars to the archery public in 2006 at the Arizona cup or Nationals ( i forget which) . I remember his book was out and i was going to buy it and have him autograph it. After the seminar, i went up to Coach Lee and asked to buy his book and he told me point blank, not to buy it. He said to wait until the revised edition came out to buy it as the first edition had too many things in it that were changed and no longer correct.
> 
> By the time the second version was out, i was hearing that it was recommended to not use the revised version, but that they were going back to the first version of the system. At that point i decided the book was not for me, nor the system.
> 
> 
> Chris


I wonder if anyone would by my copy? There aren't any available on Amazon or ABE Books... :dontknow: And it is just sitting on the shelf...


----------



## Bob Furman

Warbow said:


> Excellent, now I know who to go with these questions. Not really sure why they are called "ex cons" though. Ex *prisoners* sure, but ex cons? Not so much. Their convictions haven't been vacated at the end of their sentences. :dontknow:
> 
> So, about NTS, if you could wave a wand and change the US coaching system, what would you put in place of what we have now?


I would start off by going back to the original B.E.S.T. system. Many coaches and archers that I have talked to really felt the USA was going in a better direction back then.

http://www.mfaa-archery.org/Tech-Support/Archery_Form_Handbook.pdf


----------



## limbwalker

> Members of USA Archery’s Coach’s Development Committee and other top US archery experts have
> done their own study of biomechanics as it applies to archery performance.


I'd be curious to know who those experts were, who and what they studied, and how they were qualified to define it as "biomechanics." I'd be happy to start there. I know at least one of the people on that committee and I have an idea of what happened to get what we got.



> what would you put in place of what we have now?


Pretty sure that between McKinney and Pace, both of whom are still alive and kicking and involved to some degree in the sport, we have the answers that work for us Americans. Were they members of the "expert" committee? How would they define biomechanics as it relates to archery? Why wouldn't we just listen to them?

I've spoken with both of them on this very topic, and sat with Rick through a 2007 seminar. So I have a pretty good idea of what they would say. I have no idea why we needed to look anywhere else. At least, for our men's program.

For the women, there are a number of Korean women's coaches who have excellent track records. How did Aida Roman find her coach? Did she need an expert committee?


----------



## Warbow

From the linked PDF


> Members of USA Archery’s Coach’s Development Committee and other top US archery experts have done their own study of biomechanics as it applies to archery performance. USA Archery has created a series of teaching techniques and resources to enable coaches and athletes to make the most of their training time by focusing on methods that use the body’s structure and energy efficiently to improve performance.
> 
> The results of these efforts have been named the Biomechanically Efficient Shooting Technique or BEST method. The BEST method aims to improve an archer’s performance through specific shooting forms, equipment configurations, training methods and coaching techniques. In addition to improving scores, the BEST method reduces athlete fatigue and can help reduce the risk of injury.


So, I bought this line back then. I like science and these claims sounded good to me. I, for some naive reason, pictured the OTC as having a dedicated sports lab for archery with at least one PhD. in sports science research, and that they actually were doing real studies of biomechanics showing a genuine, objective superiority of BEST over other methods, proving it to be safer, more efficient and more effective.

Given all of that claim of scientific study and teaching techniques developed by the US Coach Development Committee, how is it that BEST was, AFIK, just KSL Shot Cycle? Something seems a tad suspicious to me in hind sight... :dontknow:


----------



## Arsi

With regard to the low set-up.

Watch Brady, Daniel and Nick in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTS3DqJ3l58

Good video of Nick from the other angle too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NurimVo0D6M

Kind of biased since Nick is my coach. We changed my form from a "set-up between mouth and nose" to a low set-up recently. Mainly focused on torso rotation to achieve the set-up position.


----------



## Arsi

Compare this to my previous shooting style which was similar to my last coach Tyler Domenech.

Front

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poPCMfH2KYE

Back

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWZ4WJQ-624

This looks like a more "standard" way of shooting. Since ive experienced both "methods". I can say that ive shot equivalent scores with each one. 

The bigger score advances did not come from how I set-up, draw, or execute, but rather with work done on my mental game and awareness. Which im sure many of the NTS lovers and haters can all agree that mental training from most archers is lacking.


----------



## lksseven

limbwalker said:


> I'd be curious to know who those experts were, who and what they studied, and how they were qualified to define it as "biomechanics." I'd be happy to start there. I know at least one of the people on that committee and I have an idea of what happened to get what we got.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure that between McKinney and Pace, both of whom are still alive and kicking and involved to some degree in the sport, we have the answers that work for us Americans. Were they members of the "expert" committee? How would they define biomechanics as it relates to archery? Why wouldn't we just listen to them?
> 
> I've spoken with both of them on this very topic, and sat with Rick through a 2007 seminar. So I have a pretty good idea of what they would say. I have no idea why we needed to look anywhere else. At least, for our men's program.
> 
> For the women, there are a number of Korean women's coaches who have excellent track records. How did Aida Roman find her coach? Did she need an expert committee?


As you are well aware, the answer is "no, she did not need an expert committee." She found her coach the old fashioned American way - by taking charge of/responsibility for her own destiny, seeking out a coach who would mesh well with her in all the aspects that are important to mesh. http://www.worldarchery.org/NEWS/News/ArtMID/10510/ArticleID/9571/The-power-of-a-good-coach-Aida-and-Ms-LEE-a-true-match


----------



## chrstphr

Warbow said:


> I wonder if anyone would by my copy? There aren't any available on Amazon or ABE Books... :dontknow: And it is just sitting on the shelf...


unfortunately i have Kim Hyung Tak's book and McKinney's book, so i am done with books. Kim Hyung Tak's book is exactly the method i shoot.


Chris


----------



## chrstphr

limbwalker said:


> For the women, there are a number of Korean women's coaches who have excellent track records. How did Aida Roman find her coach? Did she need an expert committee?


There is Seo Hyang Soon. She won the gold at the Olympics in 1984 for Korea, setting two world records in the process. She has an archery academy in Irvine California. She is a great coach and is available for group lessons and private lessons. 

Chris


----------



## Warbow

chrstphr said:


> unfortunately i have Kim Hyung Tak's book and McKinney's book, so i am done with books. Kim Hyung Tak's book is exactly the method i shoot.
> 
> 
> Chris


It's not something I'd try to push on people. Gotta have some ethics. :wink:

As to coach Kim's near legendary book, I'd love to flip through it but without a like-minded coach I'm not sure it would really be of value to me... Maybe if he ever makes an e-book version for, well, less than $150 a copy.... :embara:


----------



## chrstphr

yes, the $150 price is quite expensive. That is why i usually have my JOAD kids get McKinneys book which is a great book as well. And at $25 much more affordable. 

but i do not shoot the form in the Mckinney book. I shoot the Kim Hyung Tak method. When i read his book ( which i wanted but put off for 2 years buying) I felt i was reading the system i was shooting and wanted to shoot, It was the system that made perfect sense to me and i got it. I feel its the best method and easiest to learn. 

finally after a few years, i discovered i still wanted the book, so i bit the bullet and bought it. I have not regretted it, though i dont really know why it is so expensive. Is it worth it? to me yes. otherwise i would not have bought it. And i find i read through it often. 

Chris


----------



## wfocharlie

Chris I don't think $150 for a man's lifetime of accumulated expert knowledge in unreasonable at all. Good for you for realizing this. If people are OK selling it for $25 so that others may benefit then I think they are even more exceptional.


----------



## limbwalker

wfocharlie said:


> Chris I don't think $150 for a man's lifetime of accumulated expert knowledge in unreasonable at all. Good for you for realizing this. If people are OK selling it for $25 so that others may benefit then I think they are even more exceptional.


Well the problem is that McKinney's excellent book - which contains a lot more great information besides just technique - is 1/6th the price. That's the rub.


----------



## chrstphr

limbwalker said:


> Well the problem is that McKinney's excellent book - which contains a lot more great information besides just technique - is 1/6th the price. That's the rub.


yes, Mckinney's sections on mental game and how to deal with slumps, training etc are pure gold. 


Chris


----------



## Warbow

wfocharlie said:


> Chris I don't think $150 for a man's lifetime of accumulated expert knowledge in unreasonable at all. Good for you for realizing this. If people are OK selling it for $25 so that others may benefit then I think they are even more exceptional.


Well, you can certainly look at it that way. I'm not "entitled" to a copy at a low price. But, as to making money from sharing his expertise, I'm gonna bet that Inside the Archer by RA Tyler Benner made more money. It's an over priced book, too, but at $60 retail I'm sure they moved a lot more units, which also let Tyler print them for less (under $5 a copy for full color, glossy hard cover filled with photos). So, sell more units, pay less to print them = profit.


----------



## mahgnillig

I read on one of the other NTS threads (I don't remember which... I've been reading all of them!) that NTS isn't the ideal thing for women and is most suited to young men that are training hard for competition. Can anyone explain why? Is it something in the difference between the body shapes, centre of gravity or what? I am neither a young male nor training for anything specific, I just like sticking arrows in gold dots and would like to do it as well as I can as a middle aged woman shooting on a casual basis. I've tried shooting NTS style (as directed by a coach) but it feels very odd to me, and I'm pretty sure I'm not doing it right. Really, the open stance is the only thing I've really 'got' so far.


----------



## limbwalker

If it feels odd to you, that probably means you're doing it right.  ha, ha.

I was probably the one who said NTS has been proven to work for strong young men, but not really anyone else. That is simply based on the data I've observed. If you look at who Lee had success with in Austrialia, it was a pair of very strong young men (Cuddihy and Barnes) but not the women. Simon doesn't count IMO because he wasn't shooting BEST/NTS, and he was already a recurve world champion. If you look at who he's had success with here, it's the same pattern, exactly. Strong young men like Brady, Jake, the McLaughlin twins, Joe Fanchin, have figured out how to make NTS work. One could even say they were strong and dedicated enough to overcome the method's shortcomings. 

The technique IMO moves the levers away from their core and requires more strength to draw the bow than a simple linear draw that keeps the levers near the core of the body. 

When you lift something, you bring it in close to your hips and chest, you don't hold it out away from you. So why then when you draw a bow (horizontal lifting) should you draw it out away from you instead if in a line with your core? 

I could say, based on my "expertise" that NTS is "biomechanically flawed" just as easily as the "experts" who say it is biomechanically efficient. 

The other thing I know is that I've never seen a Korean woman shoot that way, and one can easily argue they are the best female archers (and arguably the best archers) on the planet.

One of the principles of NTS I agree with completely, although it's nothing new, is the idea of the "barrel of the gun." Go to the thread on Darrell Pace and look at that photo from the 70's. He is demonstrating the "barrel of the gun" perfectly. This is where Lee got the idea. Not the other way around.

We've had the expertise sitting here in the U.S. since the 60's and probably even before that.

Heck, just read the little instructional brochure that comes with every single formaster training aid. Richard Carella wrote the book on NTS years and years ago. And he has some actual science in his little book.


----------



## Warbow

limbwalker said:


> When you lift something, you bring it in close to your hips and chest, you don't hold it out away from you. So why then when you draw a bow (horizontal lifting) should you draw it out away from you instead if in a line with your core?


Well, I think your observational data about Lee's success stories is pretty convincing. Your analogy to weightlifting is intuitively appealing but I can't tell if it is analogous or not, but it does bring up one issue in my mind, which is that by focusing on drawing with the back and not using the bicep (to move the forearm in as with a linear draw) is Lee having archers give up using assists from other muscles that would make drawing easier by their combined force? That is, is the the seeming NTS emphasis on isolation the opposite of bio mechanically efficient?


----------



## Last_Bastion

limbwalker said:


> The technique IMO moves the levers away from their core and requires more strength to draw the bow than a simple linear draw that keeps the levers near the core of the body.
> 
> When you lift something, you bring it in close to your hips and chest, you don't hold it out away from you. So why then when you draw a bow (horizontal lifting) should you draw it out away from you instead if in a line with your core?


The reason for this would be that the lifting you describe is appropriate for motions using that involve primarily uni-directional joing (i.e. knees, elbows). When the rotator cuff (or major lateral hip movement) is required, it actually is lower impact to bring the direction of force "slightly" out from your center of mass. By doing this, it would allow for easier, and more efficient engagement of the rhomboids minor, infraspinatus, and teres minor so that the load can be transferred to the Latissmus dorsi and middle trapezius. I'm not a huge fan of NTS, but this is one point, from a kinematics perspective, that I can agree with. Granted, I think that the movement is greatly exaggerated to the point of inefficiency.


----------



## limbwalker

I think the linear draw accomplishes what you describe in a much more efficient way. I agree that that NTS is over-exaggerated to the point of inefficiency.


----------



## Last_Bastion

I would argue that a progression to linear draw is the idea. Starting with a "swing draw" (which is what the NTS draw looks like to me) makes it really easy to feel the muscles get engaged in sequence.


----------



## chrstphr

Last_Bastion said:


> I would argue that a progression to linear draw is the idea. Starting with a "swing draw" (which is what the NTS draw looks like to me) makes it really easy to feel the muscles get engaged in sequence.


nothing linear about NTS until aiming. Everything pre that is angular and outside. If it works for you then great.


I would like to see one video of an archer shooting the method, where ALL the NTS coaches agreed it was NTS. 


Chris


----------



## Dacer

@ John & Last Bastion


The way you are describing the NTS draw makes its sound like you swing your draw hand out in an arc away from your body and then Back in toward anchor. Is this what you are saying?


----------



## Last_Bastion

From what I've seen and had described by NTS coaches, yes. However, they would also likely say, "yes, but that's an oversimplification of what's actually being taught"


----------



## jaredjms

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, that's a given. What bothers me about these NTS/Lee bash fests is that you guys don't have the decency to respect the many athletes and coaches that work really hard on a system that they believe in. Usually because there is " no scientific studies published to back up the claims". 

Really? And what system does? NONE! If a national team did these studies and was able to prove advantages, they wouldn't publish them for the competition to see anyway. Just as you can tout NTS as witchcraft I can use the same basis to bash any other style of shooting out there. Would I ever bash Viktor Ruban? Of course not! Frangilli? Any other archer on the planet that has worked hard to perfect what they believe in? Never! I can't imagine I would ever teach much of their styles but I respect them as archers and I respect their coaches. We all know that there is more than one way to shoot a bow well-- yes, even the teachers of NTS. It's pretty sad that you guys don't have the same respect for your fellow archers and coaches.

As a coach I think it is critical to teach a system you believe in and are passionate about. Second, watch the effects it has on your athletes. If you are helping them and they are moving forward then you are on the right track. If not, methods must be reassessed. As long as a coach is doing that, I don't really care what they teach, they are doing the right thing.

The other thing that amazes me is the bashing of lee. He has coached more olympic medalists than any of us will ever see. How can you bash the man. Many could rightfully argue that he has been the most successful olympic coach ever. Korea thought he was great, Australia, and the US.

Many of you ask for NTS coaches to clarify here and there-- what coach on earth would want to jump in to these bash fests.... I mean feeding frenzies!

I'm not trying to start a big debate here on which is better or anything-- just wish you guys would respect the athletes/coaches around you. I do the same for you, even though I don't teach the McKinney way or Kim way and have never seen their published "studies". I have the respect for the athletes and coaches that do believe in it. Just think about it...

By the way, I do have respect for many of you even though I don't always have the same view. There are many ways to do this thing called archery well. If you are teaching something that you believe in and it works well for your athletes god bless you!


----------



## Warbow

jaredjms said:


> Everyone is entitled to their opinion, that's a given. What bothers me about these NTS/Lee bash fests is that you guys don't have the decency to respect the many athletes and coaches that work really hard on a system that they believe in. Usually because there is " no scientific studies published to back up the claims".
> 
> Really? And what system does? NONE!


The problem with that complain is that BEST was sold to the archery community as being a change, one based on the latest science of Biomechanics. 

So, after years of this system, with rather ordinary results on the men's side using the system and disappointing results on the women's side, folks want to know "Where's the beef," or, where is all of that science stuff you promised us. That's a reasonable thing to ask based on the claims and promises made, and the investment in money, time and resources by USAA and all of the instructors and coaches who the system is taught to, and their students.

As to Lee, I've heard all sorts of good things about him as a person and as a coach. But what that cannot be taken to mean is that *his archery system* and the *claims he makes about it* should be immune from critique.


----------



## limbwalker

Dacer said:


> @ John & Last Bastion
> 
> 
> The way you are describing the NTS draw makes its sound like you swing your draw hand out in an arc away from your body and then Back in toward anchor. Is this what you are saying?


Yes. That is what is being taught.


----------



## limbwalker

> you guys don't have the decency to respect the many athletes and coaches that work really hard on a system that they believe in. Usually because there is " no scientific studies published to back up the claims".


You are confusing the criticisms of the methods as being criticisms of the coaches and archers who use them. Don't make that same mistake that too many OTC coaches and RA's have made in the past. Because it 
would be a mistake. I especially have the utmost respect for the young men and women who dedicate themselves to this sport, and postpone an important part of their lives to train.

If you cannot understand the difference, then it is likely that no amount of explaining it would satisfy you. Some people have chosen to take the criticism of the system as personal criticism. That would be their choice to take it that way.

I will say this as well, there are very few who have the insight into this that I have. Very few. Not only did I see version 1.0, but I got to know several of the Australian archers who trained under Lee, and also know things that I cannot share publicly that cause me to have the opinions I have. Pull me aside sometime and ask me, and you might just understand what I mean.

I think I said earlier that it causes me to chuckle a bit when those who have only recently had contact with this system and program, question what I know about it or what my experience with it is. Nobody in the U.S. who would question my opinion about this current program, has more years of experience with it than I have. If they feel they do, I would love to hear from them.


----------



## limbwalker

> Just as you can tout NTS as witchcraft I can use the same basis to bash any other style of shooting out there.


I'd love for you to paint the Korean women's technique as witchcraft. You wouldn't get very far.



> He has coached more olympic medalists than any of us will ever see.


Oh, I've seen my share. 



> How can you bash the man.


 See my points above. I don't know anyone who thinks he is a bad person. You need to learn to discern between personal and professional criticism. But don't feel bad. So do several other people as well.



> Many could rightfully argue that he has been the most successful olympic coach ever. Korea thought he was great, Australia, and the US.


And even more could rightfully argue he is not, unless their view of history is very narrow. Shall we talk about women's archery, or just men? Hmm? 



> these NTS/Lee bash fests


And there is a reason that AT tends to be the home for "NTS bash-fests" as you call them. Because what's written here is not carefully planned and censored the way the USArchery promotional materials are.


----------



## Georgemay

limbwalker said:


> Yes. That is what is being taught.


I am sorry Limbwalker, where did you get that? 
"Archery" book on page 91:
quote"
the angular drawing of your shoulder unit causes your
draw hand to come in close to your neck in a straight line, from the setup position."
end of quote


----------



## jaredjms

He got that from version 1.0-- as he looks down his nose at us, the world around him


----------



## limbwalker

jaredjms said:


> He got that from version 1.0-- as he looks down his nose at us, the world around him


Interesting comment, whatever your name is... This from the one who preaches that we shouldn't criticize? Guess you ran clean out of points to respond to, and just decided to snipe from behind cover instead.

But I don't blame you entirely. It is the inevitable and unfortunate result of having to defend an indefensible position. At some point, the cover is blown, and you panic.

Enjoy the company on my ignore list champ.



> *angular drawing* of your shoulder


George, all the fancy terms in the world don't change the fact that NTS teaches the line of the arrow and the forearm remain constant. Please explain how you keep that line constant, but have the "draw hand come in close to your neck in a straight line, from the setup position." 

I don't believe it is physically possible. If it is, the vast majority of NTS devotees need to change the way they are drawing the bow. 

If you care to provide examples, please do - and share them with USArchery while you're at it. 

John


----------



## jaredjms

Really? Re read your posts and tell me that statement doesn't fit


----------



## jaredjms

I could post a bunch of quotes and make you look pretty stupid too-- but wait, that's beneath me. Reign on king of archery talk!


----------



## limbwalker

Dang jared, I'd love to respond but I am having trouble hearing you... Hmm. Gonna have to get that looked at.


----------



## williamskg6

Georgemay said:


> I am sorry Limbwalker, where did you get that?
> "Archery" book on page 91:
> quote"
> the angular drawing of your shoulder unit causes your
> draw hand to come in close to your neck in a straight line, from the setup position."
> end of quote


From what I've been told by coaches who were just humbled in person by Coach Lee himself, the angular draw is not that the drawing hand follows an arcing path. It all has to do with rotating shoulders around the spine and that the somewhat nebulous LAN2 follows an arcing path. The draw hand travels in a straight line from setup to loading, anchoring, etc. This was a bit of a revelation to me, as these very same coaches had been telling me and showing me for a couple of years that the drawing hand follows an arcing path and that path was "angular draw". 

So, either there's been a bunch of poor explanations of angular draw resulting in a lot of misunderstanding or something has changed in NTS. I suspect it's more along the lines of poor explanations and misunderstandings, just like that whole "candy cane" thing that was being circulated among JOAD coaches here in Colorado a couple of years ago and has since been strongly discouraged. It seems to me that based upon the things I was told by these coaches who worked with Coach Lee in person, they're wanting to clarify the whole angular draw thing a little better but I have yet to see a single communication from USAA reflecting that. For now, it's just hearsay although the clarification would align better with most of the things I read in the book "Archery" and "Total Archery: Inside the Archer". I guess the thing that bothers me most is, if it's so important for angular draw to be clarified, why is it that only a select few coaches get the info? Where's the official communication to all of us that are "certified" providing this supposedly crucial information? I hope they do provide it soon, but I am not going to hold my breath.

-Kent W.


----------



## jaredjms

Please do  good night


----------



## theminoritydude

Is this forum's ignore function, malfunctioning? I don't know, I don't use it.


----------



## Bob Furman

limbwalker said:


> Interesting comment, whatever your name is...


Not hard to figure out. Just go search the USAA Coach Locator for New York Level 4 Coaches with the first name of Jared...

http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/Coaching/Find-an-Instructor-or-Coach


----------



## limbwalker

williamskg6 said:


> From what I've been told by coaches who were just humbled in person by Coach Lee himself, the angular draw is not that the drawing hand follows an arcing path. It all has to do with rotating shoulders around the spine and that the somewhat nebulous LAN2 follows an arcing path. The draw hand travels in a straight line from setup to loading, anchoring, etc. This was a bit of a revelation to me, as these very same coaches had been telling me and showing me for a couple of years that the drawing hand follows an arcing path and that path was "angular draw".
> 
> So, either there's been a bunch of poor explanations of angular draw resulting in a lot of misunderstanding or something has changed in NTS. I suspect it's more along the lines of poor explanations and misunderstandings, just like that whole "candy cane" thing that was being circulated among JOAD coaches here in Colorado a couple of years ago and has since been strongly discouraged. It seems to me that based upon the things I was told by these coaches who worked with Coach Lee in person, they're wanting to clarify the whole angular draw thing a little better but I have yet to see a single communication from USAA reflecting that. For now, it's just hearsay although the clarification would align better with most of the things I read in the book "Archery" and "Total Archery: Inside the Archer". I guess the thing that bothers me most is, if it's so important for angular draw to be clarified, why is it that only a select few coaches get the info? Where's the official communication to all of us that are "certified" providing this supposedly crucial information? I hope they do provide it soon, but I am not going to hold my breath.
> 
> -Kent W.


It's pretty tough to screw up and misinterpret the simple linear draw used by so many of the Korean women. You know - the best archers in the world... blah, blah, blah.


----------



## limbwalker

Bob Furman said:


> Not hard to figure out. Just go search the USAA Coach Locator for New York Level 4 Coaches with the first name of Jared...
> 
> http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/Coaching/Find-an-Instructor-or-Coach


LOL. Whoops! Cover blown....


----------



## Dacer

limbwalker said:


> Yes. That is what is being taught.


I have serious respect for your experience and talent but in this particular case I very much think you are mistaken. 


Just like a piston head can move up and down in a straight line even though the piston rod is changing angles.

I of course do not know what was first taught by Lee to you and the other high performance coaches when this all began. But swinging the draw hand out and in is not the current technique described in the available literature since Inside The Archer. 

here is a behind view of Kaminski - He isn't swinging his hand out and in. Its starts out at set,rises up and comes in toward to his setup and so forth. There isn't any arcing out and then in, in an exaggerated swinging manner. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO4dtpUkKoo


----------



## limbwalker

Dacer, this is what was asked:



> you swing your draw hand out in an arc away from your body and then Back in toward anchor.


And when I'm behind the line at major events, watching archers who are clearly being taught NTS, (or their coach's version of NTS) their draw hand does swing out in an arc away from their bodies. 

I understand what you are saying, but if only a few elite archers who have been training directly under the national head coach for years, can demonstrate the method correctly, how effective is this system in practice at achieving universal national status, and what chance do the "unwashed" masses have of mastering it? 

I can tell you what the common interpretation - by those coaches who have NTS certificates - is. And it's a swinging out of the draw hand. 

But look. None of that is really important anyway right? We've been told how many times now that it's not important HOW an archer gets to holding, so long as they do? 

THIS, I can agree with. And personally I feel there are more efficient and more importantly - CONSISTENT - ways to get to holding than the so-called "angular draw." And until I see the Korean women doing otherwise, I'll assume they and their coaches would agree.

John


----------



## jaredjms

limbwalker said:


> LOL. Whoops! Cover blown....


Yep, that's me! Wait... You guys going to mail me a bomb or something


----------



## limbwalker

Why is it that so few American coaches today refuse to hold up examples of world class archers like Van der Ven, Frangilli, Ruban, Valeeva or Roman and point to them as LEGITIMATE OPTIONS? Why is that? 

Facts are facts and data are data. And the data clearly proves that there are many effective methods to achieve world class performance. So why are we being asked to ignore this?

Why is there not a path for an American coach to teach the method Frangilli uses, and still attain a Level 4 status for example? Is that to say that Frangilli's method is not legitimate?


----------



## Dacer

I think there is a great deal different in the Korean women program than just how they pull back their bows that make them as good as they are.

It makes me wonder...

Would another technique be pumping out elite level archers more than NTS, and be putting more US team members on the podiums than what NTS is? 

Or is it that NTS was just big on promise that people were told to expect it to be produce 1350+ shooters all over the place.... ?

Perhaps it isn't NTS thats failing & keeping US off the podiums? Perhaps its just that other archers - all things being equal and regardless of the technique - are just better? I mean if you can shoot as well as Frangilli with his technique.... Then really, I don't think at the elite level its down to IF they can shoot a 10, its can they keep their mind in the game to consistently do so.

that all said, I'm tired of talking about NTS.


----------



## limbwalker

Dacer, I'm afraid you might be onto something. As much as everyone says they agree that the mental game is so important, we all turn around and discuss technique all the live-long day... LOL. So, it makes me wonder why the national head coach isn't a mental game guru rather than a technique guru. It is a legitimate question, I think. There have been some articles that have pointed to Brady's working with Lanny Bassham's techniques as being the key that led to his success. It did not surprise me to read that at all. 

Unfortunately, we only get one chance at the current crop of athletes at any given time, so there is no valid way to compare one technique against the next. This is both a blessing and a curse. It keeps the argument going, but also allows coaches to proclaim their technique is "better" without having to worry about being proven wrong by the archers themselves.

As for "shooting as well as Frangilli with his technique" - who is to say his is not the better technique? That is an assumption based on stereotypes. Who is to say he would never have become a world class archer if he used NTS? Again, we will never know, so neither argument can ever be proven wrong.


----------



## bownut-tl.

I will probably limit any posting to maybe a comment or two since I usually end up getting kicked in the groin, but here goes.

1. The draw hand does not move in an arc away from the body then back in to Loading. When done correctly, the draw hand moves in a straight line from Setup to Loading. When an archer gets to Setup, their draw hand shouldn't be far away from their body. It should be only a few inches. Almost close enough to touch your face with an extended thumb. Then you draw to Loading. 

2. One of the earlier comments was about the "caution" in the picture about drawing. That statement is correct. NTS is not about having a linear draw process. With that being said, if one were to focus on the draw elbow, it is easy to start its movement linearly, which is why we say to focus on moving Lan2. The part about not moving the draw hand is also correct. What this is talking about is the problem we often see where the archer will start moving the correct way, but will shift their focus to getting to anchor so their draw hand is pulled toward their head before the shoulder girdle has completed its rotation. The end result is the draw elbow ends up out of alignment and the archer will often lose their back tension and become an arm shooter. 

3. The statement I made about not caring how you get to Holding, so long as you do, probably should have been followed by a few more words. When I say we don't care, it doesn't mean the archer can do whatever they want to do. What I was trying to say, as poor as it was, is this: There are many ways, within the envelope of NTS to get to Holding. If you can't do the baseline method and have to use an alternate version, that's ok. At the last JDT camp, I showed an archer three different ways they can go from Set to Setup. One of them is the baseline. I let that archer decide which one he wanted to use. I didn't care. I have four archers assigned to me to follow when they are at home. Each one does things differently, but all are acceptable because it is within the envelope of the NTS process.

4. A lot of the early positions you see Jake Kaminski doing in YouTube videos or the book was during a time when he had major shoulder and back issues. I remember a few years ago when someone posted a thread talking about how NTS had changed to a long predraw and they posted a link to a YT video of Jake. I wasn't at the OTC at the time, but had never heard of any such creature. I called coach Lee to talk about the claim and talked to Jake about it. He and Jake told me he was having major pain issues from a previous problem he had and the long predraw was the only way he could draw the bow and still train where the pain was manageable. 

5. If folks have questions and actually want answers, ask. I will do my best to get an answer for you. 


Terry


----------



## chrstphr

Dacer said:


> I of course do not know what was first taught by Lee to you and the other high performance coaches when this all began. But swinging the draw hand out and in is not the current technique described in the available literature since Inside The Archer.
> 
> here is a behind view of Kaminski - He isn't swinging his hand out and in. Its starts out at set,rises up and comes in toward to his setup and so forth. There isn't any arcing out and then in, in an exaggerated swinging manner.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO4dtpUkKoo


at 26 seconds in he starts with his shoulders, bow hand and arrow pointing to the left of target, he then draws outwardly with his hand so its several inches to the side of his face. Then he brings in from the side ( swinging). He is not drawing linearly back to his chin from pre draw. 

I dont know what else you would call a side draw like that other than an arc. 

and i was also told on here that Jake does not shoot the NTS method. 

Chris


----------



## Georgemay

limbwalker said:


> George, all the fancy terms in the world don't change the fact that NTS teaches the line of the arrow and the forearm remain constant. Please explain how you keep that line constant, but have the "draw hand come in close to your neck in a straight line, from the setup position."
> 
> I don't believe it is physically possible. If it is, the vast majority of NTS devotees need to change the way they are drawing the bow.
> 
> If you care to provide examples, please do - and share them with USArchery while you're at it.
> 
> John


John,
The simplest way to demonstrate it is to use Formaster. Hookup one and draw the bow without the help of forearm. lets pretend that formaster rope is your forearm. Since you cannot exert any side forces using rope/forearm the arrow line will be constant and aligned with rope/forearm. During angular draw observe nocking point and see if it makes any deviation from straight line. The reason for all this straight line hand movement is to have relaxed forearm and bicep during draw which is impossible using linear draw. It is rather directed to the coaches that by observing hand movement you can tell if archer have relaxed foream/bicep or not.
I hope I was clear enough. 
In part you are right, a lot of NTS followers do not understand the reasons behind certain parts of NTS and always invent funny interpretation of it. Everything is in the books, but reading and comprehending it is another story.


----------



## Cephas

Limbwalker: Dacer, I'm afraid you might be onto something. As much as everyone says they agree that the mental game is so important, we all turn around and discuss technique all the live-long day... LOL. So, it makes me wonder why the national head coach isn't a mental game guru rather than a technique guru. It is a legitimate question, I think. There have been some articles that have pointed to Brady's working with Lanny Bassham's techniques as being the key that led to his success. It did not surprise me to read that at all. 

This should be the topic of more discussions concerning elite and to an extent all archers (as maturity allows) Meghan's biggest breakthroughs have come in the last year and I attribute a large (HUGE) part of that to the mental game. She works with a mental coach who has taught her invaluable techniques and encouraged her to use them consistently. This takes a different kind of discipline than getting your form correct through hours of training though and it's not something many will do consistently because it's not considered as "fun".


----------



## Cephas

Limbwalker: Unfortunately, we only get one chance at the current crop of athletes at any given time, so there is no valid way to compare one technique against the next. This is both a blessing and a curse. It keeps the argument going, but also allows coaches to proclaim their technique is "better" without having to worry about being proven wrong by the archers themselves.

As for "shooting as well as Frangilli with his technique" - who is to say his is not the better technique? That is an assumption based on stereotypes. Who is to say he would never have become a world class archer if he used NTS? Again, we will never know, so neither argument can ever be proven wrong.[/QUOTE]




I love this. My favorite archers are Frangilli and Rubin ( I used Rubin's technique when I was shooting my old Ben Pearson hunting recurve years ago). The 'proof is in the pudding', I understand that it's 'bad' to talk about score as a coach these days but if the scores aren't improving we need to try something else. I always go back to Jim Furyk, would I teach someone to swing a golf club like him? Absolutely not, but I would teach them that the club head must be square on impact which he did/does amazingly. (And the proof is in his bank account) Getting to hold is key and not everyone can or should get there the same way.


----------



## lksseven

I believe a large part of the recoil against NTS is in the presumptive nature of the name itself, which insinuates something that is antithetical to the archetypal American psyche. "National/Socialized archery method", or "National/Socialized Church", or "National/Socialized Healthcare" ... the aversion to these things runs deep in the American psyche. This country was built from the ground up (individual by individual, homestead by homestead), not from the rooftop down (decrees from the King in Camelot). 

Anyway, back to boots on the ground stuff, and off my 'academic theorizing' ...

All of this endless dithering over technique minutiae - does anyone really think that Usain Bolt's been blowing up world 100meter dash speed records for the last 8 years because of how he gets into his crouch? What is the USA track hierarchy's answer to Usain Bolt - a nationalized complicated method to teach sprinters nationwide to get into a complicated crouch that most don't do correctly?


----------



## Dacer

chrstphr said:


> at 26 seconds in he starts with his shoulders, bow hand and arrow pointing to the left of target, he then draws outwardly with his hand so its several inches to the side of his face. Then he brings in from the side ( swinging). He is not drawing linearly back to his chin from pre draw.
> 
> I dont know what else you would call a side draw like that other than an arc.
> 
> and i was also told on here that Jake does not shoot the NTS method.
> 
> Chris


Watch the string, the orintation of his riser. If he was arcing out then back. The direction of the stabilizer/arrow/riser would start toward the left then move further left as he swings out and then start moving to the right as he draws in - and this is decidedly not what's happening in the video. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nSPCGfbq-5c

Watch Brady's stabilizer - it never reverses direction back to the left. No arcing. No lateral movement away from the body from the position it was in as he raised the bow. 

Also, never read on here that Kaminski doesn't use Coach Lees methods.


----------



## bownut-tl.

Jake does use the NTS process. He just doesn't shoot the baseline process. He understands the underlying concept and has developed a process that fits his body and the things it allows him to do. His process is still angular and he gets to Holding. 

Terry


----------



## limbwalker

I'm not going to continue to argue with people about the minutia of how to draw a bow. Why? Becuase frankly it's not that damn important. I agree with Terry in that it's not how, but the fact that an archer gets to proper alignment (call it holding if you wish) that is important. This has been taught by every archery coach that is worth their salt for much longer than I've been in the sport. Going back decades, you can find instruction on proper alignment. But there is not that much information on how to get there. Why? I think if all the great coaches of the past had thought that was important, they would have covered it. For the most part, they didn't, and that tells me that it's just not that important. 

Some folks want to describe me in particular as "anti-NTS" - I guess because I'm easily recognized, (or in some cases, because they feel threatened by the fact that I've been around this regime longer than they have). That is simply not true. Lee's instruction has some very good points. I continue to use many of the things I learned from him in 2006-2007, and have incorporated things I've learned recently from folks like Terry, who are gracious enough to interpret the changes and updates for us.

If you watched my own daughter shoot, you would see her form is not that far from what is being taught as "NTS." Why? Because NTS is really not as different from previous instruction as some would have you believe. It's not as "revolutionary" and "different" because most of it is just plain proper form. The "barrel of the gun" idea for example. That is very sound, and you can see Darrell Pace executing this perfectly in his photo posted on the hall of fame thread. I suspect he is where the Koreans got the idea in the first place. Is it lost on anyone that the Koreans studied Pace and McKinney 30+ years ago? Anyone?

If I'm 'Anti' anything, it exactly what Larry described - the idea that one system should be forced down the throats of US Coaches and archers. And before you say "it's not being forced" - yes it is. When in order to receive certification, the pathway is limited to NTS, and there is no merit-based system to earn higher level certifications, that is a forced approach. And I and many other coaches of high-performing archers don't appreciate it. When your student(s) is consistently beating archers who have been training on the JDT or RA programs - in some cases for years - and you're not recognized by USArchery has having equivalent coaching skills as those coaches whose students your archers are beating, that is nothing more than politics and bias. That, I cannot tolerate.

Until there is a legitimate merit-based pathway for coaching certifications, noone can convince me that this isn't a case of kool-aid we're all being told to drink.

What would be wrong with hiring a national coach and working to develop a consistent coaching system, while *still recognizing* coaches who produce results outside of that specific system? That would be the objective and professional approach. But that is not what is going on here. A good question to ask is why is USArchery afraid to recognize other techniques? Are we that insecure about NTS that we don't feel it can compete on equal footing? Do we need to stack the deck so we're sure it can succeed. Why not just teach it at the OTC, let everyone who wants to learn it go there, or to an NTS qualified coach, and then let the chips fall where they may and at the end of the day? (many of us have said for years, if it is a superior system, the data will easily show that) There are many L4-NTS coaches who have never produced a single competitive USAT or Jr. USAT-level archer. What kind of system awards high level certifications to those with no proven track records for success?

This is especially true for coaches of female archers. Coaches like Alexander Kirillov, Mike Usherenko, Mike Wischer and myself consistently produce young ladies who are at the top of the sport. Why are we required to be certified on a method that has no proven track record for female archers?

John


----------



## rkumetz

I am offended by this so here is what I think. Whether or not you actually take it to heart is irrelevant since it makes me feel better to get it off my chest.



jaredjms said:


> Everyone is entitled to their opinion, that's a given. What bothers me about these NTS/Lee bash fests is that you guys don't have the decency to respect the many athletes and coaches that work really hard on a system that they believe in. Usually because there is " no scientific studies published to back up the claims".
> 
> *So far so good. Everyone gets an opinion. We are entitled to ask for proof before taking anything at face value.*
> 
> Really? And what system does? NONE! If a national team did these studies and was able to prove advantages, they wouldn't publish them for the competition to see anyway. Just as you can tout NTS as witchcraft I can use the same basis to bash any other style of shooting out there. Would I ever bash Viktor Ruban? Of course not! Frangilli? Any other archer on the planet that has worked hard to perfect what they believe in? Never! I can't imagine I would ever teach much of their styles but I respect them as archers and I respect their coaches. We all know that there is more than one way to shoot a bow well-- yes, even the teachers of NTS. It's pretty sad that you guys don't have the same respect for your fellow archers and coaches.
> 
> *Not so fast. No other system that I am aware of claims to be backed with scientific studies and biomechanical (a science) efficiency. *
> 
> As a coach I think it is critical to teach a system you believe in and are passionate about. *OK I go along with this.*
> 
> Second, watch the effects it has on your athletes. If you are helping them and they are moving forward then you are on the right track. If not, methods must be reassessed. As long as a coach is doing that, I don't really care what they teach, they are doing the right thing.
> 
> *Unfortunately there is a directive (implied or otherwise) that we should be teaching NTS. Want to be a L3 coach? You need to be a L3-NTS coach. No other option.*
> 
> The other thing that amazes me is the bashing of lee. He has coached more olympic medalists than any of us will ever see. How can you bash the man. Many could rightfully argue that he has been the most successful olympic coach ever. Korea thought he was great, Australia, and the US.
> 
> *There are a few problems with this: Regardless of KSL's coaching skills (and I have no doubt that he is a very talented coach) there is no way to prove that those who he coached who achieved great things would not have done so without his help. No coach should assume that and if you do your ego is out of control. I don't think he says this but it is used often by others to defend his ideas.*
> 
> Many of you ask for NTS coaches to clarify here and there-- what coach on earth would want to jump in to these bash fests.... I mean feeding frenzies!
> 
> *KSL is in an awkward position. USAA touts his ideas as the law of the land. They are telling us that his way is the best and that it is backed up by scientific evidence
> that they do not produce. Then they tell us that you cannot advance as a coach unless you embrace BEST/NTS. Try becoming a L3 or L4 coach without it.
> I do not envy his position because the spotlight is on him in a way that none of us experiences. That being said, he gets paid more than the rest of us do and most of us
> also don't have a full time gig as an archery coach. As the saying goes "that is why he gets the big bucks".
> 
> *
> I'm not trying to start a big debate here on which is better or anything-- just wish you guys would respect the athletes/coaches around you. I do the same for you, even though I don't teach the McKinney way or Kim way and have never seen their published "studies". I have the respect for the athletes and coaches that do believe in it. Just think about it...
> 
> By the way, I do have respect for many of you even though I don't always have the same view. There are many ways to do this thing called archery well. If you are teaching something that you believe in and it works well for your athletes god bless you!


*What really offends me is that any discussion of the merits of NTS is branded as KSL bashing by those who embrace his methods. If you associate yourself with a particular technique and market it as the next best thing since sliced bread then you really need to assume that you will take some heat. I have not yet come to a conclusion as to whether it is KSL or USAA which has created that mess. I would guess that KSL being a smart fellow did not dig that hole for himself.
*

*I have been trying to think of an analogy as to how this whole NTS-KSL-USAA thing works and here is what I came up with.

USAA is the owner of a football team.

KSL is the head coach and is supposed to come up with the strategy and tactics to pass to all of us assistant coaches to disseminate to the players.

Here is the problem: The playbook gets changed all the time but the only way for the assistant coaches to get the playbook is to buy it from
Acme Football Supply because the head coach is selling them there.

The players keep asking the assistant coaches why they don't know the plays but they didn't even know that the plays were changed.

Is it really the head coach's problem? No. Not unless the team owner tells him/her that getting the players all on the same page has to trump the extra 
income of selling the playbooks.

So is KSL the problem? No. Definitely not. Connect the dots......
*


----------



## Bob Furman

Dacer said:


> Watch the string, the orintation of his riser. If he was arcing out then back. The direction of the stabilizer/arrow/riser would start toward the left then move further left as he swings out and then start moving to the right as he draws in - and this is decidedly not what's happening in the video.
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nSPCGfbq-5c
> 
> Watch Brady's stabilizer - it never reverses direction back to the left. No arcing. No lateral movement away from the body from the position it was in as he raised the bow.
> 
> Also, never read on here that Kaminski doesn't use Coach Lees methods.


Re-posted in Slow Motion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM-mFZEY-HQ

You decide....


----------



## Bob Furman

Next question??


----------



## limbwalker

So cool. That's like, what... 3 archers out of hundreds now that I've seen make it work correctly? ( I kid...) And it didn't take him long to learn to do that either, right? 

But it's an easy system to learn. Just ask Khatuna. :wink: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0McS6zrHVA

So glad we adopted it as our "national" system and are expected to teach it to 12 year-olds. 

Also glad that time in the classroom is valued more than actual results with real archers too...

So, when does the the microscopic dissection of the *best* archers in the world begin? Because I'm ready for that one. A single example of a single method is just that. One data point.


----------



## WDWILHELM

bownut-tl. said:


> 5. If folks have questions and actually want answers, ask. I will do my best to get an answer for you.
> 
> 
> Terry


I would like to understand "holding." Does this mean that we are supposed to get to position x and then stop? A complete stop, no movement for a period of time, then do something to generate movement and break the clicker?

I want to understand this as my shot has forever been movement based. Always moving, with varying degrees speed, and never stopping. My movement (push, pull, or both, linear or angular) will break the clicker. My mindset has been that if I am moving, the clicker will break, and then I am free to finish the shot. If/when I end up waiting for the clicker to break, things go bad. If I loose fluidity in my movement, things go bad.

I would like to understand the mindset or purpose of holding. Why hold? If you have already covered this in another thread, please share a link.

Thanks. Wyndell.


----------



## bownut-tl.

Wyndell,

As usual, the name Holding is misleading. It is a position you achieve where you have good bow side and draw side alignment, a firm anchor, and good back tension. We say it is the point at which your process moves more into the subconscious mind than the conscious mind. When you get to Holding you don't actually stop moving. The movement just slows way way down.

Terry


----------



## bownut-tl.

Holding also assumes you have the other parts of the process set correctly like hooking and gripping, posture, stance, firm bow arm, head position, etc.

Terry


----------



## rkumetz

bownut-tl. said:


> It is a position you achieve where you have good bow side and draw side alignment, a firm anchor, and good back tension. We say it is the point at which your process moves more into the subconscious mind than the conscious mind. When you get to Holding you don't actually stop moving. The movement just slows way way down.


This is definitely a good example of where the "official" documentation of NTS causes more problems than it solves.
If you want to create a system that is widely followed you need to document it in a comprehensible manner and have 
uninvolved people critique the docs, video, etc to remove the confusion. You never ever let the guy who wrote the
software or designed the product write the manual that the customer sees unless you want to create confusion.

The description you gave above is 60 words (325 characters) and is relatively clear compared to others I have read in
the more official documentation. I admit that I can't think of a name that describes that stage of the shot process however
HOLDING doesn't even enter into my mind.


----------



## kshet26

I think of holding more like 'holding the bow open'. But holding also has the connotation of 'stop'. 'Bracing' might be a slightly better term as that's what you're trying to achieve (using bone alignment/minimal muscle usage to brace the bow, to be 'inside the bow').


----------



## theminoritydude

Hey you guys! Anyone seen Kisik Lee around here? Maybe we could ask him in here to say a little something.


----------



## theminoritydude

I mean, you guys know he is reading all this, right?


----------



## rkumetz

kshet26 said:


> I think of holding more like 'holding the bow open'. But holding also has the connotation of 'stop'. 'Bracing' might be a slightly better term as that's what you're trying to achieve (using bone alignment/minimal muscle usage to brace the bow, to be 'inside the bow').


Exactly. To someone here in the US the word "hold" has a connotation of a static condition as in "hold it right there!".

This may be where some cultural and linguistic issues come into play. The guy who has all of this info in his head is not a native born speaker of US English. That is not a criticism of Coach Lee however the folks who are putting his thoughts to paper should be going over this with a fine tooth comb and asking questions to make sure that the translation isn't getting botched up. Sometimes it is hard enough to describe something to someone from a different part of the US never mind if you weren't born and raised here. Those who travel extensively know that just because you can make a literal translation of something in a different language doesn't mean you aren't going to say things that could get you in hot water if you aren't careful.


----------



## limbwalker

I wonder often whether all the "changes" we've seen in Lee's teachings since 2007 are really changes, or just re-interpretations of the same things he was trying to teach 7 years ago. Probably some of both. I know how much trouble us first group of coaches had understanding what it was he was wanting us to teach the JDT archers. There were days all of us thought we had it, and we would go forward and teach the students, and an hour later he would come out and see what we were doing and tell us we were doing it all wrong.  And that's after the four of us coaches had all discussed it and thought we knew what he wanted. It was a very frustrating time, but I don't blame him entirely for that. I don't think any of us did.

I know that I made the assumption that after having been the Korean head coach, and having coached in Austrialia, that certainly by then his methods would have been tested and proven. This is why the "experimenting" has always puzzled me. Did we not hire what we felt was the best coach in the world? Did he not just write a book about his method? Then why all the sudden the changes after being the head coach in two medal-winning countries? I just never got that. If your method works, then it works. Just teach it or find a way to teach it. Obviously he found a way to communicate it - in English - to Barnes and Cuddihy in Australia. So what's been the problem here?


----------



## kshet26

From what I've read here on the forums it's not exclusively a method dictated by Lee. He set the baseline but the RAs are the ones doing a lot of the work to modify the method. The RAs are allowed to experiment and those experiments may inform modifications to the baseline.


----------



## rkumetz

limbwalker said:


> I wonder often whether all the "changes" we've seen in Lee's teachings since 2007 are really changes, or just re-interpretations of the same things he was trying to teach 7 years ago. Probably some of both. I know how much trouble us first group of coaches had understanding what it was he was wanting us to teach the JDT archers. There were days all of us thought we had it, and we would go forward and teach the students, and an hour later he would come out and see what we were doing and tell us we were doing it all wrong.  And that's after the four of us coaches had all discussed it and thought we knew what he wanted. It was a very frustrating time, but I don't blame him entirely for that. I don't think any of us did.
> 
> I know that I made the assumption that after having been the Korean head coach, and having coached in Austrialia, that certainly by then his methods would have been tested and proven. This is why the "experimenting" has always puzzled me. Did we not hire what we felt was the best coach in the world? Did he not just write a book about his method?  Then why all the sudden the changes after being the head coach in two medal-winning countries? I just never got that. If your method works, then it works. Just teach it or find a way to teach it. Obviously he found a way to communicate it - in English - to Barnes and Cuddihy in Australia. So what's been the problem here?


I think that there is a difference between working 1 on 1 directly with an archer "hands on" and trying to communicate something which will then be taught to others.

The only fault that I find with Lee is that it appears that he has given up on having the organization that he works for effectively communicate his ideas
in a way that can been duplicated. On the other hand paying him and not bothering to make sure that we are writing down what he is thinking rather than just what he is saying is sort of inexcusable. Assuming that he does intend to give us the information (rather than keeping things confusing to maintain his franchise) then I would be pretty frustrated if I was in his position. He takes the heat for the confusion while management vanishes to the executive wash room.


----------



## rkumetz

kshet26 said:


> From what I've read here on the forums it's not exclusively a method dictated by Lee. He set the baseline but the RAs are the ones doing a lot of the work to modify the method. The RAs are allowed to experiment and those experiments may inform modifications to the baseline.


That is probably true. On the other hand if there is experimenting going on and it is done with USAA/USOC funding then shouldn't someone be documenting the experiments and their results (both success and failure) so that others don't have to reinvent the wheel?


----------



## limbwalker

kshet26 said:


> From what I've read here on the forums it's not exclusively a method dictated by Lee. He set the baseline but the RAs are the ones doing a lot of the work to modify the method. The RAs are allowed to experiment and those experiments may inform modifications to the baseline.


That's a novel idea, but after being the head coach of Korea and then Australia, wouldn't you think that the baseline would be pretty well established? I guess I expcted it to be. I mean, we're talking archery and human beings here, not social media and space exploration.


----------



## WDWILHELM

Terry,

Thank you for your clarification. I understand what you are describing.

Wyndell


----------



## kshet26

limbwalker said:


> That's a novel idea, but after being the head coach of Korea and then Australia, wouldn't you think that the baseline would be pretty well established? I guess I expcted it to be. I mean, we're talking archery and human beings here, not social media and space exploration.


I guess if it was simple, everyone would do things the exact same way. Even the Korean women all shoot slightly different. So it makes sense to me that the NTS is like a rolling average of what works best within the non-negotiable framework that Terry stated. Granted, the sample size Lee gets is small (RAs, JDT) and self-selecting. And it's also clearly debatable whether the non-negotiables themselves are inherently flawed. 

If NTS was unrestricted and was truly a rolling average of what works best for each archer, I bet I know what it would look like.


----------



## bownut-tl.

Many of the so-called changes are nothing other that us finally understanding what Coach Lee actually wanted. I remember at one JDT camp when we were watching Coach Lee demonstrate a part of the process and one of the coaches asked if what he was doing prior to the part he wanted to show us was also what he wanted us to do. He said yes. We told him that is not what we are teaching the archers. After showing him what we were teaching, he tried it and couldn't do it. He then looked at us and said now he understands why some of the RA's were having issues. We then spent a few hours relearning what he was teaching us and paying a lot more attention to the finer details of what he was doing. We thought those finer details, body position and movement, weren't important or were just something he did. Turns out they were important. Once we made the adjustment, the archers, including the RA's, were finally able to make progress. It was a learning and teaching moment for all of us, including Coach Lee. 

The other changes to the baseline are a result of watching the RA's. Most of the adjustments were a result of an issue an RA had. After either working something out on their own or discussing the issue with Coach Lee, a solution was found. That solution either became an archer specific solution or it became something that was added to the baseline because it didn't negatively impact accomplishing the over all concept and it most often eliminated issues that were found in many archers.

What is in the book can still be done because it gets you to Holding. We simply teach parts of the process differently because it minimizes negative form creep issues and makes accomplishing parts of the process either easier or it better compliments the next step or steps after that one. 

Terry


----------



## limbwalker

> Many of the so-called changes are nothing other that us finally understanding what Coach Lee actually wanted.


This doesn't surprise me at all, after having been in those shoes.



> The other changes to the baseline are a result of watching the RA's. Most of the adjustments were a result of an issue an RA had.


This I don't completely understand. Why? Because the man has been coaching high level archers for decades. Why change the baseline for the needs of one or two archers? I can understand allowing them to make individual adjustments based on their own personal needs, but if the baseline is moved so easily by just a small number of archers, was it really a baseline to begin with? 

How many archers has he worked with in the past 20+ years? How many changes have been the result of that work? I cannot believe that after 100's of archers, we still do not have a well established baseline that everyone agrees on (including him) and that we are working around.

It's the idea that he's not teaching the same thing he taught in Australia (that Barnes and Cuddihy had tremendous success with), nor the same thing he taught in Korea, that bothers me. (aside from the fact that his methods have clearly not worked for any women in Australia or the U.S. as well as they have for the young men).

Did we hire someone to gain OJT by experimenting on our most promising young archers, or did we hire an experienced elite coach that already knew what they were doing? I was hoping the latter.

John


----------



## Cephas

Limbwalker: (aside from the fact that his methods have clearly not worked for any women in Australia or the U.S. as well as they have for the young men).


What do you see as the reason for this? Curious as the father of a young female archer under NTS coaching. I've heard this in the past but can't remember anyone giving possible reasons why this is the case.


----------



## limbwalker

Cephas said:


> Limbwalker: (aside from the fact that his methods have clearly not worked for any women in Australia or the U.S. as well as they have for the young men).
> 
> 
> What do you see as the reason for this? Curious as the father of a young female archer under NTS coaching. I've heard this in the past but can't remember anyone giving possible reasons why this is the case.


I think if (collectively) we knew, it would have been fixed by now. I've heard a lot of excuses, but statistics don't lie.

I suspect I know at least one of the reasons - simple neglect. Just as in the past, the men get disproportionally more attention at the OTC (and there are reasons for this as well), and even on our own USArchery and OSOC media feeds. There is a historic gender bias against the women, even by our own nearly all-female USArchery staff.

Of course, as soon as you say that it will be denied. But just look at the press. At every level, it's overwhelmingly men that are featured, even though we have just as many women on our teams as we do men.

If you talk to the women both on the US teams and (as I have) the Australian team, they will tell you the same thing. That the men always get all the attention. I think that's slowly changing ( I know I beat Teresa over the head about this every chance I get ), but it's still a problem, and as the father of two female archers and the coach of many female archers, I'm particularly in tune with it.

This problem is compounded by the fact that historically our women are not ranking as high as our men. So, what happens? The men get the coverage because they are ranking higher (to fill our bias for "success" stories) and the women get buried, which leads to even more morale issues. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.


----------



## lksseven

Cephas said:


> Limbwalker: (aside from the fact that his methods have clearly not worked for any women in Australia or the U.S. as well as they have for the young men).
> 
> 
> What do you see as the reason for this? Curious as the father of a young female archer under NTS coaching. I've heard this in the past but can't remember anyone giving possible reasons why this is the case.


My own take (it's cold here in College Station, so instead of out walking the campus I'm sitting around the hotel room and bored, so I'll jump in before John responds with his own take) is that NTS is a non-elegant, brute force solution designed to enable high draw weight for an edge in elimination matches, and about the only archers who can perform this in weight and volume are young strong males.


----------



## limbwalker

One other issue is, if you were a head coach and you had a choice between spending your time with a team that has a chance to beat the Korean men, or a team that - regardless of how good a job you do - still probably won't beat the Korean women, which team would you choose to spend your time with?

This happens a lot in sport. I'm guilty of it myself. All of us coaches are. We are drawn to the potential for success vs. the hard cases. It's human nature.


----------



## chrstphr

also that bias is in Korea. The women archers out perform the men all the time, come home with more medals etc. But the men's team is the focus. 

The Korean women's team has won every Olympic gold since it was contested. Aside from Beijing, they have won every individual gold medal since 1984. The men's team has not won as much, though they do place highly. 

Oh Jin Hyek wins the individual Gold in London and the entire nation calls him the golden boy. When Park Sung Hyun won the Individual Silver in Beijing, the newspaper there had the headline, Korea humiliated by China. 

even with all Park Sung Hyun's records and medals ( second only to Kim Soo Nyung for Most Olympic medals), the newspaper said she had let China humiliate Korea. 

The women are the B team in Korea. Except to me. I feel they are the A team, and the men are the ones playing catch up. 

Chris


----------



## limbwalker

Yup, it's sad. You see it in all sports. Women's NBA vs. mens NBA, women's golf vs. mens... 

I've raised my daughters to be proud, independent and self-sufficient people. I demand a lot from my young female archers, and I think it's one reason they respond as well as they do - because they know I treat them the same as I would the men by expecting something from them without excuses. And they deliver. I really don't understand why we still have this bias in sports, especially a sport like archery.


----------



## Warbow

limbwalker said:


> Yup, it's sad. You see it in all sports. Women's NBA vs. mens NBA, women's golf vs. mens...
> 
> I've raised my daughters to be proud, independent and self-sufficient people. I demand a lot from my young female archers, and I think it's one reason they respond as well as they do - because they know I treat them the same as I would the men by expecting something from them without excuses. And they deliver. I really don't understand why we still have this bias in sports, especially a sport like archery.


Archery is a sport with men and women participating, even back in the Victorian Era, though I have to say the dress code has changed a bit since the turn of the century...


----------



## lksseven

Chris and John,

I get what you're describing, and I also observe that in many fields. But - and as the father of a stud duck female athlete and all-around great daughter/person - I'm not guilty of that. And I'm certainly not guilty of it with my female archer students. None of us (and I know you guys don't) should ever tolerate that kind of bias, and should confront it every time we have the power to do so. Tolerated behavior is encouraged behavior. 

Question: Have the US archery women always been treated thus, as the 2nd class, going back the last 30 or 40 or 50 years?

Chris, your comment about the Korean headline after Park won silver reminds me of the two things - it reminds me of the hilarious insanity in Sooner Football Nation after OU lost to Kansas 23-3 in 1975 (it was OU's first loss in 37 games, and came on the heels of consecutive National Championships) ... with newspaper headlines "What's Wrong with OU Football?!" and radio callers screaming for Switzer to be fired (it was his first loss in almost 3 years of being head coach). Just jaw dropping crazy, but that's human nature I guess...

Also, it reminds me of the great joke from 30 years ago .... Ronald Reagan and the Pope are fishing in a small boat, and a gust of wind comes up and blows the Pope's hat off into the lake about 30 feet away. Reagan stands up and says "Don't worry, Your Holiness, I'll go get it for you", steps out of the boat onto the water, walks over and picks the hat out of the water, then walks back, climbs back in the boat, and presents the hat back to the Pope. Then next morning's headlines in the Washington Post reads "Reagan Can't Swim".


----------



## Warbow

rkumetz said:


> This is definitely a good example of where the "official" documentation of NTS causes more problems than it solves.
> If you want to create a system that is widely followed you need to document it in a comprehensible manner and have
> uninvolved people critique the docs, video, etc to remove the confusion. You never ever let the guy who wrote the
> software or designed the product write the manual that the customer sees unless you want to create confusion.
> 
> The description you gave above is 60 words (325 characters) and is relatively clear compared to others I have read in
> the more official documentation. I admit that I can't think of a name that describes that stage of the shot process however
> HOLDING doesn't even enter into my mind.


Good points. 

Communication has been an issue with BEST/NTS for years. Terry is much better at it, I think, than the official sources such as the published books, and his posts here on AT are a rare treat. But an outsider test for clarity is really important, but the editors would have a bigger challenge in that it is obvious that Lan2 needs to be defined, but it is less obvious when word or analogies that have ordinary meanings or interpretations are used in non-standard ways. Who would know to ask whether holding doesn't actually mean holding, but rather a range of things, including *constant* motion? Or that the Barrel of the Gun wouldn't be in line with the arrow, the actual thing pointing at the target like a gun barrel, but the bow arm, that doesn't point at the target, and isn't in anyway like the barrel of a gun, other than being straight.


----------



## Georgemay

I don't know, maybe it is just me, but I found NTS pretty easy to understand. I don't even pick on the barrel of the gun not pointing directly at the target... as in real life barrel of the gun is not pointing directly at the target either.
Maybe you guys are just extremely picky when comes to wording. [putting quickly flame suit on]


----------



## limbwalker

Georgemay said:


> I don't know, maybe it is just me, but I found NTS pretty easy to understand. I don't even pick on the barrel of the gun not pointing directly at the target... as in real life barrel of the gun is not pointing directly at the target either.
> Maybe you guys are just extremely picky when comes to wording. [putting quickly flame suit on]


George, what did you shoot before NTS?


----------



## Warbow

Georgemay said:


> I don't know, maybe it is just me, but I found NTS pretty easy to understand. I don't even pick on the barrel of the gun not pointing directly at the target... as in real life barrel of the gun is not pointing directly at the target either.
> Maybe you guys are just extremely picky when comes to wording. [putting quickly flame suit on]


I just figure words shouldn't take on an opposite meaning if your intent is to communicate clearly. And analogies should be analogous if the idea is for the analogy to be useful. A barrel of a gun points at the target analogously to how an arrow does (though not a perfect analogy), both are elevated to compensate for gravity, and both may be aimed off for wind. That's an analogy, used in the normal way. The bow arm? Not analogous. 

Now, I in no way claim that poor choices of key words and analogies invalidates NTS as a system, but I do say that they are bad for the system if the intent is to communicate it effectively and disseminate it down through a hierarchy of coaches and instructors. That kind of dissemination requires robust, clear language, not confusing language that gets mangled as spread from one person to another. 

The constant threads seeking clarification on NTS are suggestive that the system is not currently well communicated.


----------



## Georgemay

limbwalker said:


> George, what did you shoot before NTS?


'Eastern European'


----------



## bownut-tl.

John,

About the changes to NTS. Obviously I wasn't clear with what I said. The baseline process isn't changed just because of a fix with one or two RA's. When a trend amongst a number of archers (typically more than 2) are seen and the correction has been evaluated and found to be a process improvement, then the baseline may change. I find it a bit strange that folks don't believe a shot process, no matter how well developed, can change. Process improvement is one of the number one efforts in industry. Why can't that same approach be applied to a shot process? Getting the info out to the masses is another thing, but change should be allowed.

As for the problem with the terms used in NTS. I will agree they are a problem if the terms aren't defined or described. The strange thing is they are all defined or described. If I went to a beginner archer and told him or her about brace-height or tiller or asked them to look at the front of their bow, most would have no clue what I was talking about or would look at the wrong place until I told them what it is. Heck, I had no clue what entropy, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, molarity, or many other terms were until I was taught them. Ask a beginner archer what back tension is and see if you get a correct answer. As them what anchor means and see if they get that right. Ask them about elbow pronation?? As I see it, if you have a term that isn't obvious or could be confusing, then the coach has an obligation to ensure the archer understands what the term means. NTS has done that.

Terry


----------



## Warbow

bownut-tl. said:


> John,
> 
> About the changes to NTS. Obviously I wasn't clear with what I said. The baseline process isn't changed just because of a fix with one or two RA's. When a trend amongst a number of archers (typically more than 2) are seen and the correction has been evaluated and found to be a process improvement, then the baseline may change. I find it a bit strange that folks don't believe a shot process, no matter how well developed, can change. Process improvement is one of the number one efforts in industry. Why can't that same approach be applied to a shot process? Getting the info out to the masses is another thing, but change should be allowed.


We can never learn unless we are open to change. But, on the other hand, BOG and non-linear draw are off the table in terms of change, aren't they? Seems like a potential contradiction.

Also, how do you track process improvement at the OTC - and this is a serious question. Do you have a large whiteboard, or computer database, with baseline NTS and variations that you update with notes, and annotations? How do you separate what seems true from what actually is true? What is the documentation for this process that validates that it is objectively verifiable improvement and not just "change"?



bownut-tl. said:


> As for the problem with the terms used in NTS. I will agree they are a problem if the terms aren't defined or described. The strange thing is they are all defined or described. If I went to a beginner archer and told him or her about brace-height or tiller or asked them to look at the front of their bow, most would have no clue what I was talking about or would look at the wrong place until I told them what it is. Heck, I had no clue what entropy, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, molarity, or many other terms were until I was taught them. Ask a beginner archer what back tension is and see if you get a correct answer. As them what anchor means and see if they get that right. Ask them about elbow pronation?? As I see it, if you have a term that isn't obvious or could be confusing, then the coach has an obligation to ensure the archer understands what the term means. NTS has done that.
> 
> Terry


It is absolutely true that archery has some obscure terms - however, they generally are *archery wide* terms, not limited to one particular shooting system. Tiller is tiller whether you shoot NTS Recurve or ELB. And pronation is an anatomical term, that is used world wide.

A list of archery terms people might not know, could be a good post. "Crawl," might be an appropriate one.


----------



## bownut-tl.

There is no contradiction. If Coach Lee determined the BOG or angular draw needed to be changed, I am sure he would do so. Just because they and other parts of the process haven't changed, doesn't mean they are off the table. It just means a reason to change them hasn't been found.

I'm not at the OTC so I can't tell you how they track changes nor have I ever asked to see something. I have no idea what you mean by what seems true vs what actually is true. Are things documented, I don't know. Is it needed to make a change....no. The validation comes in watching the archers implement the change and talking to them about it. If the proposed change doesn't do what we want or causes unforeseen problems, it is discarded. We don't make changes just for change sake. The changes are tested to see if it is an improvement. Keep in mind, the changes aren't always related to just looking at score improvements. If you recall, our goal is to get the archer to Holding. Many of the changes are made to make that easier and many of them are options. 

As for terms. It doesn't matter if the term is universal, world wide, or just in my neighborhood. It still has to be defined. Now, if an archer has no desire to read the next line after the term is mentioned, where it is described, that's the problem for that archer. As you say, pronation is a term that is used world wide. Didn't help me when I first heard it. I didn't drop my bow, run to the local book store to get a medical dictionary or Websters, to see what it meant. My coach used the term then described it to me. This can hold for many other terms. Use the term then describe it. NTS, just like any other process, does that.


----------



## Warbow

bownut-tl. said:


> I have no idea what you mean by what seems true vs what actually is true.


Well, an example would be Lee's claim that looking too far to the side of your "eye openings" causes a decrease in "neurological strength". Is that actually true? Or does it merely seem to be true? What process at the OTC was used to verify this claim and its subsequent inclusion as a key factor NTS?

Humans are subject to bias that make things seem convincingly true, such as this image:









It looks like spirals. Is it really spirals? Or do they just *seem* to look like spirals?

In fact, the image contains concentric circles. 

Science is the process we use to account for human bias and to separate what is true from merely seems to be true. Coach Lee's claims about eye position and neurological strength seem to indicate the opposite happens, at least some of the time, at the OTC, that Coach Lee is subject to perceptual bias, calls it science and that no _actual_ science takes place.

It is easy to do science wrong. Or to not do it at all. Which is why I'm curious as to the process at the OTC. How do they know a change is really an improvement? Or just a change? Correlation is not causation and all of that.


----------



## Georgemay

I didn't wait for Coach Lee to prove that aiming with looking at the corners of the eyes is worse than looking more direct. I just took the bow and tried. And guess what, I got two things improved. One is my anchor is much more solid, deeper under the jaw, without that pesky gap between hand and the neck, and second it is really easier on my eyes. Can't say about the old neck, but after some stretches I got used to it. Believe me go and try. If you like better looking trough the corner of your eyes I am fine with that.

What spirals are you talking about? All I see is a circles.


----------



## bownut-tl.

Some of the changes can't be correlated with improved scores. Some of them are related to feel or if a specific step is easier to accomplish. Some of it has a subjective quality to it. And the results aren't easily measurable. 

As for the looking out the corner of the eye thingy, it isn't something I worried about. I did the test multiple times and I was convinced. That's all I needed even if I was wrong since it actually had no impact on my shooting. If he never said it, it is still recommended to turn your head more toward the target.


----------



## limbwalker

> The baseline process isn't changed just because of a fix with one or two RA's.


Terry, can you tell me he's teaching the same things today he was teaching when he hit the U.S. in 2006? And if not, then my question is why not? Did he not have enough archers to work with in Korea or Australia? Were Simon and Tim and David that different than the archers he has worked with here? Really? I would find that hard to believe.



> As for the problem with the terms used in NTS. I will agree they are a problem if the terms aren't defined or described. The strange thing is they are all defined or described. If I went to a beginner archer and told him or her about brace-height or tiller or asked them to look at the front of their bow, most would have no clue what I was talking about or would look at the wrong place until I told them what it is.


This is very true. I don't have a problem with new phrases or terms like "barrel of the gun" once they are explained. Now Lan2? That could have been done a lot better. It still sounds silly 8 years after I first learned it. Surely there was an English term we could have found to replace that by now...

I think we can argue about the best way to draw a bow all day long. It will never get us anywhere. The fact is the best archers in the world - the Korean women - overwhelmingly use a linear draw. Why we would deviate from that, esp. for our women, makes zero sense to me. But we're just talking about the way the bow is drawn. It's not the end of the world and I'm not going to let it keep me up at night.

Bottom line is however the bow is drawn, so long as the fundamental alignment is sound, it comes down to what's happening in-between the ears. PERIOD.

John


----------



## limbwalker

> Science is the process we use to account for human bias and to separate what is true from merely seems to be true.


Yuppers. 

And statistics are fantastic for proving theories. Hard to argue with simple statistics.


----------



## Dacer

Bringing issue with NTS terminology is a very weak complaint. You learn terms when you get into anything and the terms NTS uses have been defined in the literature.


----------



## jguardia

Warbow said:


> Archery is a sport with men and women participating, even back in the Victorian Era, though I have to say the dress code has changed a bit since the turn of the century...


The corsets are gone but the bias remains. I think limbwalker and chrstphr make important points. And the points are relevant despite the *participation* of both genders. The hard part to deal with is that the bias is subconscious rather than intentional or overtly malicious and if you're not on the receiving end it's hard to perceive it and easy to think it doesn't exist or doesn't apply to you. Or it may not even be on your radar. As with so many other biases. Obviously this isn't just about archery but is part of a larger pattern in our sports culture. From my perspective as a woman archer I can tell you it's there. It's subtle and not nearly as bad as in other sports but it's there. Kudos to the coaches that acknowledge the bias and active work to address it even within their own clubs.

And I think it's important to keep thinking about how NTS may or may not be widening this bias we're talking about and how we can grow success in the sport for everyone and at the highest levels.


----------



## Warbow

bownut-tl. said:


> Some of the changes can't be correlated with improved scores. Some of them are related to feel or if a specific step is easier to accomplish. Some of it has a subjective quality to it. And the results aren't easily measurable.
> 
> As for the looking out the corner of the eye thingy, it isn't something I worried about. *I did the test multiple times and I was convinced. That's all I needed* even if I was wrong since it actually had no impact on my shooting. If he never said it, it is still recommended to turn your head more toward the target.


I'm assuming you are referring to the arm strength test that has been demonstrated on coaches to prove that looking too far to the sides of your eyes reduces strength - which makes this an excellent example of the issue that has me concerned. 

*Whether or not the "eye thingy" is true is less important than whether the OTC has a proper process for vetting truth claims about archery technique.* To which the answer, unfortunately, seems to be, "No." Differentiating which techniques actually work and which just seem to work is key to an evidence based archery program.

As I noted earlier, it is easy to do science wrong. *The arm strength test that is so convincing is literally no different than if you used dowsing rods* to check your answer. Like dowsing, it is a test that gives the answers that the tester and subject *expect*. It is pseudo-science. And it has no place in a national level archery program that is supposed to be utterly steeped in the very latest, real science. I'd say is vital to a program at this level for the pseudoscience to removed immediately and that education and protocols be put in place to prevent it. 

Here's an example of how the the arm strength test fools smart people into believing wrong things, written up by psychologist Ray Hyman on when some practitioners of the pseudo science called "applied kinesiology" (not to be confused with the scientific field of kinesology, the study of human motion) came to visit:



> Some years ago I participated in a test of applied kinesiology at Dr. Wallace Sampson's medical office in Mountain View, California. A team of chiropractors came to demonstrate the procedure. Several physician observers and the chiropractors had agreed that chiropractors would first be free to illustrate applied kinesiology in whatever manner they chose. Afterward, we would try some double-blind tests of their claims.
> 
> The chiropractors presented as their major example a demonstration they believed showed that the human body could respond to the difference between glucose (a "bad" sugar) and fructose (a "good" sugar). The differential sensitivity was a truism among "alternative healers," though there was no scientific warrant for it. The chiropractors had volunteers lie on their backs and raise one arm vertically. T*hey then would put a drop of glucose* (in a solution of water) *on the volunteer's tongue. The chiropractor then tried to push the volunteer's upraised arm* down to a horizontal position while the volunteer tried to resist. In almost every case, *the volunteer could not resist.* The chiropractors stated the volunteer's body recognized glucose as a "bad" sugar. After the volunteer's mouth was rinsed out and *a drop of fructose was placed on the tongue, the volunteer, in just about every test, resisted movement to the horizontal position. *The body had recognized fructose as a "good" sugar.
> 
> After lunch a nurse brought us a large number of test tubes, each one coded with a secret number so that we could not tell from the tubes which contained fructose and which contained glucose. The nurse then left the room so that no one in the room during the subsequent testing would consciously know which tubes contained glucose and which fructose. *The arm tests were repeated, but this time they were double-blind -- neither the volunteer, the chiropractors, nor the onlookers was aware of whether the solution being applied to the volunteer's tongue was glucose or fructose.* As in the morning session, sometimes the volunteers were able to resist and other times they were not. We recorded the code number of the solution on each trial. Then the nurse returned with the key to the code. W*hen we determined which trials involved glucose and which involved fructose, there was no connection between ability to resist and whether the volunteer was given the "good" or the "bad" sugar.*
> 
> When these results were announced, the head chiropractor turned to me and said, "You see, that is why we never do double-blind testing anymore. It never works!" At first I thought he was joking. It turned it out he was quite serious. Since he "knew" that applied kinesiology works, and the best scientific method shows that it does not work, then—in his mind—there must be something wrong with the scientific method.


This is a powerful effect, because it is *subconscious*. If we double blind tested two separate groups on the eye thingy, but told (primed) the testers and subjects in each group the opposite claim about which position is stronger, you'd get the opposite results from each group.

You believe in the power of the mental game, right? So do all the coaches and archers at the OTC, I would think. *Coaches and archers should all be able to realize the power the mental game plays in the subjective arm strength test, and why it will give results based on expectation, not objective fact.*

I'm really interested in the process at the OTC. Without the proper processes in place, it is really, really easy for coaches and archers who's performance is highly tied to the mental game to make judgements based on human bias. And that is a recipe for a program based on plausible and convincing falsehoods rather than facts. And it really is more damaging, in my estimation, when claims are falsely stated as scientifically proven fact rather than what they are, which such as the opinions of the assistants or of the head coach.


----------



## jaredjms

jguardia said:


> The corsets are gone but the bias remains. I think limbwalker and chrstphr make important points. And the points are relevant despite the *participation* of both genders. The hard part to deal with is that the bias is subconscious rather than intentional or overtly malicious and if you're not on the receiving end it's hard to perceive it and easy to think it doesn't exist or doesn't apply to you. Or it may not even be on your radar. As with so many other biases. Obviously this isn't just about archery but is part of a larger pattern in our sports culture. From my perspective as a woman archer I can tell you it's there. It's subtle and not nearly as bad as in other sports but it's there. Kudos to the coaches that acknowledge the bias and active work to address it even within their own clubs.
> 
> And I think it's important to keep thinking about how NTS may or may not be widening this bias we're talking about and how we can grow success in the sport for everyone and at the highest levels.


Very sad to hear that you experience bias. As a coach my priority goes to the athletes that work the hardest. Out of my top 4 students, 3 are female. They work hard and I work hard for them. I will never let their passion for shooting/learning grow stronger than my passion for teaching/ helping them reach their goals-- I feel that I owe them that as their coach. Although some have claimed that NTS is not for women, don't rule it out. Those 3 girls place among the best in the region but have considerably less time behind the bow than most. Yes, they are being trained with the concepts of NTS and by a coach that sees them as passionate archers that deserve the best!


----------



## Warbow

jguardia said:


> The corsets are gone but the bias remains. I think limbwalker and chrstphr make important points. And the points are relevant despite the *participation* of both genders. The hard part to deal with is that the bias is subconscious rather than intentional or overtly malicious and if you're not on the receiving end it's hard to perceive it and easy to think it doesn't exist or doesn't apply to you. Or it may not even be on your radar. As with so many other biases. Obviously this isn't just about archery but is part of a larger pattern in our sports culture. From my perspective as a woman archer I can tell you it's there. It's subtle and not nearly as bad as in other sports but it's there. Kudos to the coaches that acknowledge the bias and active work to address it even within their own clubs.
> 
> And I think it's important to keep thinking about how NTS may or may not be widening this bias we're talking about and how we can grow success in the sport for everyone and at the highest levels.


I agree completely. I was merely remarking on the fact that Archery was ahead of its time in the past, meant as a comparison and contrast with where we are now, which is decidedly no longer ahead of its time in terms of equal opportunities or support for female archers. It seems more like a stagnation.


----------



## bownut-tl.

Warbow,

With the eye thing and arm strength. I simply don't care if it's true or not. It just isn't important to me and I don't judge the merits of NTS based upon whether it is true or not.


----------



## Warbow

bownut-tl. said:


> Warbow,
> 
> With the eye thing and arm strength. I simply don't care if it's true or not. It just isn't important to me and I don't judge the merits of NTS based upon whether it is true or not.


Again, not my point.

What I would think you would care about, though, is whether *everything else* you teach is true. Science is the best tool we have for determining that. Not using science leads to false casual associations, and what behavioral psychology calls "superstitious behavior", leaving you unable to tell which techniques you teach are actual keys to success and which are a conglomeration nonsense that seems effective. And because archery really is such a mental game, it can be very hard, if not impossible, to tell one from the other without the tools of actual science.

That being said, I love your explanations of NTS, they help make it a better system, one that more people can understand.


----------



## bownut-tl.

I hear you and understand what you are saying. I will leave this issue, I hope, with the following:

You keep asking for documentation and the studies/proof or evidence that any claims about all or elements of the NTS is true or have been tested and vetted. I have yet to hear you or anyone else with the same desire, do the same about any other technique. I know folks may say, it isn't needed with other techniques because they aren't our national standard. Well, they once were. If the process used before coach Lee was push pull with a linear draw, and that was what was being taught by coaches and the coaches at the OTC and was in the basic documentation from the then NAA, it by default is the national standard. Yet, I have never seen any vetted papers on push pull (I'm not saying they don't exist, I just haven't seen them if they do). Would it be nice to have it...yes. For me, is there an acceptable alternative...yes. If I broke NTS down into its basic steps and found 70% is the same as push pull, I would then focus on the differences. If the important parts of the differences, especially angular draw, was evaluated by medical professionals and they told me to my face they felt it was a good technique or preferred technique to use, from a bio-mechanical point of view, and they told me why, and I understood and accepted the explanation, that would be good enough for me. That is what happened to me and that is why I don't care about having peer reviewed and vetted documentation. Could I be wrong with this attitude, sure...but I can live with it.

Also, thanks for liking some of what I write about.

Terry


----------



## Warbow

bownut-tl. said:


> I hear you and understand what you are saying. I will leave this issue, I hope, with the following:
> 
> You keep asking for documentation and the studies/proof or evidence that any claims about all or elements of the NTS is true or have been tested and vetted. I have yet to hear you or anyone else with the same desire, do the same about any other technique. I know folks may say, it isn't needed with other techniques because they aren't our national standard. Well, they once were. If the process used before coach Lee was push pull with a linear draw, and that was what was being taught by coaches and the coaches at the OTC and was in the basic documentation from the then NAA, it by default is the national standard. Yet, I have never seen any vetted papers on push pull (I'm not saying they don't exist, I just haven't seen them if they do). Would it be nice to have it...yes. For me, is there an acceptable alternative...yes. If I broke NTS down into its basic steps and found 70% is the same as push pull, I would then focus on the differences. If the important parts of the differences, especially angular draw, was evaluated by medical professionals and they told me to my face they felt it was a good technique or preferred technique to use, from a bio-mechanical point of view, and they told me why, and I understood and accepted the explanation, that would be good enough for me. That is what happened to me and that is why I don't care about having peer reviewed and vetted documentation. Could I be wrong with this attitude, sure...but I can live with it.
> 
> Also, thanks for liking some of what I write about.
> 
> Terry


It's a fair point, Terry. But I see the US OTC as what should be the pinnacle of sport *science* in the US, not the pinnacle of subjective opinion; and I'm not singling you or coach Lee out in that sense either, as I believe that the US national system that is taught at the highest level, and required as mandatory curriculum for the USAA coaching certification program, should be based on the best available evidence and science, no matter who the head coach is, or what the system is. 

That doesn't mean I don't think you can accomplish great things on the basis that you currently use. You can and you do. But how much better could we be if we actually separated out what is true from what merely seems to be true? 


Night


----------



## limbwalker

So, FWIW, I sat behind not one but TWO current RA's (both whom I've known for over 5 years each) and because of this thread, watched carefully as they BOTH drew their string hand about 4" outside their jawline, over, and over, and over again today. Someone needs to hurry up and tell coach Lee that NTS doesn't involve the draw hand being drawn so far from the face :wink:

They both shot great, but the idea that NTS keeps the draw hand close to the face is lost on these young men. And one of them has been at the OTC for well over a year.

I thought of posting video of both of these archers (could have videoed another former RA doing the same thing) but I didn't want to use any of them as examples here, as I consider all of them friends.


----------



## limbwalker

> Also, thanks for liking some of what I write about.


 That's why we love you Terry. How can you not like a guy with this attitude?


----------



## bownut-tl.

John, thanks. 

About the RA's. Did they draw in an arc or did they draw in a straight line from 4" outside to Loading? If they drew in a straight line, that is still ok. No one says they can't be further outside. Closer in is better for those that can do it. The NTS allows for customization. I'd have to see their shot to know. 

Terry


----------



## limbwalker

Straight line to about 3-4" outside, with shoulders open to the target, then assumed BOG which brought string hand to anchor. 

I also once again saw some bizarre interpretations of NTS on the line today. It always makes for entertaining archery viewing when I sit between ends or am coaching from behind the line.


----------



## bownut-tl.

If they aren't drawing in an arc, as far as I know, it is an acceptable option. Not taught, but allowed.


----------



## limbwalker

I don't see anything wrong with what they are doing. Just a different way to get from point A to point B is all. They are getting into great alignment at the clicker and IMO that's all that matters.


----------



## bownut-tl.

Agreed. 

I had a young lady drive down to a Blue Face tournament today. I recently worked with her at a JDT camp, sent video and text to her coach describing what she should be doing, commented on video he sent me, and still found 15 things (some pretty significant) that need correction. Stuff is out there and I just roll with it the best I can.


----------



## jaredjms

limbwalker said:


> Straight line to about 3-4" outside, with shoulders open to the target, then assumed BOG which brought string hand to anchor.
> 
> I also once again saw some bizarre interpretations of NTS on the line today. It always makes for entertaining archery viewing when I sit between ends or am coaching from behind the line.


To me it sounds like he's saying that they drew straight back with shoulders open, then set barrel which at same time brought hand to anchor? Again, NTS dictates set the barrel of gun, then angular draw brings hand straight in to anchor. There is no measurement to the outside


----------



## bownut-tl.

As long as the BOG is set by the time you get to Holding, you are still ok. There are options.

I teach three versions. 1) set the BOG before you draw 2) set the BOG as you draw 3) set the BOG after you draw and be done by the time you achieve the Holding position. Which one an archer does depends upon what they can do and what feels most comfortable to them. I don't force them to do 1 even if it's the baseline. 

Terry


----------



## Warbow

bownut-tl. said:


> If they aren't drawing in an arc, as far as I know, it is an acceptable option. Not taught, but allowed.


If you want the hand to move in a straight line from set up to holding then I'd think a true angular draw is the wrong technique. 

An angular draw, one that pivots around the shoulder, and uses relaxed, free movement at the elbow, will result in the hand following a shallow curve . If the hand isn't following a shallow curve, then a true angular draw is not being used. That's the way the geometry works for that kind of draw unless you use muscles to cheat the path into a different path, but that would be a form of linear draw, not an angular draw. (And, just to check my work because I know my intuition can be wrong, I threw a quick model together before posting this, with a straight section to model the BOG, a pivot to an upper arm section and a pivot for the elbow joint. The two "hands" are connected by a rubber band. A pen was put in a hole near the "draw hand" to scribe the path of the "hand's" path on a sheet of paper as the model's "draw hand" was drawn back by moving Lan2 (just for authenticity's sake) from set up to holding. The path of the hand is a shallow curve, not a straight line.)

Can you explain the discrepancy between the dictates of basic geometry of a true angular draw and saying that the draw hand should go in a straight line? And what is advantageous about a straight line of motion for the hand?


----------



## theminoritydude

Has it ever occurred to anyone here that the benefits of a straight draw (assuming there is such a thing as a straight draw) is for the sake of the bow arm, and that the whole "barrel of the gun" idea is actually rather arbitrary?


----------



## theminoritydude

I mean, this discussion has been going on forever, and no one seems to have clearly brought up the main difference between the B.E.S.T. and any other methods, is that of biceps utilization.


----------



## Warbow

theminoritydude said:


> Has it ever occurred to anyone here that the benefits of a straight draw (assuming there is such a thing as a straight draw) is for the sake of the bow arm, and that the whole "barrel of the gun" idea is actually rather arbitrary?


Could you explain what you mean in sufficient detail so we can follow your point?


----------



## Warbow

theminoritydude said:


> I mean, this discussion has been going on forever, and no one seems to have clearly brought up the main difference between the B.E.S.T. and any other methods, is that of biceps utilization.


Well, you might get that impression if you fail to read the whole thread. Post 45 in this thread:


Warbow said:


> Well, I think your observational data about Lee's success stories is pretty convincing. Your analogy to weightlifting is intuitively appealing but I can't tell if it is analogous or not, but it does bring up one issue in my mind, which is that by focusing on drawing with the back and not using the bicep (to move the forearm in as with a linear draw) is Lee having archers give up using assists from other muscles that would make drawing easier by their combined force? That is, is the the seeming NTS emphasis on isolation the opposite of bio mechanically efficient?


----------



## theminoritydude

Actually I did read that part, but it seems to lack emphasis, at a sufficient level to impress upon the larger crowd out there, that this is the main difference. Because evidently, the majority of this thread is about where the straight line is pointed at(throughout the draw cycle), as if it had any impact on the shot.


----------



## theminoritydude

Warbow said:


> Could you explain what you mean in sufficient detail so we can follow your point?


I want to begin by asking everyone a question, and in particular those who were trained in the NTS. What is the whole purpose of the "barrel of the gun"?


----------



## Warbow

theminoritydude said:


> I want to begin by asking everyone a question, and in particular those who were trained in the NTS. What is the whole purpose of the "barrel of the gun"?


I'd be interested in the answer, but why don't you just tell us in detail what you are getting at?

I think you have some interesting points to make when you care to actually make them rather than just post quips trying to imply that you "have discovered a truly marvellous proof of this, which this margin is too narrow to contain." Too often you are, IMO, playing games rather than actually carrying on a real discussion here.


----------



## theminoritydude

Anyone?


----------



## bownut-tl.

The purpose of the BOG is to establish bone on bone alignment on the bow arm side. if you look at the archers power triangle, you will see it.


----------



## Warbow

So, Terry, about the hand moving in a straight line? Isn't that a form of linear draw?


----------



## bownut-tl.

I haven't studied your description but the hand movement is in a straight line so one could call that linear movement. When we talk about a linear draw vs angular we are talking about what initiates that hand movement. If you watch most folks do a linear draw, the draw hand is usually directly in line with the anchor point so the hand moves straight back. With angular draw, the draw hand is forward and to the right of the anchor point (right handed shooter). The rotation of the shoulder girdle pulls the draw hand in a straight line to what we call the Loading position just before coming to anchor.


----------



## theminoritydude

bownut-tl. said:


> The purpose of the BOG is to establish bone on bone alignment on the bow arm side. if you look at the archers power triangle, you will see it.


I can appreciate your desire for bone on bone alignment, however I am not so sure if most NTS users understand the significance, or indeed the insignificance of such an alignment, and how best to deploy bone on bone (misnomer actually, bones are not really touching and who cares if their axes line up?) to their advantage.

It may seem draggy, but may I further enquire, what purpose is there for such a bone on bone alignment, when we are essentially forcing a hexagon (or octagon) into a triangle?


----------



## Warbow

bownut-tl. said:


> I haven't studied your description but the hand movement is in a straight line so one could call that linear movement. When we talk about a linear draw vs angular we are talking about what initiates that hand movement. If you watch most folks do a linear draw, the draw hand is usually directly in line with the anchor point so the hand moves straight back. With angular draw, the draw hand is forward and to the right of the anchor point (right handed shooter). The rotation of the shoulder girdle pulls the draw hand in a straight line to what we call the Loading position just before coming to anchor.


So, a linear draw, but with a different vector (and using a different combination of muscles)? And what is the importance of this linear motion of the hand? Why does it matter?


----------



## Warbow

theminoritydude said:


> I can appreciate your desire for bone on bone alignment, however I am not so sure if most NTS users understand the significance, or indeed the insignificance of such an alignment, and how best to deploy bone on bone (misnomer actually, bones are not really touching and who cares if their axes line up?) to their advantage.
> 
> It may seem draggy, but may I further enquire, what purpose is there for such a bone on bone alignment, when we are essentially forcing a hexagon (or octagon) into a triangle?


Why do you think it is bad to do so?


----------



## theminoritydude

Warbow said:


> Why do you think it is bad to do so?


A triangle is mostly used in construction, one can see them everywhere (buildings, cranes etc), where weight savings and strength is necessary. Triangles are excellent at resisting external compressive loads, but in the case of archery, in particular the draw and hold, I fail to see the merits of trying to form a triangle for the triangle's sake. I will further explain my point with a series of diagrams, but I'm outside now at a range with no access to water and electricity, and I'm just taking this opportunity to complain about it, and that I have no drawing tools, so.....


----------



## bownut-tl.

I'll let others deal with this for now. I'm going to bed and try to have nightmares on a different subject.


----------



## Warbow

bownut-tl. said:


> I'll let others deal with this for now. I'm going to bed and try to have nightmares on a different subject.


Doh! Night.

For later, then, I am interested, in why their is linear draw in what is billed as an angular draw system?. 

The prescribed straight line hand motion is messing with my already shaky understanding of NTS. Why try to dictate the path of the hand? I though the idea behind rotational/angular draw was to ignore the path of the draw hand as irrelevant and strictly concentrate on moving Lan2 to until the hand and draw arm get to holding.

Once the hand is defined as having to travel a specific, straight path rather than the natural shallow curve that is inherent in following an angular draw, I'm a bit lacking in understanding in what that linear path gets you? How do we know that the straight path is better than the natural shallow curved path?


----------



## bownut-tl.

I have a bad feeling I'm on that bus to silly land again. My nightmare was this topic. I was hoping it was just a dream, but it looks like I had no such luck. 

We don't call the hand movement a linear draw. We say the hand moves in a straight line. Could there be a very subtle arc to its path, possibly. I'm not going to experiment or delve into geometric shapes and stuff to find out. It simply isn't important to me and no one I have taught it too has had a problem with accepting it. If I was working with someone that was that picky about it, I'd stop working with them because I don't want my head to explode knowing they will question everything down to the subatomic level of accuracy. I have limited time left in this life and I choose to use it a little differently. The reason the hand movement is important is because we don't want the path to be an arc as Limbwalker described it in an earlier conversation and we don't want the hand movement to drive the process. When it does, it too often arrives before the draw elbow is in its proper position. The angular draw is supposed to pull the hand into its position.

As far as the BOG, I know the alignment isn't truly bone-on-bone since there is cartilage in there. It's a simple name that is given to using the skeletal structure to support the compressive loads on the bow side of the process. I'll tell coach Lee we now need to give it a different name since it isn't anatomically accurate. If archers prefer to use soft tissue to support those loads, as many do, they are more than welcome to stay on that bus. I just find it odd that anyone would believe using the skeletal structure as it's designed to be used is a bad thing. One side of the triangle is the draw elbow to draw hand line (extended to the bow), one is the draw shoulder to draw elbow line, and the third is the draw shoulder to bow hand line. I know the purest will say its not a triangle because the draw hand and bow hand aren't on the same plane. That view would be correct in a side view. Since the triangle is always depicted in plan view, it looks like a triangle. If someone wants to break the bow side line into two or three segments (draw shoulder to bow shoulder, bow shoulder to bow elbow, and bow elbow to bow hand) by bending at the joints, they can, but I think it would a very limiting way to support the loads. Why do that when a straight line is better? Ok Warbow, you have me on this statement too. I don't have any test data or peer reviewed, vetted, and published documentation that says that statement is in fact true. So I will delete the statement and replace it with this: Archers, when the bow is in your hands and you have to shoot the arrow, do what you want to do and simply accept the results.


----------



## Georgemay

>>Why try to dictate the path of the hand?

- Wrong assumption - no one is dictating it - it is result of the way of the drawing with relaxed arm and bicep.

>>I though the idea behind rotational/angular draw was to ignore the path of the draw hand as irrelevant and strictly concentrate on moving Lan2 to until the hand and draw arm get to holding.

Correct. Straight (or as you say slightly curved path of the hand {i agree here Einstein discovered that light is actually travelling in slightly curved path instead straight line like everyone assumed} ) 
is just indication that archer is not using bicep or forearm muscles during draw.


----------



## bownut-tl.

Georgemay, 

Thanks. I'm going to pass the baton to you for awhile. I'm hoping this is just a short relay race and not a new marathon relay race. 

Terry


----------



## Bob Furman

On another subject, I have often heard comments about the scapula movement being explained as being rotational and rotating around the spine. I can understand the "rotational" movement, but not the part about rotating around the spine. I just have never been able to feel that. After some searching, it seems a better explanation would be:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF7oST34r4s&t=1m50s

This video links to the correct time in the video. From what I'm seeing the scapula is being pulled towards the spine in a "linear movement. 


Comments?


----------



## Georgemay

theminoritydude said:


> I want to begin by asking everyone a question, and in particular those who were trained in the NTS. What is the whole purpose of the "barrel of the gun"?


Simply to use least muscles while resisting load of the bow. Imagine if one chain of the barrel of the gun is not aligned properly, lets say you use bend bow arm for the sake of example, wouldn't you need to employ extra muscles to help resist load of the bow? the same applies to bow shoulder. I could throw in recoil of the bow into the mix, but lets keep it simple for now. This is not specific to NTS only, Koreans are known to have that alignment too.


----------



## Warbow

bownut-tl. said:


> I have a bad feeling I'm on that bus to silly land again. My nightmare was this topic. I was hoping it was just a dream, but it looks like I had no such luck.


If the NTS is clear and consistent then this topic shouldn't be a "nightmare," but I appreciate your replying anyway given that you feel it is. 



bownut-tl. said:


> We don't call the hand movement a linear draw. We say the hand moves *in a straight line.*


Right, you don't _call it _a linear draw, even though it's the very definition of linear: "in a straight line."



bownut-tl. said:


> Could there be a very subtle arc to its path, possibly. I'm not going to experiment or delve into geometric shapes and stuff to find out. It simply isn't important to me and no one I have taught it too has had a problem with accepting it. If I was working with someone that was that picky about it, I'd stop working with them because I don't want my head to explode knowing they will question everything down to the subatomic level of accuracy.


This isn't nitpicky, Terry, *linear vs. angular/rotational is fundamental stuff to NTS.* My questions are based on your own words. And I'd hope you'd be somewhat sympathetic to this kind of confusion since I think you've said (maybe it was John) that it took a while for people at the OTC to understand what Coach Lee meant. That process is still going on down the line from the OTC.

You wrote:


bownut-tl. said:


> About the RA's. Did they draw in an arc or did they draw in a straight line from 4" outside to Loading? If they drew in a straight line, that is still ok.





bownut-tl. said:


> the hand movement is *in a straight line *so one could call that linear movement. When we talk about a linear draw vs angular we are talking about what initiates that hand movement. If you watch most folks do a linear draw, the draw hand is usually directly in line with the anchor point so the hand moves straight back. With angular draw, the draw hand is forward and to the right of the anchor point (right handed shooter). The rotation of the shoulder girdle *pulls the draw hand in a straight line to what we call the Loading position just before coming to anchor.*


Those are helpful notes to understand NTS, and I thank for them, and it's another aspect of NTS I would not have understood absent your patient, if exasperated, explanations.

I'd point out this: *if you want the hand to move in a straight line, it is a linear draw. If you want a rotational draw, you don't get to say what path the hand should scribe since the rotational movement dictates the path the hand will follow (which will be a curve, not a straight line). *

Based on your explanations, this is a form of linear draw, even if the muscles used and vector are different from the "sight down your arrow" kind of linear draw. And this is a significant issue to highlight in NTS because it means that one does not draw by just rotating around the shoulder joint ("rotational draw") - the geometry of that draw results in the hand tracing an arc. Instead you have to make a complex movement including scapular movement to create a straight path for the hand. This is not a rotational draw. It is a kind of linear draw. And another example of the plain words of NTS meaning something different (or the opposite) of what they say, which makes it harder than necessary to learn, understand, teach, shoot NTS. So clarifying this issue isn't about one person "question[ing] everything down to the subatomic level of accuracy." It is about explaining NTS fundamentals accurately as opposed to inaccurately.


----------



## Georgemay

Bob Furman said:


> On another subject, I have often heard comments about the scapula movement being explained as being rotational and rotating around the spine. I can understand the "rotational" movement, but not the part about rotating around the spine. I just have never been able to feel that. After some searching, it seems a better explanation would be:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF7oST34r4s&t=1m50s
> 
> This video links to the correct time in the video. From what I'm seeing the scapula is being pulled towards the spine in a "linear movement.
> 
> 
> Comments?


If it is linear as you said is the scapula position (seeing from the top) the same as in the beginning and end of the move? / <- / or it is at different angle at the end? I can see it as rotating.


----------



## bownut-tl.

Warbow,

I'm done. I will try and leave you with this: When we talk about a linear draw we are talking about the process where the draw hand is positioned in line with the anchor point in front of the face and the hand is drawn straight back along or nearly along that line. With that draw, the archer typically will use more bicep muscle to pull the bow back until the back can take over for part of the draw. With NTS we are outside that line and try to get the back engaged earlier in the process such that one can minimize the use of the bicep muscle. We use the rotation of the shoulder-arm-scapula system, and the muscles that make the movement happen, to pull the hand into Loading. 

I'm sure you will probably find some fault in this description, you usually do, so someone with a better mind or different approach will have to step in and try to help you understand, if you are truly confused or find what I have said here or in the past to be lacking of sufficient depth or clarity. I wish I could help you, but my brain is broke. 

Terry


----------



## Warbow

bownut-tl. said:


> I'm done. I might try the GT method and delete all my posts and just crawl back into my hole. I will leave you with this. When we talk about a linear draw we are talking about the process where the draw hand is positioned in line with the anchor point in front of the face and the hand is drawn straight back along or nearly along that line. With that draw, the archer typically will use more bicep muscle to pull the bow back until the back can take over for part of the draw. With NTS we are outside that line and try to get the back engaged earlier in the process such that one can minimize the use of the bicep muscle. We use the rotation of the shoulder-arm-scapula system, and the muscles that make the movement happen, to pull the hand into Loading.
> 
> I'm sure you will probably find some fault in this description, you usually do, so someone with a better mind or different approach will have to step in and try to help you understand, if you are truly confused or find what I have said here or in the past to be lacking of sufficient depth or clarity. I wish I could help you, but my brain is broke.
> 
> Terry


If you do one thing, please, please don't become GT. For all of his admirable knowledge and expertise, he posts like a troll - a behavior I really don't get given his abilities and responsibilities in the archery community. I can't imagine you ever being like that.

It's true, Terry, that I question a lot. I hope that by doing that, with both sides having to think about how to respond, that everyone can get a better understanding of the topic at hand - more so than by not questioning. From this discussion I now understand the movements that you and coach Lee wish to be followed better - an understanding I would not have gotten if I hadn't asked. I hope that you may come away with improved ways of describing NTS. 

It seems odd to get a push back on the idea that NTS actually uses a form of linear draw given that is factually true (by your description), whereas analogies that are factually false (BOG doesn't point at the target the way the barrel of a gun would and is in no way analogous to a gun barrel other than being straight) are defended.

I would think that the linear draw concept would provide *insight* into the motion rather than be something you'd want to avoid.* Thinking of the NTS as a form of linear draw helps me understand that I *shouldn't* let my hand follow the natural curve of a true rotational draw* if I want to follow proper NTS form. And that is really eye opening to me. And I absolutely guarantee you that I'm not the only one.

When you sell NTS as using "rotational/angular draw" as distinct from "linear draw", when, in fact, you actually mean a *different* version of linear draw and not true rotational draw, it should come as no surprise that most people are going to go with the plain meaning of the words, as I did. This seems like a major "teaching opportunity."


----------



## bownut-tl.

I'll never be a troll. My pillow will never forgive me.

I'm just running out of ways to describe things. It's just so much easier to show people face to face. I had a young lady that struggled to understand what I was telling her. When she came to a JDT camp, I was able to show her and help her feel the movement in less than a minute where hours of video and email discussions didn't do it for her.

My task now is to find another way to describe things. Right now, my quiver is empty.


----------



## Warbow

bownut-tl. said:


> I'll never be a troll. My pillow will never forgive me.
> 
> I'm just running out of ways to describe things. It's just so much easier to show people face to face. I had a young lady that struggled to understand what I was telling her. When she came to a JDT camp, I was able to show her and help her feel the movement in less than a minute where hours of video and email discussions didn't do it for her.
> 
> My task now is to find another way to describe things. Right now, my quiver is empty.


Got it  Thanks for your help.


----------



## Dacer

If you can't understand that the Angular draw is not a curve then it's hard to be able to change mind. The idea of a piston is the perfect way to think of it. The line from the hand position at setup to loading is a straight not curved path, but this line IS at an angle with a Line pointing toward the target. It's very simple. 

By moving the LAN2 in a rotational, curved arc like the swept out radius of circle, this brings the draw hand from point a to point b in a straight path but angled in reference to a line pointing from the ball of the back foot directly to the target.


Good luck.


----------



## Warbow

Dacer said:


> If you can't understand that the Angular draw is not a curve then it's hard to be able to change mind. The idea of a piston is the perfect way to think of it. The line from the hand position at setup to loading is a straight not curved path, but this line IS at an angle with a Line pointing toward the target. It's very simple.


Sorry, Dacer, but a true rotational draw causes the draw hand to move in a curve. The only reason a piston moves in a straight line is because the piston's motion is constrained by the linear path of the cylinder - a constraint that has no analog in a true rotational draw. If you make a model of a simple, true rotational draw (computer, or a simple physical model as I did before posting) you can easily verify this fact.

Terry has made it clear that "rotational" in NTS speak isn't really a simple, true rotational draw, it is a way (a less than ideal way) of describing a type of draw with a relaxed bicep that primarily uses the back muscles to create a linear path for the hand.

This is another example of how misinformation about NTS can multiply because of inconsistent/unclear language and explanations. Terry is helping to clear these kinds of misunderstandings up, but NTS has a long way to go if someone as smart and knowledgeable as you is getting it wrong. Your misunderstanding seems to be related to the contradictory use in NTS of "rotational draw" and "move hand in a straight line" - those two thing do not go together in real life.

*Your post illustrates exactly what I've been trying to communicate to Terry, which is that using words and concepts in non-standard ways, such as "rotational draw" to describe a form linear draw, messes up people's understanding of NTS*, and even messes up their concept of geometry. Using words and concepts in their normal manner is important to clear communication.


----------



## Dacer

The draw forearm is constrained by the pull of the bow. I am not confused or mistaken

Its not being used in non-standard ways, the rotational part is in reference to whats happening at the shoulder, not at the draw hand. Rotational movement can be used to produce linear displacement - and this does happen in NTS and is described as such in inside the archer, but its not LINEAR in the typical sense in archery as being parallel with a line to the target. The linear movement it produces from setup to loading is at an angle to a line pointing directly at the target hence - angular drawing. I am unsure why this is so troublesome to see. 

If you are producing a noticeable sweeping action in the draw then the archer is applying a lateral force by pushing their draw hand away from the body by means of the triceps and forearm. This is in contrast to the hook and chain concept as I see it. 

I do not know the parameters you used for your models but I think they should be re-evaluated if that is the reason for argument. 

But I'm out. reading and talking about what is what, and what is, is - is exhausting. When people insist on applying their own definitions to the terms that are defined in NTS literature - is whats the problem is.


----------



## Warbow

Dacer said:


> The draw forearm is constrained by the pull of the bow. I am not confused or mistaken
> 
> Its not being used in non-standard ways, the rotational part is in reference to whats happening at the shoulder, not at the draw hand. Rotational movement can be used to produce linear displacement - and this does happen in NTS and is described as such in inside the archer, but its not LINEAR in the typical sense in archery as being parallel with a line to the target. The linear movement it produces from setup to loading is at an angle to a line pointing directly at the target hence - angular drawing. I am unsure why this is so troublesome to see.
> 
> If you are producing a noticeable sweeping action in the draw then the archer is applying a lateral force by pushing their draw hand away from the body by means of the triceps and forearm. This is in contrast to the hook and chain concept as I see it.
> 
> *I do not know the parameters you used for your models but I think they should be re-evaluated* if that is the reason for argument.
> 
> But I'm out. reading and talking about what is what, and what is, is - is exhausting. When people insist on applying their own definitions to the terms that are defined in NTS literature - is whats the problem is.


*This is the kind of discussion we should be able to settle to our mutual satisfaction by creating a basic model of the motion.* Would you agree change your mind based on evidence, such as if a model we agree upon shows that the draw hand in a simple, true rotational draw follows a curved path? And if the model does show a curve do you further agree not to move the goal posts and subsequently claim that a shallow curve is a straight line or close enough?

I don't have time to put together a moving model right now, but let's see if we can agree upon what I mean by a simple rotational draw:









Bow arm and body form a single BOG line. Simple pivot at shoulder to upper arm. Free swinging joint at elbow allows forearm to always point at the bow hand.

Do you agree on this model of a simple, true rotational draw?


----------



## limbwalker

> As long as the BOG is set by the time you get to Holding, you are still ok. There are options.


I read things like these and I wonder if all the arguing is really about nothing at all. Why do I say this? I think all of us would agree that Darrell Pace had a well established "BOG" and that it's a desirable alignment for success as a recurve archer. However, the way he got there was with a linear draw, just as Park Sung Hyun does - linear draw.

So all these contortions we see so-called "NTS" archers doing are not really necessary IMO so long as the archer gets to the BOG alignment in the end and keeps the rotation (formerly called back tension?) going to break the clicker.

When I read things like this from Terry, it makes me wonder if we haven't just come full circle to what Darrell was doing, and that we once owned the knowledge, lost it, and then had to pay to bring it back.


----------



## TomB

"so long as the archer gets to the BOG alignment in the end and keeps the rotation (formerly called back tension?) going to break the clicker." Does it matter how we got there?

First time (or 3 or 4) I heard the presentation of the NTS I asked my self the same question.


----------



## Seattlepop

I think part of the confusion is failure to distinguish between "linear" draw and "line of target" draw. Ms. Park does not use a "linear" draw, she uses a "line of target" draw. You can see here that her draw hand is bowed, clearly not a straight line between her bow hand and her elbow.

View attachment 2173369




Here is an example (Oh Kyo Moon) of a "linear" draw while drawing in "line of target":

View attachment 2173374


----------



## theminoritydude

Georgemay said:


> Simply to use least muscles while resisting load of the bow. Imagine if one chain of the barrel of the gun is not aligned properly, lets say you use bend bow arm for the sake of example, wouldn't you need to employ extra muscles to help resist load of the bow? the same applies to bow shoulder. I could throw in recoil of the bow into the mix, but lets keep it simple for now. This is not specific to NTS only, Koreans are known to have that alignment too.


Hi George.

I was waiting for someone to mention the points you have mentioned, and maybe more, but I will provide explanation on why this is arbitrary (as I have mentioned earlier).

The way to least muscle usage while resisting load can be modelled by the use of linkages in the absence of torque providing mechanisms. The argument for least muscle in the case of aligned bones falls apart very rapidly once you realise that the shoulder joint (and indeed, the elbow joint or any other joints) does not fall in line with the nocking point and the grip, because doing so would be an obstruction to the path of the arrow during the shot. Because of this "gap", a smaller (but nonetheless significant) lateral component force needs to be resisted to prevent the entire full draw from collapsing. I put it to all NTS practitioners that the benefits of BOG for the purpose of minimal muscle utilisation to be a myth. It is only marginally better than not having the BOG setup from grip to drawing arm shoulder, as the 180degrees takes on no critical meaning than say 175 or 170 degrees. Having said this, I would like to touch on more about the elbow. The fully extended elbow acts as a stop, freeing the archer from constant modulation of the bicep and triceps to maintain a particular state of the bow arm for the purpose of achieving full draw. Despite so, seldom would you find any fully extended elbow to be 180degress (or anywhere near straight). Unless the shoulders have a "stop", the BOG is merely an illusion. It does not exist, at least not for the purpose of recurve archery.

Koreans are not right about everything, I can tell you that with a very good degree of certainty.


----------



## bownut-tl.

Are you saying the increased stability we get by having the alignment is a placebo effect? That the only reason I and many others feel increased stability is because we were told that is what we should feel, therefore we mistakenly do? That even though it feels like it is easier to control my bow, it is just a myth that is happening? What am I doing to make it feel that way?


----------



## theminoritydude

bownut-tl. said:


> Are you saying the increased stability we get by having the alignment is a placebo effect? That the only reason I and many others feel increased stability is because we were told that is what we should feel, therefore we mistakenly do? That even though it feels like it is easier to control my bow, it is just a myth that is happening? What am I doing to make it feel that way?


The "increased stability" effect you get is not from the fact (yeah, fuggin fact) that your bow arm and shoulders are somewhat aligned all the way to the draw shoulder, as a sort of "minimal muscular effort" state, because I have just demonstrated to you why that just isn't so.

There is something about full alignment; it establishes a limit to how much more you can extend, which is = 0.

That said, extension is now only possible through the opposite shoulder joint, the stability you talk about, is the total reliance on that side of your setup for expansion through the clicker, which has its good and bad.

Some folks like yourself benefit from that kind of stability. Some folks like to "throw" with their bow arm.


----------



## bownut-tl.

If I do a side plank exercise where the contact on the floor is focused through the pressure point of my bowhand, it is much easier to maintain that position with an aligned bow side arm/shoulder system than if I allowed my arms to bend at the joints. Not saying that's the same as holding a bow, but it removes the draw side benefit of holding the bow string. My above question didn't mean I considered accepting your explanation. Simply put...I don't, but I will think about it a bit more. If I am convinced by your description, I will change my mind.


----------



## theminoritydude

I know about the side plank exercise. I have in the past used it to explain the perceived advantage of BOG. However, do note that:

1) The side plank excercise minimizes the effort from the supporting arm if the center of mass of the supported body runs through the supporting arm.

2) The load is the mass center for this exercise. In the full draw setup, the load is the poundage between the grip and the string.


----------



## kshet26

But doesn't the muscle effort required reduce as you approach perfect (but unobtainable) alignment? I thought the goal with BOG was to get as close to being inside the bow line as possible.


----------



## theminoritydude

kshet26 said:


> But doesn't the muscle effort required reduce as you approach perfect (but unobtainable) alignment? I thought the goal with BOG was to get as close to being inside the bow line as possible.


Of course it gets marginally easier, but the benefit must justify the trouble of getting into the BOG, one of which is the loss of one side for expansion through the clicker, which some archers use to great success as well.


----------



## theminoritydude

kshet26 said:


> I thought the goal with BOG was to get as close to being inside the bow line as possible.


Depending on the skeletal structure, many archers could get on, or behind the line. If it could be done without the BOG, then why go through the trouble?


----------



## jaredjms

theminoritydude said:


> Of course it gets marginally easier, but the benefit must justify the trouble of getting into the BOG, one of which is the loss of one side for expansion through the clicker, which some archers use to great success as well.


Really? A plank is only marginally easier with BOG set than a broken alignment? This is why I just stopped responding...


----------



## jaredjms

Terry, god bless you. You are about the most patient man god could create-- I can't believe you lasted that long!


----------



## bownut-tl.

jaredjms,,

That is also why I decided to stop considering his idea. To be fair though:

TMD,

What do you base your BOG position on? The reason I'm asking is this: I had shoulder issues because of a birth defect that had to be fixed about 15 years ago. When I told the doctor, that treated me and did the surgery, that I was an archer, he said having the BOG alignment is a stronger and more stable position to be in. Not for my condition, but in general. We didn't call it the BOG then but the definition is the same. I met an archer at the local range that I later found out was my doctors medical partner and is an orthopedic surgeon. He had shoulder issues because of an accident he was in. When we started talking about shooting form, he also told me the BOG is a better position to be in. When I have talked to people that specialize in bio-mechanics or the people that work in SportsMed at the OTC, in Chula Vista and Colorado Springs, they all told me the BOG alignment is a stronger and more stable position to be in. Based upon your take....they are all mistaken or don't know what they are talking about???? Why should I give your statement more validity than what they told me?


----------



## bownut-tl.

jaredjms said:


> Terry, god bless you. You are about the most patient man god could create-- I can't believe you lasted that long!


Thanks. Trust me, it isn't easy. I have put people on ignore and deleted AT from my computer many times. I have written multiple responses then deleted them before posting. Coach Lee told me one of things I need to learn to be a good coach and instructor is how to be patient. Communication on AT is probably the best teacher I have had in a long time. It tests my will, but I work to overcome it...until I get p....d again. Then the cycle starts anew. Kind of like the Hulk and his days without an event starting back to zero again.


----------



## bownut-tl.

Hopefully my last post on this (probably not). If an archer has good clicker control, expansion is easy and is not harmed by having the BOG set. I have never seen anyone with good clicker control have problems with expansion, no matter what process they use.


----------



## bownut-tl.

my last one for the day.

Warbow, About your sketch. If that shows the position before the draw happens, for NTS it is not correct.


----------



## Warbow

bownut-tl. said:


> my last one for the day.
> 
> Warbow, About your sketch. If that shows the position before the draw happens, for NTS it is not correct.


Thanks for the feedback. I do want to get this right. I was in a hurry to get out the door and I didn't bother positioning the arms correctly for set up because I just wanted Dacer to agree on the joints and basic motion. I wanted to make the simplest model possible and planned to plot the curve of the full range of motion to make the curve more obvious, and you can single out the points in the range that correspond to set up and loading - there will be a curve between them. There is no straight line motion of the hand in a simple, true angular draw.

Ironically, Dacer used the analogy of a piston for how straight motion can be had from an angular draw. In fact, the straight line motion of a piston is an analog of a *linear* draw, not an angular draw. A piston is constrained to linear motion. A linear draw is not constrained by a cylinder or track, but is consciously constrained to a linear motion by using muscles to control the range of motion on *two* joints rather than one, the shoulder joint and elbow joint in the case of a conventional linear draw, and, I would think, the shoulder joint and scapula in the case of the NTS linear draw - and, again, I'm going by your words that you want a straight line. If it is a straight line, it is a form of linear draw.


----------



## theminoritydude

bownut-tl. said:


> jaredjms,,
> 
> That is also why I decided to stop considering his idea. To be fair though:
> 
> TMD,
> 
> What do you base your BOG position on? The reason I'm asking is this: I had shoulder issues because of a birth defect that had to be fixed about 15 years ago. When I told the doctor, that treated me and did the surgery, that I was an archer, he said having the BOG alignment is a stronger and more stable position to be in. Not for my condition, but in general. We didn't call it the BOG then but the definition is the same. I met an archer at the local range that I later found out was my doctors medical partner and is an orthopedic surgeon. He had shoulder issues because of an accident he was in. When we started talking about shooting form, he also told me the BOG is a better position to be in. When I have talked to people that specialize in bio-mechanics or the people that work in SportsMed at the OTC, in Chula Vista and Colorado Springs, they all told me the BOG alignment is a stronger and more stable position to be in. Based upon your take....they are all mistaken or don't know what they are talking about???? Why should I give your statement more validity than what they told me?


I have never said that BOG is not any stronger, all I have maintained this far is that the BOG is just as stronger than a 175deg alignment, as a 175deg is stronger than 170deg (or a 0deg offset being just as much stronger than a 5 deg offset, as the 5deg offset is stronger than a 10deg offset). It's stability in increment up to the BOG is at best approaching linear. Most advocates for BOG believe that the increase in stability is exponential (or approaching exponential) at BOG, but as I have mentioned, unless the bow shoulder is in line between the nock and the grip at full draw, one must weigh the benefits of a marginal increase in holding strength, with other cons like a decrease in ability to use the bow side shoulder joint to aid in expansion (which some archers do use), while still having to utilize a great deal of strength at the bow shoulder. 

All this can be summed up by the plank exercise. Facing directly to the side, shoulders aligned with the straightened supporting arm, lean on a bathroom scale and read off the weight. Feel the ease of doing that, and ask yourself if you do feel that same level of ease at BOG full draw, then compare the weight reading off the bathroom scale to your holding poundage, and ask yourself again if the two are anywhere comparable. 

Once again I emphasize, the BOG will hold exponentially better, ONLY if the load is aligned with the bow shoulder, which is not the case.


----------



## theminoritydude

jaredjms said:


> Really? A plank is only marginally easier with BOG set than a broken alignment? This is why I just stopped responding...



I would like you show me where I compared planking with BOG, and planking with a broken alignment, and saying it is marginally easier. Also, you can't stop something you never started.


----------



## Dacer

I'm beginning to feel like I'm being expertly trolled.....I'll try again, once more. 



Warbow said:


> Ironically, Dacer used the analogy of a piston for how straight motion can be had from an angular draw. In fact, the straight line motion of a piston is an analog of a *linear* draw, not an angular draw. A piston is constrained to linear motion. A linear draw is not constrained by a cylinder or track, but is consciously constrained to a linear motion by using muscles to control the range of motion on *two* joints rather than one, the shoulder joint and elbow joint in the case of a conventional linear draw, and, I would think, the shoulder joint and scapula in the case of the NTS linear draw - and, again, I'm going by your words that you want a straight line. If it is a straight line, it is a form of linear draw.



Its clear we are not on the same page and are working with different dictionaries. 

my dictionary:

Linear - a straight path/line
angular - a straight path (linear) at an angle in respect to a reference 

what appears to be your dictionary:

Linear - a straight path/line that is only up down left right forward backward

angular - an arcing/ curving motion that can not connect two points in a straight path. 

perhaps this isn't the case - but with what you have posted this is why I've come to conclude. 




Warbow said:


> Ironically, Dacer used the analogy of a piston for how straight motion can be had from an angular draw. In fact, the straight line motion of a piston is an analog of a *linear* draw, not an angular draw


Exactly - except you don't see how this angular in NTS. Thats fine, I can see where the confusion is happening but i don't know how you got there exactly. 

Linear motion is a straight path from A to B. I think we agree on that. A linear path can literally be in an direction in xyz space as long as it is a straight path. BUT when in references to another line - in this case the direction to the target - the target line. A line from the ball of the back foot to the target. A Linear path can be considered angular if it is at an angle to the reference line. I've said this before - and I don't know why you aren't considering this.. 

The piston motion, that you keep saying doesn't fly, produces a linear motion as you say, buy this linear path is at an angle to the target line. Hence Angular draw. It would be "classic linear draw" if, say, you started with your draw hand directly in line with the target in front of your anchor point. In other word you hand moves parallel or actually on the target line as the draw occurs. BUT NTS does not do this. The setup position ends up with the draw had having some lateral distance between the draw hand and loading & anchor positions. SO think of it like a piston with its linear motion being offset at an angle to the target line. SO the draw path is not parallel with the target line but at an angle to the target line. Angular Draw. 


a Combination of the rotational motion of the shoulder unit and the position established at SETUP is what makes for an angular draw. The movement of the draw had is linear - But its at an angle to a reference. 


TRY this:

Set a BOG-ish position with your bow arm. put your wrist bone to your chin. not move your draw hand about 4-6 inches from your face. Now move your LAN2 spot around and your draw hand should come directly, angular, toward your neck (loading anchor position), NO wide arc no exaggerated curving. 

I did this( family gathering) with 3 engineers(Structural, mechanical, computer/electrical), 3 teachers (one with a doctorate), and a computer scientist. I first demo'ed with a stretch band, and then asked them to do it. I left out explaining archery terms i just gave them direction on moving the spot 5 inches down the back of their arm, Lan2.

Everyone agreed, a piston was a great analogy, and that the motion from setup to loading was a straight path But I'm sure it was just bias.

One more time:

"target line" as i'm using it is a line from the ball of the back foot to the target. 

A classic linear draw is parallel to this invisible line

angular draw - is a linear path at an angle to the target line.


I can not explain this any better. And I've explained the same thing in almost the same way more than once now. 

I am not a great archer - I've only been doing this stuff for a couple years. But I do have a text book knowledge from the NTS literature. If my concepts or thought process is in horrible contradiction to what NTS really is then I invite those like Terry to point out my terrible understanding. Please do. But I don't think it is...

I really am done this time, Though. Sorry, Warbow. I don't have the energy to explain things like linear, and angular and why linear motion can be at an angle - again. But - I wish you luck in getting your questions answered.


----------



## Georgemay

Warbow said:


> Bow arm and body form a single BOG line. Simple pivot at shoulder to upper arm. Free swinging joint at elbow allows forearm to always point at the bow hand.
> 
> Do you agree on this model of a simple, true rotational draw?


AS a level 2 you already know that rotation does not occur at shoulder joint ? I is a little more complex than what you draw.


----------



## Cephas

As frustrated as some of you are explaining/discussing this it has been VERY helpful in helping me understand the shot process. Thanks to all!


----------



## bownut-tl.

TMD,

No one in the world of the NTS believes the BOG is exponentially better. Those are your worlds. I would say using the skeletal structure to support the compressive load is a lot better than using soft tissue to do that. Are you saying trying to establish the BOG alignment is not worth the effort because it has negligible benefits when compared to a bent arm alignment? Is it your position that you don't care what kind of alignment your students have? By the way, your percentage comparison is strange. Going from mostly bone support to mostly soft tissue support aren't even in the same ball park. Try standing with your knees bent and see how long you'll last doing that. Although the alignment is different, the analogy works (bone vs soft tissue control).


----------



## theminoritydude

I have said my piece, for those who understood, you're welcome.


----------



## Warbow

Dacer said:


> Exactly - except you don't see how this angular in NTS. Thats fine, I can see where the confusion is happening but i don't know how you got there exactly.
> 
> Linear motion is a straight path from A to B. I think we agree on that. A linear path can literally be in an direction in xyz space as long as it is a straight path. BUT when in references to another line - in this case the direction to the target - the target line. A line from the ball of the back foot to the target. A Linear path can be considered angular if it is at an angle to the reference line. I've said this before - and I don't know why you aren't considering this..
> 
> The piston motion, that you keep saying doesn't fly, produces a linear motion as you say, buy this linear path is at an angle to the target line. Hence Angular draw. It would be "classic linear draw" if, say, you started with your draw hand directly in line with the target in front of your anchor point. In other word you hand moves parallel or actually on the target line as the draw occurs. BUT NTS does not do this. The setup position ends up with the draw had having some lateral distance between the draw hand and loading & anchor positions. SO think of it like a piston with its linear motion being offset at an angle to the target line. SO the draw path is not parallel with the target line but at an angle to the target line. Angular Draw.


I appreciate the explanation, but it is still wrong. The piston's motion is constrained to 1 dimension. The line does not move. Hence linear.

*Letting the elbow swing freely to always point at the bow hand* (because of bow tension) and drawing around a single point, *for a simple true rotational draw* (and yes, I'm using the simple single joint at the shoulder model in this argument) is not linear. It does not result in linear draw at fixed angle to the reference point. It *results in a *variable* angle, which is why the draw hand scribes an arc in as drawn in true rotational draw.*



Dacer said:


> a Combination of the rotational motion of the shoulder unit and the position established at SETUP is what makes for an angular draw. The movement of the draw had is linear - But its at an angle to a reference.


Even coach Lee has called the draw from set up to anchor "linear" rather than angular:


Coach Lee said:


> As we said, archery technique is nearly all angular movement. *There is only one part of linear movement, which is from set-up to anchor. *


So, again the motion we are talking about, the draw from setup to anchor is _linear_. Not angular.



Dacer said:


> Everyone agreed, a piston was a great analogy, and that the motion from setup to loading was a straight path But I'm sure it was just bias.


And, ironically, you have just agreed with me, a piston is an analogy for a *linear* draw, one that moves in a straight line.


----------



## Warbow

Georgemay said:


> AS a level 2 you already know that rotation does not occur at shoulder joint ? I is a little more complex than what you draw.


What I've drawn is a *simple* model of a rotational draw, as opposed to the more complex model for the *linear* draw from set up to anchor, the linear motion noted by coach Lee.

As to what a level 2 knows? Who knows, given that USAA doesn't post the current manuals on line. And level 2s don't "officially" know NTS.


----------



## limbwalker

You guys keep talking about the piston, and that's not analagous to NTS as the piston shaft pivots under the piston. By comparison, NTS has the wrist remaining flat (not breaking) through the draw. This is an important difference, and the reason that most NTS archers' draw hands are well outside of the target line and away from their body before being brought back into line at anchor. 

The breaking/not breaking of the wrist is one fundamental difference between NTS and a linear draw motion. You cannot draw in a linear fashion without breaking the wrist. You can only draw in a rotational fashion if you do not break the wrist. 

My question is who cares how you get there so long as you get to the same place? Park Sung Hung achieves an excellent BOG and so did Darrell Pace. Both broke their wrist and drew in a linear manner. 

I wonder if one reason we have seen so much more success from young men using NTS than women, is because that motion of drawing away from the body is much more physically demanding than drawing in a linear fashion (like a piston). The linear fashion allows the archer to keep the load close to their core. 

Really to me, this is six one way, a half dozen the other. Do you achieve the BOG first by pushing, and then pull around the BOG, or do you pull in line first, then push the bow side to achieve the BOG? Which is more efficient under load? Pulling around, or pushing? 

My vote is pushing to achieve the BOG alignment is more effecient because you are using more core strength. 

Problem is, many archers never get to the BOG alignment and they learn to shoot so-so without it and just remain there. I'm probably a great example of this myself. I admit that. If I had designs on ever becoming a full-time archer, this would be priority #1 for me and I'd gladly give up 6 months to a year of competitive archery to achieve it the way many of our RA's have done.

So in a way, I see NTS as a "shortcut" to the BOG for many young archers, but insisting they first achieve that alignment, before they ever reach anchor. 

I recall when Lee had us teaching the JDT archers to draw towards the ground, then raise the bow, so they could learn the BOG alignment first, before completing their draw. I have some excellent footage of one of my archers on the first JDT squad, doing exactly this. It's pretty interesting to see where we've come to from this point.

From everything I've seen, NTS is just another way to teach an archer to achieve the long-desired BOG alignment that top archers have used for decades, if not centuries. Not the only way, but another way.

John


----------



## limbwalker

You guys keep talking about the piston, and that's not analagous to NTS as the piston's connecting rod shaft pivots under the piston at the (wait for it...) wrist pin . In other words, a motor piston is a linear draw cycle. 

By comparison, NTS has the wrist remaining flat (not breaking) through the draw. If a piston functioned in this way, there would be no need for a wrist pin. This is an important difference, and the reason that most NTS archers' draw hands are well outside of the target line and away from their body before being brought back into line at anchor. 

The breaking/not breaking of the wrist is one fundamental difference between NTS and a linear draw motion. You cannot draw in a linear fashion without breaking the wrist. You can only draw in a rotational fashion if you do not break the wrist. 

My question is who cares how you get there so long as you get to the same place? Park Sung Hung achieves an excellent BOG and so did Darrell Pace. Both broke their wrist and drew in a linear manner. 

I wonder if one reason we have seen so much more success from young men using NTS than women, is because that motion of drawing away from the body is much more physically demanding than drawing in a linear fashion (like a piston). The linear fashion allows the archer to keep the load close to their core. 

Really to me, this is six one way, a half dozen the other. Do you achieve the BOG first by pushing, and then pull around the BOG, or do you pull in line first, then push the bow side to achieve the BOG? Which is more efficient under load? Pulling around, or pushing? 

My vote is pushing to achieve the BOG alignment is more effecient because you are using more core strength. 

Problem is, many archers never get to the BOG alignment and they learn to shoot so-so without it and just remain there. I'm probably a great example of this myself. I admit that. If I had designs on ever becoming a full-time archer, this would be priority #1 for me and I'd gladly give up 6 months to a year of competitive archery to achieve it the way many of our RA's have done.

So in a way, I see NTS as a "shortcut" to the BOG for many young archers, by requiring them first to achieve that alignment, before they ever reach anchor and "holding." 

I recall when Lee had us teaching the JDT archers to draw towards the ground, then raise the bow, so they could learn the BOG alignment first, before completing their draw. I have some excellent footage of one of my archers on the first JDT squad, doing exactly this. It looks bizarre, but if you break down what he's doing, it does make sense in an NTS sort of way. It's pretty interesting to see where we've come to from this point.

From everything I've seen, NTS is just another way to teach an archer to achieve the long-desired BOG alignment that top archers have used for decades, if not centuries. Not the only way, but another way.

John


----------



## Georgemay

>>From everything I've seen, NTS is just another way to teach an archer to achieve the long-desired BOG alignment that top archers have used for decades, if not centuries. Not the only way, but another way.

You are absolutely right. BOG however is only one part of total alignment in NTS. I'd like you to look at the whole picture from another archer perspective. With your build, fairly broad shoulders, long hands and tall guy like you with long draw over 30", using linear draw you can get in line easily. BOG and being in line are the quite important steps toward achieving holding. Now look at poor guy like me, Short draw, short hands, if I use linear draw I will never be in line. after anchoring, my draw shoulder is completely immobilized. I need to use bicep to bring my hand to the face to be able to anchor at all. All forces are in front of me and there is no way I could get into holding. Now using angular draw, using lower trap to rotate my draw scapula and shoulder joint, I am able to get in line. Think of thousands of archers who see NTS as a way to join the rank of those who can finally feel the holding. I know that there are many archers who are really proficient without being able to get in line. As there are many ways to shoot the bow. But I see NTS as much more efficient way of flinging arrows.


----------



## limbwalker

> Now look at poor guy like me, Short draw, short hands, if I use linear draw I will never be in line.


So you're telling me you are built like this archer then?


----------



## Georgemay

limbwalker said:


> So you're telling me you are built like this archer then?


Hahaha you are funny John.

1. I am not Korean 
2. I studied that form some time ago with not much of a success, but recently with help of Korean coach I was able to decipher part of her internal handling of the front shoulder, so I might give another try.
3. I was able to learn lot of archery styles - I guess curiosity.
4 one day I might try yours - (need to grow my arms longer) 
George


----------



## erose

The best analogy that I have read on the angular motion is a lever with a chain. You draw your arm back focusing on moving LAN 2 (really the area where your triceps muscle is located). Your forearm, wrist and hand are like a chain. The biceps and triceps remain relaxed throughout the motion. You don't push your hand out or in, let the action of controlling the draw be exclusively in the movement of the upper arm backwards. 

When I begin my draw, my arrow and bow are pointing left of the target. When I hit full draw my bow and arrow is pointed at the target. 

I personally have adopted some of the NTS. Especially the open stance, the angular draw, and holding. I think it has helped me out a good bit. When I used to use the linear draw, I always had a hard time getting to holding. If I held the bow at full draw for more than a few seconds I would start shaking. Now I can hold that bow for 15 seconds, without shaking. Now I am not a young strong lad any longer, but a mildly overweight, not as strong as I used to be, long armed guy in his mid-40s, shooting a 41lb bow at full draw; and I just shot a state NFAA indoor tournament yesterday. 140 arrows from 930AM to 330PM, and I have no soreness or anything from shooting that many arrows. Heck I feel like I can go and shoot another 140 arrows today. Another point is that I shot better on the second round than I did on the first. 

I'm with Limbwalker and others on a few points here. I by far do not have the coaching or for that matter archery experience as these men and women do, but from my limited experience the NTS system isn't something easy to teach, and I think that not everyone can pick this system up effectively. The linear system is a lot more intuitive and more natural for beginning archers. New archers naturally perform the linear draw without anyone really telling them. Like I said for me the angular draw works much better for me, but that could be due to my body type, I don't know.


----------



## limbwalker

> New archers naturally perform the linear draw without anyone really telling them.


Of course. And for the same reason even babies will raise a ball close to their bodies to pick it up. Because that's where their core strength is. It is close to their body. The "chain" analogy sounds great, and works so long as the force pulling on the chain is strong enough to overcome the loss of leverage caused by keeping the load so far from the core.


----------



## mahgnillig

Could someone please point me in the direction of some articles or videos that describe the "barrel of the gun"? I'm following this thread with interest and I'm learning lots of stuff, but I'm unclear on some of the basic terms that are being used. It seems like BoG is an integral part of every style of archery that has been discussed here and the debate is over the method by which the archer gets to this point. Maybe if I can figure out the position I'm supposed to end up in I can then determine which system helps me get there the best and most consistent way. 

Thanks


----------



## limbwalker

It's simply a way of saying the alignment of both shoulders with the bowarm and bow hand. In other words, one straight line of force from the bow hand to the rear (drawing) shoulder, like the "barrel of a gun" is straight.


----------



## erose

When I draw, it isn't like the string is a foot away from my body. When one draws linear, the upper arm is pulled back by the shoulder muscles and the hand is held in a linear draw as the upper arm is pulled back actuating the biceps, triceps, and forearm muscles. In an angular draw the upper arm is pulled back by the shoulder muscles and the hand/wrist/forearm are pulled along with the upper arm. So there really is no difference in the leverage between the two methods in my opinion. The true difference is what muscles are used and not used. Both methods use the shoulder and back muscles to pull back the upper arm, and the linear method uses more muscles in the arm than the angular. That is really the main difference that I see. The other possible main difference is that in the angular draw the forearm is more horizontal, while what I have seen in the angular draw the elbow is higher than the shoulder.


----------



## erose

limbwalker said:


> Of course. And for the same reason even babies will raise a ball close to their bodies to pick it up. Because that's where their core strength is. It is close to their body. The "chain" analogy sounds great, and works so long as the force pulling on the chain is strong enough to overcome the loss of leverage caused by keeping the load so far from the core.


 IMO the primary reason for linear draw being more natural with kids if for aiming purposes. The kids I coach have their eyes looking straight down that shaft as they draw it back aiming all the way through the process.


----------



## limbwalker

> So there really is no difference in the leverage between the two methods in my opinion.


Once alignment is achieved, I would agree. However, getting there, the linear method keeps the load closer to the core and therefore offers more of a mechanical advantage vs. the angular draw. Just like picking up a gallon of milk, even just a few inches further from your waist, the jug feels much heavier and requires more strength to raise it.


----------



## Georgemay

erose said:


> I'm with Limbwalker and others on a few points here. I by far do not have the coaching or for that matter archery experience as these men and women do, but from my limited experience the NTS system isn't something easy to teach, and I think that not everyone can pick this system up effectively. The linear system is a lot more intuitive and more natural for beginning archers. New archers naturally perform the linear draw without anyone really telling them.


Erose,

From my point of view, teaching NTS is extremely easy and intuitive too. The hard part is to 'convert' someone who started to learn the other way. Of course if you start teaching with text books you may find it difficult too. All books were written with the old format but applying NTS on top of that. You have to be little innovative. This is the way I start:

1. How to raise the bow, (coil and BoG will be automatically set)
2. How to draw/load the bow (with help of Formaster - the draw shoulder/scapula correctly set)
3. how to anchor under the chin. (not corner of the mouth because with alignment we have learned in step 1 and 2 it is very easy) 

Not stance, not posture, not even the set with all this little details which are killing kids attention. That comes little later when students know how to handle the bow.
With this steps kids already learned most of the difficult NTS process before they even realized. Later I would introduce little 
I am not sure how to explain the bow raising here I would need some pictures to help me to show exactly what I do. Also if you are the student you would need to discuss it with your coach before attempting anything you read on the internet, including this procedures.
From my observation, others teach at first lesson the stance, after that they give the kids bows and help them to shoot. The kids do not know yet what to do with the bow and use their intuition which is not always right. After all lessons with stance, posture, set. mindset, set-up comes finally draw and they would have to 'unlearn' what they already learned. And that's probably the hard part you are referring to.

The bow raising lesson is totally innovative and it is my invention, not written in any book, (Coach Lee does not know about it) so I am not sure if I should elaborate here on the process. But it is simple easy to learn and worked for me wonderfully.
George


----------



## erose

limbwalker said:


> Once alignment is achieved, I would agree. However, getting there, the linear method keeps the load closer to the core and therefore offers more of a mechanical advantage vs. the angular draw. Just like picking up a gallon of milk, even just a few inches further from your waist, the jug feels much heavier and requires more strength to raise it.


I disagree. To draw linear requires more muscle activation to hold the string in a straight line, thus more energy is required to draw linear. 

When I draw the arrow back, the string never gets outside my stance. The nock starts in front of my left eye, crosses my face and loads under my chin about an inch. Triceps or bicep muscles are never activated, in the drawing process.


----------



## erose

Georgemay said:


> Erose,
> 
> From my point of view, teaching NTS is extremely easy and intuitive too. The hard part is to 'convert' someone who started to learn the other way. Of course if you start teaching with text books you may find it difficult too. All books were written with the old format but applying NTS on top of that. You have to be little innovative. This is the way I start:
> 
> 1. How to raise the bow, (coil and BoG will be automatically set)
> 2. How to draw/load the bow (with help of Formaster - the draw shoulder/scapula correctly set)
> 3. how to anchor under the chin. (not corner of the mouth because with alignment we have learned in step 1 and 2 it is very easy)
> 
> Not stance, not posture, not even the set with all this little details which are killing kids attention. That comes little later when students know how to handle the bow.
> With this steps kids already learned most of the difficult NTS process before they even realized. Later I would introduce little
> I am not sure how to explain the bow raising here I would need some pictures to help me to show exactly what I do. Also if you are the student you would need to discuss it with your coach before attempting anything you read on the internet, including this procedures.
> From my observation, others teach at first lesson the stance, after that they give the kids bows and help them to shoot. The kids do not know yet what to do with the bow and use their intuition which is not always right. After all lessons with stance, posture, set. mindset, set-up comes finally draw and they would have to 'unlearn' what they already learned. And that's probably the hard part you are referring to.
> 
> The bow raising lesson is totally innovative and it is my invention, not written in any book, (Coach Lee does not know about it) so I am not sure if I should elaborate here on the process. But it is simple easy to learn and worked for me wonderfully.
> George


Thanks George.

On the bow raising, what I came up with was I get them in the set position, and the just tell them to bring their "set" up, I.e. "Set-up". It seems to have worked so far. Is that something similar to how you handled that?

Right now I'm a level 2 USAA instructor and a level 1 4-H coach, so what I know about the NTS is what I have read in books, and what my instructor for level 2 certification introduced me to. No NTS coaches in my area that are coaching, so my knowledge comes from what I read, watch, and my personal experiences.


----------



## Georgemay

erose said:


> Thanks George.
> 
> On the bow raising, what I came up with was I get them in the set position, and the just tell them to bring their "set" up, I.e. "Set-up". It seems to have worked so far. Is that something similar to how you handled that?
> 
> Right now I'm a level 2 USAA instructor and a level 1 4-H coach, so what I know about the NTS is what I have read in books, and what my instructor for level 2 certification introduced me to. No NTS coaches in my area that are coaching, so my knowledge comes from what I read, watch, and my personal experiences.


Erose, you have PM


----------



## Warbow

erose said:


> I disagree. To draw linear requires more muscle activation to hold the string in a straight line, thus more energy is required to draw linear.
> 
> When I draw the arrow back, the string never gets outside my stance. The nock starts in front of my left eye, crosses my face and loads under my chin about an inch. Triceps or bicep muscles are never activated, in the drawing process.


I don't know if the straight back from the target to the face linear draw uses more energy or not, but I don't buy that using more muscles = harder in terms of strength. Activating more muscles may distribute the load more, and thus be easier than using fewer muscles. Nobody would tell you that putting an extra locomotive on a train will make it *harder* for the train to pull the load, more locomotives means easier. But, there are issues of leverage and such between conventional linear draw and NTS, that I don't know the overall of which is "easier" in terms of strengh. And this seems like the kind of thing USAA should have real experimental data for (should, mind you, not that I think they necessarily do). :dontknow:


----------



## Bob Furman

Georgemay said:


> If it is linear as you said is the scapula position (seeing from the top) the same as in the beginning and end of the move? / <- / or it is at different angle at the end? I can see it as rotating.


Added tracking of scapula from start of movement to end of movement. It sure seems like a straight line of travel. Although obviously the clavicle and shoulder could be considered rotational. You decide.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4Dxzf_195Y


----------



## bownut-tl.

If a person wants to know if they are doing angular draw correctly, there are two tests you can do. One is to stand with your back against the wall where you can feel your draw side scapula touching the wall. Using a stretch band, draw it like you normally would and feel what the scapula is doing. If it slides along the wall, that isn't angular. If it pushes or punches your body away from the wall, that is. The second method is to stand near a wall, wall corner, door edge, or vertical pole such that when you are at Setup, that edge or pole is a few inches away from the back of your arm (about 2 inches up from your draw elbow). You want to be close enough where if you drew linearly the back of your arm will hit the edge before you get to Loading, but if you use angular draw, your elbow will arc in front of the edge and clear it. Do it slowly with a stretch band. Make sure you are close enough to fail, but still be able to pass if done correctly. 

At Setup, your draw hand should only be about 4 or 5 inches laterally away from your face.


----------



## Georgemay

Bob Furman said:


> Added tracking of scapula from start of movement to end of movement. It sure seems like a straight line of travel. Although obviously the clavicle and shoulder could be considered rotational. You decide.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4Dxzf_195Y


Oh I am sorry, I was under impression that we were talking about entire scapula, not tiny part of it. If you see it in parallel motion (angle of scapula at start and end of motion is the same) then you win


----------



## erose

Warbow said:


> I don't know if the straight back from the target to the face linear draw uses more energy or not, but I don't buy that using more muscles = harder in terms of strength. Activating more muscles may distribute the load more, and thus be easier than using fewer muscles. Nobody would tell you that putting an extra locomotive on a train will make it *harder* for the train to pull the load, more locomotives means easier. But, there are issues of leverage and such between conventional linear draw and NTS, that I don't know the overall of which is "easier" in terms of strengh. And this seems like the kind of thing USAA should have real experimental data for (should, mind you, not that I think they necessarily do). :dontknow:


When I look at linear, it isn't that there are more muscles sharing the load, but rather there are more muscles than what is needed being used in the drawing process. I'm not saying linear is harder or a worse draw method. There are many archers who are highly successful using a linear draw. My point is that I see the point behind an angular draw over a linear draw in that an angular draw is more efficient. 

When I used to use an angular draw, I would after a certain number of arrows become tired, and my sight picture would begin to shake. I don't have that problem anymore. Maybe this only means that for my body type an angular draw is more efficient than a linear, and for someone else the opposite my be true. I don't know. All I know is that it works for me.


----------



## chrstphr

limbwalker said:


> NTS has the wrist remaining flat (not breaking) through the draw. This is an important difference, and the reason that most NTS archers' draw hands are well outside of the target line and away from their body before being brought back into line at anchor.
> 
> The breaking/not breaking of the wrist is one fundamental difference between NTS and a linear draw motion. You cannot draw in a linear fashion without breaking the wrist. You can only draw in a rotational fashion if you do not break the wrist.
> 
> My question is who cares how you get there so long as you get to the same place? Park Sung Hung achieves an excellent BOG and so did Darrell Pace. Both broke their wrist and drew in a linear manner.
> John



This is the main fundamental difference at its core and decides if you take the linear draw or the angular draw. John, you have looked through the forest and found the tree. 

hit the nail on the head....


Chris


----------



## limbwalker

erose said:


> I disagree. To draw linear requires more muscle activation to hold the string in a straight line, thus more energy is required to draw linear.
> 
> When I draw the arrow back, the string never gets outside my stance. The nock starts in front of my left eye, crosses my face and loads under my chin about an inch. Triceps or bicep muscles are never activated, in the drawing process.


Okay, cool. I bet you and I pick up a sack of concrete the same way though.


----------



## limbwalker

chrstphr said:


> This is the main fundamental difference at its core and decides if you take the linear draw or the angular draw. John, you have looked through the forest and found the tree.
> 
> hit the nail on the head....
> 
> 
> Chris


Yea, but really Chris, this is an argument won with words, not actions and certainly not scores, so...


----------



## Vittorio

As probably 95% of coaches in the world are teaching a sort of "linear" draw as here you call it, and 98% of the archers in the world do a sort of it, going close to 99.99% for women, simple numbers are saying that linear draw is easier to teach, to learn and to use, and gives scores good enough for all, up to all existing world records. 
As I said many times, anyhow, shooting technique is still evolving, even after 10.000 years, and no one can exclude that there is a new magic solution hidden in some specific movement during the draw cycle that when dicovered, will give back that Holy Grail of one point more. But mechanics of the draw cycle has no secrets since at least 500 years, and in addition to this, if the liner drawing was so unefficient, everyone was abandoning it some centuries ago. From Kyudo to compound shooters, with everything in the middle, first archers draw the bow on the line to the target, then adjust the body position to fit th eline reached. The secret remains to make both things at the same time and as simple as possible. Control is everything, during the shooting cycle, and final result has to be a stable balance of all forces involved, with no vectors remaining outside the line of the cliker action. If at holding there is even a small amount of torsional force remaining in the line, then there is a problem at the release. That's all, and the reason why liner drawing is the general choice. Then, you may also have exceptions, but they are what they are, exceptions.


----------



## Georgemay

theminoritydude said:


> I have said my piece, for those who understood, you're welcome.


I've got your point, but that is happening after you anchor, and we are still at drawing


----------



## theminoritydude

Georgemay said:


> I've got your point, but that is happening after you anchor, and we are still at drawing


But that's just anybody's point of view, isn't it? Linear draw? As far as I'm concerned, what travels straight on earth to an observer 1m away, is in actual fact travelling in a spiral to Captain Kirk who is visiting his friend in Andromeda.

No one respects the concept of datum anymore.

The reason I did not want to discuss the draw is this: Everyone was right, but everyone wanted the other guy to be wrong, and I just wanted to have MY thread given more attention......


----------



## erose

limbwalker said:


> Okay, cool. I bet you and I pick up a sack of concrete the same way though.


Maybe. Do you clean and jerk it up on your shoulder? Older I get the weaker I become, and muscling an 80lb bag of concrete is getting tougher. 

Limbwalker, I just want to be clear here. I'm not coming at this from one archer to another. That would be stupid on my part. You have already accomplished more in archery than I ever will. If you were my coach I probably would be shooting better than I am now pulling that arrow straight back. But I don't have a coach, so I had to learn from trail and error, reading and watching. 

The way I am approaching this discussion is kind of outside looking in. In my day job I train and consult in a labor intensive production environment. One of the things I try to do is maximize production with the labor given; or in other words I try to get workers to produce more without working harder. One of the things I look at in doing this is what I call "economy of motion". What I am looking at is how much movement a worker is doing, and/or how they are using their muscles to do what they are doing. For example are they taking two steps, when they can really only take one or none. Are they turning 180 degrees, when they could only turn 90. Are they using a lot of their arms to muscle loads, when they really could perform the same action, with their leg and back muscles. Things like that is what I look at. So when I am discussing these points that is where I am coming from. Not saying I am right and you are wrong mind you. Just pointing out my perspective. If there is one thing my job has taught me is that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

On the training or coaching side I try to fix what is broken, nothing more. If there is something that one of my students are doing that isn't working for them I try to fix it. For example if a linear draw is working for my student, I ain't changing it, because I didn't have success with it. That is not bright and that is how you loose credibility as a trainer/instructor.

Now what I see concerning the different draws is this: when someone performs an angular draw he/she is using their back and shoulder muscles to pull the upper arm backwards. The arm muscles only function is maintaining the hook. In a linear draw the same muscles are are work; but you also have the muscles in the arm working to keep the hand moving toward the face in a linear plane. Now this extra effort may not be significant enough to worry about anyway, so it is really a non issue in most archers. For me it was, probably because I have what my wife calls monkey arms; thus for me to hold the arrow on a linear plane requires more effort than the average person. Thus the fatigue.


----------



## theminoritydude

erose said:


> In a linear draw the same muscles are are work; but you also have the muscles in the arm working to keep the hand moving toward the face in a linear plane. Now this extra effort ......


Let me stop you right there.

If we idealize the system and get rid of the losses, and considered the law of conservation, the "extra effort" you talked about, is cancelled out by the now reduced effort on your bow shoulder to maintain the BOG.

Search your feelings, you know it to be true.


----------



## limbwalker

erose, I'm glad you explained what you do. I admire that. I have ever since I was a kid and watched that scene from "Cheaper by the Dozen" (the original, not the remake) where the dad (who is an efficiency expert) times himself to see if it's faster to button his sweater from the top down, or the bottom up. I still remember that. It was my first lesson in biomechanical effeciency and I recall it often.

Now, you are 100% correct when you say there are many ways to skin a cat. So here is what I would ask you. When you measure efficiency with your workers, what are the metrics you use? 

Time required to retrain?
Reduced injuries/fatigue? 
Reduced days of lost work?
Product output?

If we even said the injuries stayed the same, and the amount of time to train remained the same (neither of which I'm sure are true, but we'll go with it for the sake of argument), then that leaves us with output. 

As a scientist, can you look at the data on the past 7 years of NTS and say with certainty that based on output, it's more efficient than a linear draw? Statistically? Really?

If so, I'd love to see those numbers. 

I guess we can always manage the metrics to show the result we want. Or we can just start to be honest about this system and how it compares to others around the world that are being used with equal or even more success.


----------



## limbwalker

And if we can even agree on how to measure "outputs" and do decide the outputs are greater, the next question we have to ask - just as in any business - is whether the cost of achieving those results is worth it. In other words, as a former supervisor of mine used to say, "Is the juice worth the squeeze?"


----------



## BobCo19-65

_Control is everything, during the shooting cycle, and final result has to be a stable balance of all forces involved, with no vectors remaining outside the line of the cliker action. If at holding there is even a small amount of torsional force remaining in the line, then there is a problem at the release. _

So, so true.


----------



## erose

theminoritydude said:


> Let me stop you right there.
> 
> If we idealize the system and get rid of the losses, and considered the law of conservation, the "extra effort" you talked about, is cancelled out by the now reduced effort on your bow shoulder to maintain the BOG.
> 
> Search your feelings, you know it to be true.


The question would be is how much further back is the elbow from linear draw vs angular would it not? Is there a difference?


----------



## limbwalker

erose said:


> The question would be is how much further back is the elbow from linear draw vs angular would it not? Is there a difference?


I'm not sure this is really that important. The way each archer is built will determine much about their rear elbow position. Look at Jenny (Nichols) Hardy and Park Sung Hyun. Completely different body types (esp. forearm length) and different alignments.


----------



## theminoritydude

erose said:


> The question would be is how much further back is the elbow from linear draw vs angular would it not? Is there a difference?


They do end up at the same place, don't they?


----------



## theminoritydude

erose said:


> The question would be is how much further back is the elbow from linear draw vs angular would it not? Is there a difference?


Ok I think I see your point. You are referring to two different holding positions, not just the draw.

If that is the case, then you are correct. The time duration for the biceps being in contraction do account for energy loss, and is a sad and unfortunate state of affairs for some of us who were anatomically built that way.

But we overcome. And by "we", I exclude myself.


----------



## erose

limbwalker said:


> erose, I'm glad you explained what you do. I admire that. I have ever since I was a kid and watched that scene from "Cheaper by the Dozen" (the original, not the remake) where the dad (who is an efficiency expert) times himself to see if it's faster to button his sweater from the top down, or the bottom up. I still remember that. It was my first lesson in biomechanical effeciency and I recall it often.
> 
> Now, you are 100% correct when you say there are many ways to skin a cat. So here is what I would ask you. When you measure efficiency with your workers, what are the metrics you use?
> 
> Time required to retrain?
> Reduced injuries/fatigue?
> Reduced days of lost work?
> Product output?
> 
> If we even said the injuries stayed the same, and the amount of time to train remained the same (neither of which I'm sure are true, but we'll go with it for the sake of argument), then that leaves us with output.
> 
> As a scientist, can you look at the data on the past 7 years of NTS and say with certainty that based on output, it's more efficient than a linear draw? Statistically? Really?
> 
> If so, I'd love to see those numbers.
> 
> I guess we can always manage the metrics to show the result we want. Or we can just start to be honest about this system and how it compares to others around the world that are being used with equal or even more success.


I'm on my phone so i can't give a full answer here, so I will keep it short. Concerning your last paragraph, I have learned that if an operator is doing something let's say slightly inefficient and I have a better way of doing an operation, to try and teach him my way which is only slightly better is a waste of time. Most people, who are experienced, really only accept instruction if what you have to offer significantly improves what they are doing. 

Let's say for argument sake someone convinces you that draw A is slightly better than your drawing method, and you even become convinced that it is a little better way than what you got, 9 chances out of 10 you won't adopt the new method, because the effort required to unlearn what you do to adopt the new really isn't worth it, because if you come across any hiccup you are going to blame the new method and go back to the one that has been working for you to this point.

Concerning whether or not the NTS system is better or worse, well I think that will be case by case. I don't use the NTS system. I use some of it, but not all of it. I'm not an expert on it or any other system for that matter. But thanks to these threads I'm learning more each day.

I would like to see a thread breaking down another system though. That would be interesting.


----------



## Seattlepop

Ok, so this is what I think I've learned: "Linear" is defined as that space between the bow hand and chin. Cup your draw hand and pull straight back toward your chin and you are "linear". Shoulder alignment and all that other "stuff" comes in lesson two or 20 depending on the student. Drawing in line with the target doesn't seem to be part of the definition, although probably preferred. 

Ms. Park and Ms. Ki are perfect examples of "linear" since they both cup and pull mostly straight toward their chins. Only they and their coach know when they perfected all that other stuff. 

Looking at a few of the world's top men, however, seems to indicate that none of them use a "linear" draw form. No cupped hands and these four at least, draw to the side of their faces. L to R, (I think I have this right) Oh Kyo Moon, former FITA WR holder, Kim Woo Jin, current FITA WR holder, that amazing Oh fella, and Brady of course. 

View attachment 2174873
View attachment 2174874
View attachment 2174875
View attachment 2174897


So the real question seems not to be do I want to learn Linear or NTS, but do I want to shoot like a girl because its easier to learn? Archery is soooo sexist. 

All tongue in cheek, kids, all tongue in cheek. Persons lacking sense of humor are excused from responding.


----------



## Gregjlongbow

I know this is a bit old, but I am curious what the really experienced target recurve archers think about the comparison between the US archers, and the Koreans. It seems to me just by looking, the Korean method appears to be much simpler, and easier. They typically have less open stance, and draw to anchor on a single plain. I'm new to all this, but I feel better when I draw like the Koreans as opposed to the NTS. I have only tried NTS method with cameras and mirrors. So, I am very new to all of this.


----------



## Arsi

Gregjlongbow said:


> I know this is a bit old, but I am curious what the really experienced target recurve archers think about the comparison between the US archers, and the Koreans. It seems to me just by looking, the Korean method appears to be much simpler, and easier. They typically have less open stance, and draw to anchor on a single plain. I'm new to all this, but I feel better when I draw like the Koreans as opposed to the NTS. I have only tried NTS method with cameras and mirrors. So, I am very new to all of this.


You won't find any answers here on this question. There is a reason why this thread is 10 pages long.

The bottom line is to shoot what is comfortable for you and what the coaches around you are comfortable in teaching.


----------



## Gregjlongbow

Arsi said:


> You won't find any answers here on this question. There is a reason why this thread is 10 pages long.
> 
> The bottom line is to shoot what is comfortable for you and what the coaches around you are comfortable in teaching.


Makes sense 

Thanks 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## erose

The classical American method (or what is called on this forum as the Korean method) is definitely a more simple system, with quite a bit more potential to variation, than the NTS method. The NTS is system does obviously produce high level archers as well, but it requires IMO a coach, as the complexity of the system is pretty high. That being said, there are many archers throughout the world using the classical American method, with just as much if not more success.


----------



## Gregjlongbow

erose said:


> The classical American method (or what is called on this forum as the Korean method) is definitely a more simple system, with quite a bit more potential to variation, than the NTS method. The NTS is system does obviously produce high level archers as well, but it requires IMO a coach, as the complexity of the system is pretty high. That being said, there are many archers throughout the world using the classical American method, with just as much if not more success.


Yeah I am trying to learn on my own with cameras and mirrors. Very uncomfortable for me, but I have a lot of habits that I need to unlearn as well. Also I'm not that young anymore and my body doesn't want to change. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## erose

Experiment and see what is most comfortable for you. Pick up Rick McKinney's book : The Simple Art of Winning and read it for more information.


----------



## 10X Archer

Arsi said:


> You won't find any answers here on this question. There is a reason why this thread is 10 pages long.
> 
> The bottom line is to shoot what is comfortable for you and what the coaches around you are comfortable in teaching.


True, there is no ultimate answer to your question. However, In my OPINION Korean style is easier to learn but requires more time to reach a high level. With NTS I think that it takes more time and is harder to learn, but you will be at a high level sooner.


----------



## 10X Archer

Also, if you want to shoot well you really need a coach for whatever style. If you choose NTS then you will have more of a need for a coach. Also make sure to experiment with how open your stance should be. This will cause you to arch your back a lot or not have a straight spine if your stance is too open. My stance is just slightly open because I had a bad habit of leaning away from the target.


----------



## midwayarcherywi

10X Archer said:


> True, there is no ultimate answer to your question. However, In my OPINION Korean style is easier to learn but requires more time to reach a high level. With NTS I think that it takes more time and is harder to learn, but you will be at a high level sooner.


Based on what? What examples do you have to make such a statement?


----------



## Arsi

10X Archer said:


> Also, if you want to shoot well you really need a coach for whatever style. If you choose NTS then you will have more of a need for a coach.


This is the correct answer.



midwayarcherywi said:


> 10X Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, there is no ultimate answer to your question. However, In my OPINION Korean style is easier to learn but requires more time to reach a high level. With NTS I think that it takes more time and is harder to learn, but you will be at a high level sooner.
> 
> 
> 
> Based on what? What examples do you have to make such a statement?
Click to expand...

Here we go! This is what I was talking about earlier 

Full disclosure. I shoot a modified NTS but it was modified by me to fit my body style after working for two years with NTS coaches (My 1st year and my 3rd year. I have been coachless for two years now, still shooting NTS, and have been shooting higher scores than I ever have before).


----------



## midwayarcherywi

I really don't want to go down this rabbit hole again. The truth is it takes an incredible amount of effort to be an elite archer. Any number of shooting methods can get you to the upper echelon.


----------



## Gregjlongbow

midwayarcherywi said:


> I really don't want to go down this rabbit hole again. The truth is it takes an incredible amount of effort to be an elite archer. Any number of shooting methods can get you to the upper echelon.


Yeah and I really didn't mean to imply one was better than the other. I just see where as a recreational archer I might be able to adopt the simpler Korean style easier and with less need to change my body. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## theminoritydude

1) There exists one correct full draw position for Olympic Recurve that no one can refute.
2) Getting to that correct full draw is the goal, followed next by hitting the target.
3) For every individual, their skeletal structure ultimately determines the quality that can be achieved on that full draw. Not skill, not determination.
4) There is a critical measurement for skeletal structure that determines whether NTS is going to be useful. Or not.
5) NTS was designed with achieving that quality full draw in mind. Refer to point 4.
6) IF, one's skeletal structure is determined to be short of that critical measurement, one will never be able to fully execute a correct NTS technique. Statistically, female archers tend to fall into this category. And it has nothing to do with physical strength.
7) There is no such thing as "picking up the Korean method". You grow up in the Korean system. Comparing the success of Korean archers to NTS as a way of saying the "Korean method" is superior, is like saying one can learn to speak Japanese by learning from videos. The keyword here is "IMMERSION". No immersion, no korean method. Simple as that.


----------



## toxoph

limbwalker said:


> erose, I'm glad you explained what you do. I admire that. I have ever since I was a kid and watched that scene from "Cheaper by the Dozen" (the original, not the remake) where the dad (who is an efficiency expert) times himself to see if it's faster to button his sweater from the top down, or the bottom up. I still remember that. It was my first lesson in biomechanical effeciency and I recall it often.
> 
> Now, you are 100% correct when you say there are many ways to skin a cat. So here is what I would ask you. When you measure efficiency with your workers, what are the metrics you use?
> 
> Time required to retrain?
> Reduced injuries/fatigue?
> Reduced days of lost work?
> Product output?
> 
> If we even said the injuries stayed the same, and the amount of time to train remained the same (neither of which I'm sure are true, but we'll go with it for the sake of argument), then that leaves us with output.
> 
> As a scientist, can you look at the data on the past 7 years of NTS and say with certainty that based on output, it's more efficient than a linear draw? Statistically? Really?
> 
> If so, I'd love to see those numbers.
> 
> I guess we can always manage the metrics to show the result we want. Or we can just start to be honest about this system and how it compares to others around the world that are being used with equal or even more success.


Maybe I am wrong here but I could swear one of the big selling points of NTS was reduction in injuries. I have both heard this from other coaches and read it but I honestly dont recall from wear. If injuries are one of the selling points then I would think that is a directly measurable statistic.


----------



## erose

No evidence that I know has been supplied to prove that assertion.


----------



## vlesiv

I have one small but very important question. We talk re Korean, NTS systems, but 

*Does anybody have a book or article that explains you details, main steps, sequence and bio-mechanics of NTS*? 
Same question for Korean method? 

I have KSL book, and while I understand that NTS is based on what he wrote - it is still not formal NTS description, right?


----------



## lksseven

limbwalker said:


> erose, I'm glad you explained what you do. I admire that. I have ever since I was a kid and watched that scene from "Cheaper by the Dozen" (the original, not the remake) where the dad (who is an efficiency expert) times himself to see if it's faster to button his sweater from the top down, or the bottom up. I still remember that. It was my first lesson in biomechanical effeciency and I recall it often.
> 
> Now, you are 100% correct when you say there are many ways to skin a cat. So here is what I would ask you. When you measure efficiency with your workers, what are the metrics you use?
> 
> Time required to retrain?
> Reduced injuries/fatigue?
> Reduced days of lost work?
> Product output?
> 
> If we even said the injuries stayed the same, and the amount of time to train remained the same (neither of which I'm sure are true, but we'll go with it for the sake of argument), then that leaves us with output.
> 
> As a scientist, can you look at the data on the past 7 years of NTS and say with certainty that based on output, it's more efficient than a linear draw? Statistically? Really?
> 
> If so, I'd love to see those numbers.
> 
> I guess we can always manage the metrics to show the result we want. Or we can just start to be honest about this system and how it compares to others around the world that are being used with equal or even more success.


*John, the thing I remember most about that movie (which I loved, also) is when the dad sits down in a dry bathtub in his suit and proceeds to demonstrate how to most efficiently use the bar of soap so as to achieve full coverage with the most efficiency ... hilarious.*


----------



## limbwalker

> If injuries are one of the selling points then I would think that is a directly measurable statistic.


Not a statistic that "they" want measured.


----------



## lcaillo

My take on NTS may be a little different than most. I came to the sport in 1977, left in the late 1990s, and just returned. I have always been a FITA shooter and also studied biomechanics, mostly after I developed chronic tendonitis and bursitis from poor form. The basic biomechanics of KSL or NTS or more traditional methods of teaching form are not that different. The point is to align so that as much of the force of the draw is supported by the skeletal system and as little effort as possible is expended by the musculature, while minimizing stress on the connective tissues. The shot is executed by rotating the drawing elbow to the back, and everyone agrees that the classic triangle alignment is the most efficient place to be. The loading and "coil" of NTS is more a teaching method and a way of thinking of the motion of the shot than a real difference in effect. It is a rather complicated way of thinking of the shot, and if you buy into it and learn it, it can be very effective. Because it always goes back to basic biomechanics, it differs from the way some coaches have taught, with some going off in tangents that might work for a while or for an individual, but are harder to generalize. 

I started shooting again and focused on a classic T and triangle with emphasis on alignment and back tension. After a few months I started learning NTS, not having been exposed to it before. I find that it does not change much, but it does help me to think about my motion in a way that leaves me with the right range of motion remaining at the right time. Having always been a "motion shooter" who relied on timing and rhythm more than holding and aiming, this works for me.


----------



## chang

Ever since he went to Oz, I have attended his seminars and bought all his books, but I have this feeling now, that he is a Korean coach who could teach any technique (ie "evolving") but not the Korean ones.


----------



## limbwalker

> it does help me to think about my motion in a way that leaves me with the right range of motion remaining at the right time. Having always been a "motion shooter" who relied on timing and rhythm more than holding and aiming, this works for me.


That may be the best description of the most useful aspect of NTS I've ever read. Well done.


----------



## 10X Archer

No one has enough time to reach an elite level with both a Korean style and NTS shot. Therefor there won't be a great answer as to which system is better. 

As mentioned before, someone in america will never be able to shoot true Korean style as they are not receiving the full Korean training. However, one can have the full NTS experience as we live in the home of NTS.

It seems like a lot of people these days like to bash NTS because the new coaches show up teaching it and uproot the old ways. Also people like to argue that NTS is bad because the olympic team hasn't won gold yet. You have to keep in mind that team U.S.A is shooting a lot better now then what they were before coach Lee stepped in.


----------



## limbwalker

10X Archer said:


> You have to keep in mind that team U.S.A is shooting a lot better now then what they were before coach Lee stepped in.


If you only consider one gender, then I suppose you're right. Lee's approach has proven to be successful with strong young men both in AUS and here. I'm not sure any of them are doing any more than Darrell and Rick did though. One could always ask "what if" - had Rick and Darrell in their prime, had the equipment available today. One could also consider what Lee's predecessor did with a certain Justin Huish. The biggest change I can see is not the technique taught at the OTC, but rather the corporate culture and the narrative and organization that serves it.


----------



## Vittorio

Just a note about "Korean technique" 
Such thing does not exist at all. They teach to children the "classic" archery style as everyone in the world, than force it to the maximum limit by a very severe selction. When archer is fully formed in body, they start to let him personalize a bit the shooting stile to optimize his/her result. Finally, when archer is good enough, he starts to make his owns chnges to the style following his own personal feeling. 
Statistically (at least from outside) Korean women at top level have less degree of pesonalization of their personal style than men when they reach the top, but no one can honestly say looking from out side that styles of OH Jin Hiek, IM Dong Hyu and KU Bo Chan are the same !
Korean coaches have the luck to be able to access to a full professional system were many parameters that are "guessed" in the rest of the world have been already fully analized and documented. They are open to study any possible information coming from other countries (just to mention, even my book THA has been translated to Korean language), but you can't find any Korean coaching manual translated to any western language, apart from a very old basic manual that was translated to italian when Peter Suk came here in the early 90's. Korean coaches continuously experiment all styles and novelties to find evn some small advantge in the ,as compettion is very tought also between coaches and their business teams, then keep what's good and discard what's not giving expected results. For instance, maybe no one noted, but Ku Bo Chan when appeared for the first time in the international arena, was drawing bow in an NTS like style. But he changed (a bit) in the subsequent years. 
Never talk about Korean technique, pls. Just Korean system.


----------



## bobnikon

limbwalker said:


> If you only consider one gender, then I suppose you're right. Lee's approach has proven to be successful with strong young men both in AUS and here. I'm not sure any of them are doing any more than Darrell and Rick did though. One could always ask "what if" - had Rick and Darrell in their prime, had the equipment available today. One could also consider what Lee's predecessor did with a certain Justin Huish. The biggest change I can see is not the technique taught at the OTC, but rather the corporate culture and the narrative and organization that serves it.


If we are asking "what if", an interesting puzzle comes to mind. Would their scores have been higher, same or lower if they had shot NTS...??? How, if at all, would their careers have changed if the present structure had been in place.


----------



## erose

Vittorio said:


> Just a note about "Korean technique"
> Such thing does not exist at all. They teach to children the "classic" archery style as everyone in the world, than force it to the maximum limit by a very severe selction. When archer is fully formed in body, they start to let him personalize a bit the shooting stile to optimize his/her result. Finally, when archer is good enough, he starts to make his owns chnges to the style following his own personal feeling.
> Statistically (at least from outside) Korean women at top level have less degree of pesonalization of their personal style than men when they reach the top, but no one can honestly say looking from out side that styles of OH Jin Hiek, IM Dong Hyu and KU Bo Chan are the same !
> Korean coaches have the luck to be able to access to a full professional system were many parameters that are "guessed" in the rest of the world have been already fully analized and documented. They are open to study any possible information coming from other countries (just to mention, even my book THA has been translated to Korean language), but you can't find any Korean coaching manual translated to any western language, apart from a very old basic manual that was translated to italian when Peter Suk came here in the early 90's. Korean coaches continuously experiment all styles and novelties to find evn some small advantge in the ,as compettion is very tought also between coaches and their business teams, then keep what's good and discard what's not giving expected results. For instance, maybe no one noted, but Ku Bo Chan when appeared for the first time in the international arena, was drawing bow in an NTS like style. But he changed (a bit) in the subsequent years.
> Never talk about Korean technique, pls. Just Korean system.


Coach Frangilli, thanks for emphasizing this, for it doesn't seem to get emphasized enough. The Koreans aren't the Koreans because of their archery style or technique; they are the Koreans because of the overall system that has been set in place.


----------



## erose

bobnikon said:


> If we are asking "what if", an interesting puzzle comes to mind. Would their scores have been higher, same or lower if they had shot NTS...??? How, if at all, would their careers have changed if the present structure had been in place.


I doubt that anything would have been different, IMO. As on old archer at my club told me one day that archery is a sport of consistency. The more consistent you are, even if you are doing it "wrong" the better you are going to be. The NTS, classical American system, whatever is meant to promote consistency; and I don't think anyone would challenge the idea that Mr. Pace and McKinney were anything but consistent.


----------



## limbwalker

> is meant to promote consistency


A lot of techniques are meant promote consistency.


----------



## erose

limbwalker said:


> A lot of techniques are meant promote consistency.


There should have been an "or" between "system," and "whatever".


----------



## chrstphr

10X Archer said:


> As mentioned before, someone in america will never be able to shoot true Korean style as they are not receiving the full Korean training. However, one can have the full NTS experience as we live in the home of NTS.


Not so true now. You may not get the volume or rigidness of the Korean training system, but there is a network of good Korean coaches in the USA now and there is even a Korean American Archery Association ( US branch of the KAA). You can have Korean Olympic gold medalists coach you here. NTS coaching is certainly more widespread, But you can most definitely receive full Korean training here from Korean world class archers who grew up in the system. 




10X Archer said:


> You have to keep in mind that team U.S.A is shooting a lot better now then what they were before coach Lee stepped in.


complete dont agree. 

Not even counting Rick McKinney's 2 Olympic silvers, and 8 World Champ golds ( 3 individual, 5 team) and not counting Daryl Pace's 2 world champ golds (individual) or his holding the FITA world record for 14 years.........

There are a number of other archers, Butch Johnson Gold and Bronze, Justin Huish, double gold, Rod White Gold and Bronze, Vic Wonderle Individual silver, Women's team bronze in 88. 

Since 2004, we have two silvers and a bronze. 

For shooting scores alone, Brady shot this year the indoor world record twice, but the Koreans hold almost all the outdoor records. 

But lets leave Olympics out of it for a minute. Lets look at World Championships

USA men won the outdoor World champs in 57,59,61,63,67,69,71,75,77,79, and 83. 
USA women won the outdoor world champs in 52,54,57,59,61,63,73,and 77. 

since 1989, its a mostly Korean affair. 

By 1988 the Korean's were dominating and still continue to. 

Chris


----------



## chrstphr

Vittorio said:


> They are open to study any possible information coming from other countries (just to mention, even my book THA has been translated to Korean language), but you can't find any Korean coaching manual translated to any western language, apart from a very old basic manual that was translated to italian when Peter Suk came here in the early 90's.


Kim Hyung Tak's Archery book is available in English. 


Chris


----------



## Vittorio

chrstphr said:


> Kim Hyung Tak's Archery book is available in English.
> Chris


Coach Kim's book is a very generic one, wtritten specifically for the international audience, nothing to do with KAA manuals


----------



## Black46

Vittorio said:


> Coach Kim's book is a very generic one, wtritten specifically for the international audience, nothing to do with KAA manuals


Vittorio, when is THA II coming out?

Paul


----------



## theminoritydude

This may sound outrageous but, being in the Korean system, is like joining the Yakuza. 

If a Gaijin joins a Yakuza, THAT is big news.


----------



## Jalthi

Going by nothing but what people have said in this thread, Korean success is due to a system with a ton of both monetary and human resources at their disposal. If that is the case, then why is there so much debate over what a relatively few people in the US do with far less funding and fewer potential rewards?

I am proudly American, but it feels at times there is a sense on AT and elsewhere, that just because America is America that we ought to be dominating any given sport. 

When you look at the details of how many potentially SERIOUS archers there are in the system and the resources that are geared towards fielding and maintaining a successful team - how much does the particular general technique being taught really come into play?


----------



## chrstphr

From the 50s- thru the 90s the USA did dominate at archery. Its from 2000 on that the USA has slipped and the world has caught up and then surpassed. You could probably say we dominated going back even further with Howard Hill and Jim Easton, Fred Bear, Anne Marston and a host of other incredible archers. 

We didnt dominate because we were the USA, or spent millions of dollars or had big business behind the archers. On the contrary, We dominated because the archers were able to experiment and shoot the form they wanted to shoot, and the coaches were all open to quite a wide spread of form and supported what was best for the archer, not what was best for the national training program. 

Today NTS is the national system, and if you shoot something else, you are way outside and not eligible for much support by USA archery and the OTC. 

So yes, the form does make a difference when you are stalling archers who have worked for years to attain a score that gets you to the OTC, only to have to learn another form which is shooting our best archers in the foot by the coaches. We should be nurturing and enabling our top archers, not rebuilding them from scratch. And certainly we should not be continuing to force a form on archers that clearly are stuggling with it and not doing as well as they did before. That is why we are falling further behind. 

As i said before, i have no problem with archers who want to shoot the NTS form. I have a problem that its forced on archers who do not want to shoot it, and shoot very well without it. Or who shot better without it.



Chris


----------



## lcaillo

Can you provide an example of an archer who was forced to change form to his or her detriment by USAA? Sounds like a lot of speculation and hooey to me.


----------



## lcaillo

Vittorio said:


> Just a note about "Korean technique"
> Such thing does not exist at all. They teach to children the "classic" archery style as everyone in the world, than force it to the maximum limit by a very severe selction. When archer is fully formed in body, they start to let him personalize a bit the shooting stile to optimize his/her result. Finally, when archer is good enough, he starts to make his owns chnges to the style following his own personal feeling.
> Statistically (at least from outside) Korean women at top level have less degree of pesonalization of their personal style than men when they reach the top, but no one can honestly say looking from out side that styles of OH Jin Hiek, IM Dong Hyu and KU Bo Chan are the same !
> Korean coaches have the luck to be able to access to a full professional system were many parameters that are "guessed" in the rest of the world have been already fully analized and documented. They are open to study any possible information coming from other countries (just to mention, even my book THA has been translated to Korean language), but you can't find any Korean coaching manual translated to any western language, apart from a very old basic manual that was translated to italian when Peter Suk came here in the early 90's. Korean coaches continuously experiment all styles and novelties to find evn some small advantge in the ,as compettion is very tought also between coaches and their business teams, then keep what's good and discard what's not giving expected results. For instance, maybe no one noted, but Ku Bo Chan when appeared for the first time in the international arena, was drawing bow in an NTS like style. But he changed (a bit) in the subsequent years.
> Never talk about Korean technique, pls. Just Korean system.


Thank you Vittorio. You punched the x out with that post.


----------



## theminoritydude

https://youtu.be/zJELZ0vYvV8

Korean method.


----------



## lksseven

lcaillo said:


> Can you provide an example of an archer who was forced to change form to his or her detriment by USAA? Sounds like a lot of speculation and hooey to me.


That's not really a legit question - the USAA can't 'force' a non-OTC resident to 'do' anything. 

It's not uncommon knowledge that a current requirement for acceptance to JDT is the archer's agreeing to submit to NTS style. No agreement to submit to NTS style, no admittance.

But that's going to change, at least for the women. New women's coach isn't NTS. New coaching/instruction materials, separated camps, etc. Gonna be a lot of chaos and angst and upheaval.


----------



## insidethebow

theminoritydude said:


> 3) For every individual, their skeletal structure ultimately determines the quality that can be achieved on that full draw. Not skill, not determination.
> 4) There is a critical measurement for skeletal structure that determines whether NTS is going to be useful. Or not.


TheMinorityDude, can you elaborate on how an archer's skeletal structure determines the quality of their full draw position, and what the critical skeletal structure measurement is for figuring out if NTS will be useful?


----------



## chrstphr

lcaillo said:


> Can you provide an example of an archer who was forced to change form to his or her detriment by USAA? Sounds like a lot of speculation and hooey to me.


Here's some hooey for you. 

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4946177&p=1102380481#post1102380481



chrstphr said:


> here are a few snips from messages i get routinely....
> 
> _"We had a girl who was rapidly improving and winning all the cadet events in our state after about 1.5-2 years of shooting. Last summer she attended a RDT and "learned" NTS. A girl who has not had NTS and switched to BB as a 14 year old 5 months ago posted a higher score on the 40 CM at nationals 458/600 then this RDT girl who went from shooting 510-520 to mid 400s."
> 
> "a girl i started coaching a few years ago did well at state and regional shoots and got third in young adult NFAA. She also started seeing a level five coach who has never been much of an archer. He convinced her to go to RDT. She did and completely changed her form 9 months ago.She finished almost dead last with a 202/300 today in NFAA YA F FRSLR today. She tied with a 14 year old girl shooting a FITA BB I coach. NTS has ruined her."
> 
> "So many kids are being ruined by this system. i have seen it at the local archer club, XXXX Archery, with one of the girls who got chosen for Dream Team and was made to switch to NTS. She has struggled ever since. "
> 
> "I am fearful of posting since the archery world is a small world and I don't want my kid to later be treated unfairly. Coach Lee has a huge influence in the archery world (do not forget the 5 academies his wife runs, Joy Lee). I just want to let you know that you are right on with your insight and commentary. We stay away from the whole NTS thing.
> 
> "My student was a national champ. Shooting the 60 cm target at Nationals, she has gained only 1 point in tournaments since 2014. Two years of growth and archery coaching by NTS /OTC dream team coaches for 1 point. She has not been top 10 ever since" _


I also have a former student you got accepted to the RA trials after shooting 620s-630s in tournaments. He lasted literally two days. At the OTC he was given an ultimatum, change from the Korean form he was using and shoot NTS or leave immediately. He tried NTS for a day and then left. 



Chris


----------



## chang

Technique/style can be developed by a system. although it may be no a single form or style. korean archers did being observed to have some characters in term of their styles. which some people refer to as "classic" korean form before Total Archery. 

Talking about the korean system. 
There are very little recreational western style archery activities in Korean. It is a centralize system which had never aimed to popularized archery, but only getting the olympic gold. the system could choose a few style and choose the archers. and It can use whatever resources more effeciently. but does such system suit a recreational community which would need much more diversity. 

Talking about the technique and styles
Whatever BEST/NTS has been evolved since the first release of "Total Archery", The emphasis of use the more powerful muscle had not been changed. it is true that the lower trapezius is stronger that upper+middle trapezius, however, the lower trapezius muscle group is not mainly horizontal, contracting it would not only expand the rib cage but also pulls the shoulder downward and bends the spine backward. So some other muscle need to be involved to balance the action. and overall there will be more muscle involved in the execution and more complexity in coordination, in contrast to the so called classic methods.

I am not here saying which style is better, but as a recreational archer, I would prefer a system that supports a more diverced style of shooting.


----------



## rkumetz

chrstphr said:


> From the 50s- thru the 90s the USA did dominate at archery. Its from 2000 on that the USA has slipped and the world has caught up and then surpassed. You could probably say we dominated going back even further with Howard Hill and Jim Easton, Fred Bear, Anne Marston and a host of other incredible archers.
> 
> We didnt dominate because we were the USA, or spent millions of dollars or had big business behind the archers. On the contrary, We dominated because the archers were able to experiment and shoot the form they wanted to shoot, and the coaches were all open to quite a wide spread of form and supported what was best for the archer, not what was best for the national training program.
> 
> Today NTS is the national system, and if you shoot something else, you are way outside and not eligible for much support by USA archery and the OTC.
> 
> So yes, the form does make a difference when you are stalling archers who have worked for years to attain a score that gets you to the OTC, only to have to learn another form which is shooting our best archers in the foot by the coaches. We should be nurturing and enabling our top archers, not rebuilding them from scratch. And certainly we should not be continuing to force a form on archers that clearly are stuggling with it and not doing as well as they did before. That is why we are falling further behind.
> 
> As i said before, i have no problem with archers who want to shoot the NTS form. I have a problem that its forced on archers who do not want to shoot it, and shoot very well without it. Or who shot better without it.
> Chris


I am on board with most of that. Force is a strong word. No archery can be forced however if you do not submit your chances of receiving support or being part of the USAA programs is pretty slim. Nonconformists are not welcomed with open arms.

The key to this is money. I read an interview from a number of years back when Jim Easton pretty much said "we need a Korean coach" and poof we had KSL. Since Easton has pretty beefy control of the purse strings the minions not only jump but ask "how high sir?"

I think the previous poster's comment about the US dominating was a bit out of context. I think the domination issue, if there is one, is this: If NTS is THE system and is so good that everyone needs to do it to be part of the cool archers' club then why are we NOT dominating if our system is the only one to use? Is it because our archers are too inept or not dedicated enough to implement the perfect system? 

Going full circle to some of the other comments posted in this thread, Americans are good at getting things done because we can figure out how to use bailing wire and duct tape to do just about anything. We are (or used to be) innovators with diverse talents and backgrounds. Trying to squish us through one mold like the Play Dough (sp?) Fun Factory is not the best way for us.

I do not in any way suggest that NTS is not a good system for some or that KSL is not a talented coach. I just don't think that a one size fits all shooting form cuts the mustard so to speak.


----------



## lcaillo

Americans are also fiercely independent. A lot of archers won't be willing to change their form, as it is hard to do and takes time and lots of effort. Now if our coaching staff thinks they can bring spomeone to a camp and change them instantly, they are seriously mistaken, and not serving the sport well. If they can't take an archer where they are and develop a plan to improve them that is considerate of current state and the best outcome for that archer, they have no business making unreasonable demands. I have not been involved with the USAA coaching program since it was NAA but my guess is that the failures have two sides to each story...

There is nothing inherently radical or that different about NTS. It is a different way of thinking about getting to the same result as every other coaching system. How to apply it has to be as individual as any other coaching technique. You can't make it one size fits all. I would be surprised if that is really what is going on, but if it is, it is simply faulty coaching and management.


----------



## chrstphr

I meant to list Earl and Ann Hoyt not Jim Easton in the part about previous historical incredible archers. 


Chris


----------



## limbwalker

lcaillo said:


> Can you provide an example of an archer who was forced to change form to his or her detriment by USAA? Sounds like a lot of speculation and hooey to me.


I've turned over a new leaf and ain't gonna take that bait no more.



> New coaching/instruction materials, separated camps, etc. Gonna be a lot of chaos and angst and upheaval.


And hopefully less time on trainer bows due to sublaxated ribs.


----------



## limbwalker

> There is nothing inherently radical or that different about NTS.


That's a matter of opinion.


----------



## theminoritydude

insidethebow said:


> TheMinorityDude, can you elaborate on how an archer's skeletal structure determines the quality of their full draw position, and what the critical skeletal structure measurement is for figuring out if NTS will be useful?


It has to do with the ratio between the [combined length of the forearm and the hand all the way to the middle finger's second joint] / [length from the middle of the sternum to the elbow joint].

Folks like to imagine NTS as a closed polygon with <180deg internal angles on all corners during the transfer, but in reality that is only achievable for a select proportion of the population. While it is desirable to have the collarbones aligned (which is seldom the case because archers tend not to be able to concentrate on too many positions at once, or plainly misunderstand what is required and thus neglect to do it) it is still not the critical factor that causes them difficulty in training the technique. The critical difference between a good NTS technique complete with a clean release (one cannot argue with the clean release repeatability of correct NTS execution) and one that does not have a clean release, lies in the >180deg internal angle between the sides formed by the forearm and the draw force vector (with some portions of the hand forward of the wrist to the second joint of the finger in multiple misalignment), in what is commonly known as "behind the line" (i hope I got that term correct), the defining full draw position of NTS. 

So, in order to get into a pseudo "behind the line" full draw, the anatomically unsuited archer forces the shoulder upwards by floating his or her collarbone and closes the gap between the scapula prematurely. This has two detrimental effects on clicking. 
1) With the gap between the scapula closed prematurely, there is little room left for the incremental expansion of the draw to click.
2) The low and settled draw arm side collarbone is one of the most underrated factor in consistent full draw and click. It assures a very consistent full draw length at anchor, and because of its stable position, acts as a firm pivot for the closing scapula gap to have a maximum and positive effect on expansion of the draw to click. A "floating" collarbone will not give one the same efficiency. That is because a floating collarbone's dynamic position is difficult to detect by an archer at full draw.

For an anatomically incompatible archer to shoot the NTS, chances are, plenty of effort goes into squeezing the back, and muscle strain from there should be a rather common complaint.


----------



## Vittorio

Explantion is quite good if related to a simple system were everyone is using the same grip and has the same (high) pressure point on it. But despite the present fashion, a lot of archers worldwide are still shooting low grip -low wrist, that automaticlaly calls in action much heavier bows to balance and a totally different line of force at full draw. This brings to a quite different kind of back muscles to be used ...


----------



## theminoritydude

Well, actually KSL knows about this (presumably) and that's probably why he came up with the new grip design. But discounting that, the grip technique used in NTS requires the archer to firm up the base of the thumb, thus transferring some of the pressure upwards.

I seemed to have left out the conclusion. Here it is: If the ratio I stated above is low, then the chances of the archer successfully employing the correct NTS technique is disproportionately reduced. In other words, you could visually evaluate a candidate and have a pretty good idea if NTS is suitable for him or her. There are some telltale signs. Like long fingers, large hands, narrow shoulders, short upper arms.

Coincidentally, short upper arms also mean the ability to take on higher poundages. Just in case anyone was wondering about the much touted "higher poundage" aspect of NTS.


----------



## lksseven

limbwalker said:


> I've turned over a new leaf and ain't gonna take that bait no more.
> 
> 
> 
> And hopefully less time on trainer bows due to *sublaxated* ribs.


I had to look that up!
Ribs attach to the sternum by means of cartilage, allowing some movement when the chest inflates with a breath. If a rib moves and doesn't go back to its normal position, its new, painful position is known as a rib subluxation.


----------



## GoldArcher403

Just my 2 cents:

From learning archery on push pull technique and then transitioning to NTS, I can say my honest opinion is that NTS is an effective shooting method that does have advantages. I believe NTS is a highly effective form if trained properly. Yet, it's downside seems to be that majority get confused and dont reach the point where they can yield or teach one to yield its benefits. For me personally, before learning NTS I would shoot average scores and experience a good deal of muscle fatigue. In an Olympic round, I would find myself having to try a lot harder to support my form near the last few inns on push pull technique. When I realized things weren't working and I went with a Level 4 NTS coach, within a few months I had better endurance while shooting and more consistent scores. I can hold my sight pin with far less float. 

Now, I had many questions while learning. There were moments when I wanted to say, "You want me to do what? That seems pretty hard to do." However dedication and study of the method made it work out later. I think NTS is quickly thrown out the door because people struggle with it and then give up. To me, learning NTS was like learning to drive a stick shift. At first, it's clumsy and weird and all you do is mess up. However once you learn the movement, it gets a lot smoother and you wear on the car (the shooter in this case) a lot less. 

This is just my experience. I prefer NTS but I do not discourage push pull either. There are plenty of shooters doing push pull that could easily beat me. I believe what technique should be used is all dependent on the shooter and what is biologically more efficient for them.


----------



## 10X Archer

rjbishop said:


> Just my 2 cents:
> 
> From learning archery on push pull technique and then transitioning to NTS, I can say my honest opinion is that NTS is an effective shooting method that does have advantages. I believe NTS is a highly effective form if trained properly. Yet, it's downside seems to be that majority get confused and dont reach the point where they can yield or teach one to yield its benefits. For me personally, before learning NTS I would shoot average scores and experience a good deal of muscle fatigue. In an Olympic round, I would find myself having to try a lot harder to support my form near the last few inns on push pull technique. When I realized things weren't working and I went with a Level 4 NTS coach, within a few months I had better endurance while shooting and more consistent scores. I can hold my sight pin with far less float.
> 
> Now, I had many questions while learning. There were moments when I wanted to say, "You want me to do what? That seems pretty hard to do." However dedication and study of the method made it work out later. I think NTS is quickly thrown out the door because people struggle with it and then give up. To me, learning NTS was like learning to drive a stick shift. At first, it's clumsy and weird and all you do is mess up. However once you learn the movement, it gets a lot smoother and you wear on the car (the shooter in this case) a lot less.
> 
> This is just my experience. I prefer NTS but I do not discourage push pull either. There are plenty of shooters doing push pull that could easily beat me. I believe what technique should be used is all dependent on the shooter and what is biologically more efficient for them.


Spot on A+ :thumbs_up


----------



## lcaillo

My experience is very similar, and my conclusions as well. I do believe that the basic biomechanics explain a lot about what is right with NTS and if more emphasis was placed on that many might understand it better, but the other perspective on that is many coaches do not have the patience to learn the anatomy and principles. The best coaches have always had an intuition about the right alignment and motion, and they get the idea pretty quickly. Teaching biomechanics to developing coaches is not so easy unless they are very dedicated to the craft.


----------



## chrstphr

rjbishop said:


> Just my 2 cents:
> 
> From learning archery on push pull technique and then transitioning to NTS, I can say my honest opinion is that NTS is an effective shooting method that does have advantages. I believe NTS is a highly effective form if trained properly. Yet, it's downside seems to be that majority get confused and dont reach the point where they can yield or teach one to yield its benefits. For me personally, before learning NTS I would shoot average scores and experience a good deal of muscle fatigue. In an Olympic round, I would find myself having to try a lot harder to support my form near the last few inns on push pull technique. When I realized things weren't working and I went with a Level 4 NTS coach, within a few months I had better endurance while shooting and more consistent scores. I can hold my sight pin with far less float.
> 
> Now, I had many questions while learning. There were moments when I wanted to say, "You want me to do what? That seems pretty hard to do." However dedication and study of the method made it work out later. I think NTS is quickly thrown out the door because people struggle with it and then give up. To me, learning NTS was like learning to drive a stick shift. At first, it's clumsy and weird and all you do is mess up. However once you learn the movement, it gets a lot smoother and you wear on the car (the shooter in this case) a lot less.
> 
> This is just my experience. I prefer NTS but I do not discourage push pull either. There are plenty of shooters doing push pull that could easily beat me. I believe what technique should be used is all dependent on the shooter and what is biologically more efficient for them.


So then you use NTS and you start shooting 650s and qualify for the OTC RA program where you can train full time and be paid. What an honor, something very few ever attain. You have finally got NTS down correctly and are using it to attain great scores and make it to the OTC. 

However once you arrive there you are told by the coaches in charge, you must change everything and now shoot the Korean push pull system or you have to leave. Doesnt matter that changing can cost you a year or more of training, possible injuries, and will set you back while you relearn everything, and possibly cost you staying at the OTC in the program because you now no longer shoot 650s. Of course making you change isnt really for your benefit. Its the law of the coaches there. Doesnt matter if it works for you or not, nor what is currently working for you. You must shoot the only form allowed there or get out. 

So to keep shooting well to make the USA team and possibly shoot at world cups and make an olympic team, you leave the program, continue with the NTS teachings of your home coach and lose out on the benefits of training full time at the OTC. 

not being sarcastic. Anyone see the problem? 

It works both ways. 

Chris


----------



## Bob Furman

Can't we all just agree to disagree?

“Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic”


----------



## GoldArcher403

chrstphr said:


> So then you use NTS and you start shooting 650s and qualify for the OTC RA program where you can train full time and be paid. What an honor, something very few ever attain. You have finally got NTS down correctly and are using it to attain great scores and make it to the OTC.
> 
> However once you arrive there you are told by the coaches in charge, you must change everything and now shoot the Korean push pull system or you have to leave. Doesnt matter that changing can cost you a year or more of training, possible injuries, and will set you back while you relearn everything, and possibly cost you staying at the OTC in the program because you now no longer shoot 650s. Of course making you change isnt really for your benefit. Its the law of the coaches there. Doesnt matter if it works for you or not, nor what is currently working for you. You must shoot the only form allowed there or get out.
> 
> So to keep shooting well to make the USA team and possibly shoot at world cups and make an olympic team, you leave the program, continue with the NTS teachings of your home coach and lose out on the benefits of training full time at the OTC.
> 
> not being sarcastic. Anyone see the problem?
> 
> It works both ways.
> 
> Chris


Well, luckily for NTS folk, Kisik Lee has a contract as head coach for another couple years. Wouldn't be surprised if he signs on another couple when that contract runs out too. I'm not saying its fair, and I agree that it is a problem to be so inclusive with technique but imagine the complications of having both push pull and NTS at the OTC. You would have to have two different branches for RA's to progress through depending on which method chosen. It would generate segregation in the team. It would expend more time and money. It probably was just seen as easier to require one style of teaching there. That's my hypothesis anyway. Am I wrong? Not dissing push pull just to be clear. I think its an equally effective method.


----------



## erose

Not every non NTS style is a push-pull system.


----------



## chang

Looking at the method of using the bigger muscle lower Trapezius and Latissimus for expansion, It doesn't need real biomechanics to see the location and direction of these 2 muscle are not in-line naturally with 2 shoulder joint for the expansion motion. 













While I can see their advantage to be stronger in strength for expansion, they also create vertical motion of the shoulder and subsequently need other muscle to compensate (efficient?)and balance the posture, and coordination is much more complex. In particular to execute the action in a stressful situation, this is where the classic method may have the advantage to be simpler and linear. 

In other sports, biomechanics application helps to understand and find different technique/method for different people based on their personal physique. It was a total surprise to me when I first read about the "biomechanics" in Total Archery.


----------



## lcaillo

You are using biomechanics when you describe any movement or forces on the body. The application may or may not be accurate, but the biomechanics is there, and we use it all the time, knowing or not. 

With respect to the use of the Lat to complete the motion as described by KSL, one needs to understand that downward force on the shoulders is absolutely necessary. Also, what is described by KSL and adopted as NTS is the completion of the final small amount of motion in the scapula, not a lot of movement at all. What differs from a more general description of shooting with "back tension" is that the scapula should retract before moving fully toward the spine. The retraction is done more with the rhomboids and deltoids. Leaving a small amount of motion to be assisted to completion by the more powerful muscles of the core makes a great deal of sense. There should still be a small amount of closing of the scapula to the spine by the smaller muscles higher in the back, but using more and more powerful muscles to complete the motion where many archers with great back tension get stuck is really the key to why KSL/NTS works. 

On the juxtaposition of KSL/NTS/and push pull methods, I have to say I am puzzled that there is so much misunderstanding of the biomechanics. The concept of the efficiency gained by using the skeletal structure more and the muscles less is common to all coaching methods. Also, whether they use the terminology or not, EVERYONE is PUSHING and PULLING. Period. Show a little respect for Mr. Newton, please. The question is how we accomplish the right amount of push and the right amount of pull at the right time and with the least effort. Most of the semantic arguments do not serve the sport well and do not contribute to understanding.

It seems to me that those who want to pit one method against another are eschewing understanding in favor of their own agenda. Sorry, but this is nonsense if we want to develop better skills.

I, for one, has found great use in what is taught by KSL, and it has improved my biomechanics and my consistency. I don't agree with everything KSL describes in what is published, but as complex as the execution of a shot is, I am sure that much more understanding has been simplified to get it to something useful. And anyone who thinks that KSL technique is too complex is simply not understanding the whole story. The shoulders are the most complex group of joints allowing incredible movements, and we are using them in a unique way under lots of stress to be incredibly accurate and precise. It is a complicated skill to learn. If we learn it well we can simplify the execution into one smooth continuous movement and not have to think of the details, but along the way in training we have to be willing to attend to those details and understand them in the context of the whole shot. KSL has done a marvelous service to the sport by describing a system in detail that can work for many, if not most, to a large degree. But make no mistake, it really is not that different from what others are doing. It is just one path to get there. The biomechanical principles are the same. The details and the description of the path are what differ.

And again, if there are coaches in the USAT programs that force archers to change in a manner that does not respect individual differences, they are just as foolish as the archer who will not take the time to understand the system before finding what can work. Both are throwing the baby out with the bathwater if they do so. But this is not unique to archery. And there has to be a system in place to develop talent. There will always be the "my way or the highway" silliness among both athletes and coaches. The wise ones know that the answers are usually some compromise that optimizes the individual.


----------



## limbwalker

> And anyone who thinks that KSL technique is too complex is simply not understanding the whole story.


Archery is 90% a mental sport. Sometimes... many times... it's better to not understand the "whole story." 

In my experience - with "less than full-time" archers - less is more. Too much information and too many steps get in the way. If you know you're going to have years to work with an archer and you'll see them on a weekly basis, then sure. Otherwise, NTS/KSL/BEST is just not going to work for the vast majority of folks. Personally, I think it should be reserved for that 10% of archers who have shown a long-term commitment to the sport, and then as you say - adapted to their individual circumstance.


----------



## lksseven

rjbishop said:


> Well, luckily for NTS folk, Kisik Lee has a contract as head coach for another couple years. Wouldn't be surprised if he signs on another couple when that contract runs out too. I'm not saying its fair, and I agree that it is a problem to be so inclusive with technique but imagine the complications of having both push pull and NTS at the OTC. You would have to have two different branches for RA's to progress through depending on which method chosen. It would generate segregation in the team. It would expend more time and money. It probably was just seen as easier to require one style of teaching there. That's my hypothesis anyway. Am I wrong? Not dissing push pull just to be clear. I think its an equally effective method.


New women's coach hire throws all that tidiness in disarray.


----------



## lksseven

"gotta have a system" ... not withstanding our system-less multiple successes prior to NTS, as opposed to our "Brady and who?" NTS-system successes in the last 12 years. And that's before we even get to NTS' inability to serve our female athletes.

NTS is a complex system that requires tremendous amounts of theory/education absorption and high-level training application. That eliminates 98% of most people interested in learning archery from being legit candidates for NTS training (98% of the VCRs in the country (when VCRs were the technology du jour) blinked 12:00 nonstop throughout their existence). Most coaches' experience is that very very very few people are willing to commit from the git-go to $1000s+ in lessons and 2k arrows/month in training volumes. And NTS' creators/administrators' insistence on "our cookie cutter way or the highway" is a blatant revenue-generation scheme that serves only the NTS admin structure. Archery excellence in some respects is like baseball pitching excellence and hitting excellence - Over-the-top, three quarters, sidearm, movement, two finger, three finger, rising fastball, tailing fastball, split finger fastball, curve, slider, forkball, across the seams, with the seams, ... cookie cutters don't work (you couldn't make Nolan Ryan mimic Greg Maddux's or Juan Marichal or Sandy Koufax or Luis Tiant pitching stride/motion and vice versa without ending up with a big fat mess of wasted talent/potential and missed achievement). Greatness under the skin is more revealed than manufactured, and is most often realized when coaches can draw out the capacities of the nature of this individual A's talent, and then draw out the capacities of the nature of this individual B's talent, which is a different nature and requires a different approach/different angle (literally). 

USA Archery's attempts to push archery into a more mainstream participation sport is at odds with the insistence on pushing this very complicated and difficult technique. Something has to give, eventually. I think that if the new womens' coach has some success in the next several years, that NTS will be on its way to being a curious footnote.


----------



## chrstphr

I bow to your greatness LKS.


Chris


----------



## wiatrog

I think that's a great analysis, LKS. Thanks!

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk


----------



## erose

*NTS Questions &amp; Answers*

I think a few points need to be made here:
1) There is zero evidence that the NTS is a superior bio-mechanical method. Anyone making that claim should supply evidence proving this. I have seen none.
2) The NTS is a good system, because there are some archers that have had some good success using the method. Is it a superior system? Overall results don't back this.
3) There is no evidence IMO that the NTS is less than or better than any other elite coached method, because you can't directly compare methods to determine true superiority. I.e. One cannot prove without a doubt that the Korean women wouldn't be having the same success using the NTS instead of their system; nor can one prove that Brady would be a more successful archer shooting like a Korean.

Personally it isn't the method that determines an archer's success, rather it's his/her work ethic and mental fortitude that determines the individual success of the archer.

Technique is just a tool to focus the archer in developing consistency, which is what archery is about right? If you can consistently pound the ten ring, you are going to be successful.

Do that better than the next guy then you are going to be better than the next guy.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lksseven

chrstphr said:


> I bow to your greatness LKS.
> 
> 
> Chris


Flatterer!

I'm not a blanket "anti-NTSer". If an archer shows up at one of my ranges and wants to learn and train NTS style, after being educated as to what kind of commitment that he/she is really needing to make, then I'll teach them NTS (to the best of my ability, and then figure out how to pass them off upstream if need be).

I prefer the 'coaching sniper' approach, as opposed to the 'coaching shotgun'er'. Every archer deserves to be in my crosshairs as an individual unique target.


PS - I'm not bashing the other fine archers who represent the USA in international competitions. But this discussion is against a high altitude backdrop of 'international podium' achievements, and NTS hasn't produced compelling results. The brain trust (and its avid supporters) should be made to answer for that, just like private business or elimination matches - "produce or bye bye".


----------



## mike 66

chrstphr said:


> I meant to list Earl and Ann Hoyt not Jim Easton in the part about previous historical incredible archers.
> 
> 
> Chris


im gonna agree ..I STAY AWAY FROM NTS...i sent a student for trials . he could pound the center, he was very good.first thing they did was try to change him. i was mad.. to say the least.he called me asap i could not believe what i heard.he spent a long time getting where he was.[ why change him when he can shoot with the best ] well to make a long story short.he quit shooting and took his own life last year. i have not got over this, dont think i ever will. Chrstphr/ i noted your post on Earl.Ann Hoyt. Ann was the real shooter there..i grew up just 2 blocks from earls house/ shop.. he use to throw rocks at me,i would raid his dumpster on sat morn. i would grab as many bows as i could . i was very young at the time . i didnt even know who they were till many years later. Earl married Ann. who was my first coach . i still help the heritage out, they started a club here many years ago for the sport.i am now now a board member there supporting archery as much as i can and coaching . but this nts system. i will have nothing to do with it. because no one is built the same .and i dont care what style they shoot as long as its in the center. [glad i got this off my chest] . just my .02


----------



## chrstphr

mike 66 said:


> im gonna agree ..I STAY AWAY FROM NTS...i sent a student for trials . he could pound the center, he was very good.first thing they did was try to change him. i was mad.. to say the least.he called me asap i could not believe what i heard.he spent a long time getting where he was.[ why change him when he can shoot with the best ] well to make a long story short.he quit shooting and took his own life last year. i have not got over this, dont think i ever will. Chrstphr/ i noted your post on Earl.Ann Hoyt. Ann was the real shooter there..i grew up just 2 blocks from earls house/ shop.. he use to throw rocks at me,i would raid his dumpster on sat morn. i would grab as many bows as i could . i was very young at the time . i didnt even know who they were till many years later. Earl married Ann. who was my first coach . i still help the heritage out, they started a club here many years ago for the sport.i am now now a board member there supporting archery as much as i can and coaching . but this nts system. i will have nothing to do with it. because no one is built the same .and i dont care what style they shoot as long as its in the center. [glad i got this off my chest] . just my .02


Thank you for speaking up, i wish more people would. There are many stories that are similar. And then we wonder why we arent doing as well as we use to. 

It must have been incredible raiding his trash for bows lol. What a great memory growing up. And what archery legends to grow up with. 


Chris


----------



## limbwalker

> .i grew up just 2 blocks from earls house/ shop.. he use to throw rocks at me,i would raid his dumpster on sat morn. i would grab as many bows as i could . i was very young at the time . i didnt even know who they were till many years later. Earl married Ann. who was my first coach . i still help the heritage out, they started a club here many years ago for the sport.i am now now a board member there supporting archery as much as i can and coaching .


I suspect we've crossed paths, somewhere in or around Forest Park - the heart and soul of American recurve target archery IMO.


----------



## chang

It may be simple to say using the lower back muscle, and it can be easy to understand, 

However, it does activate more muscle (subconsciously) for compensation and balancing.


----------



## GoldArcher403

Changing is indeed frustrating and I personally do not enjoy it, but unfortunately this is a competitive sport where the ones who adapt are the ones that go to the show. Brady busted his wrist one year during the world cup circuit. I'm sure he had a myriad of form changes after that. Yet, he pulled himself back up and adapted.


----------



## limbwalker

> Changing is indeed frustrating and I personally do not enjoy it, but unfortunately this is a competitive sport where the ones who adapt are the ones that go to the show.


So if we follow that logic, Darrell would not have a chance today because his technique is outdated. LOL 

Sorry, but this is a simple sport. Pull it back and let it go. For 10K years or so.


----------



## chang

Change and adapt, no problem, but it shall be a 2 way street.


----------



## GoldArcher403

limbwalker said:


> So if we follow that logic, Darrell would not have a chance today because his technique is outdated.


I'm not talking about forcing a transition of NTS. I already said twice that I believe other forms besides NTS work. What I'm saying is its the people who have the drive to perfect a change, NTS or not, that become great. There's a reason why the people that say "this is too hard, I'm not changing." aren't getting any better (Again, not referring to NTS specifically. I'm talking any kind of form change). Changes dont ruin shooters in most cases. Attitude does.


----------



## limbwalker

A lot of generalizations when really this sport comes down to an individual's dedication to consistency - in whatever form. That's all. Nothing more complicated than that. I would argue that if a person is a good athlete and they take the time to actually LISTEN to their own body, it will tell them what to do. Not many folks listen well enough though.


----------



## lksseven

limbwalker said:


> A lot of generalizations when really this sport comes down to an individual's dedication to consistency - in whatever form. That's all. Nothing more complicated than that. I would argue that if a person is a good athlete and they take the time to actually LISTEN to their own body, it will tell them what to do. Not many folks listen well enough though.


Bingo!


----------



## vlesiv

theminoritydude said:


> This may sound outrageous but, being in the Korean system, is like joining the Yakuza.


I have just recently joined a local korean archery club - and I confirm  interesting experience


----------



## theminoritydude

Gaijin!


----------

