# Should there be a skill requirement for USAA certifications



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Years ago, I was a serious table tennis player. My college team didn't have a coach so I became certified as a coach. In the USATT, one has to demonstrate a certain level of proficiency to move up the ranks. To achieve the higher levels of certification, one has to be pretty good. USATT has several levels-Instructor, club Coach (which I had), State, Regional, and National. Five Levels just like USAA. A regional coach which is akin to a LEVEL III NTS requires you have been a 2100 level player. A 2100 level player is a pretty high standard-and to be a National level coach you have to have been a 2300 level player. which is someone who played almost daily for several years. 2300 level players will occasionally beat players on our national team. then you have to demonstrate various strokes consistent with the level of players you will coach. a coach with only a 1400 level (which is a guy who will crush most rec room players easily) is not going to be able to return the loop drives or counter hits of a 2300 level player nor will a 1400 level coach be able to produce top spin or speed that is going to allow a 2000 level player to really get better. 

Now I understand that coaching a discipline like archery doesn't exactly translate to a sport like TT or tennis where your coach is expected to return your best shots and to generate shots that will allow you to get better. But I also note that -at least at my gun club with my NRA instructors-they require you to demonstrate pistol shooting proficiency to become certified to teach CCW classes or the NRA pistol class.

I have seen more than a few people who have held Level III, IV and V certifications who I doubt could shoot a 200/300 on a 30 arrow indoor round with a recurve. I know of coaches who have NEVER EVER competed in archery or have had more than a few times behind a bow. I am wondering what other archers and coaches think about requiring a proficiency test-say a star 1000 FITA for someone to get above a Level III or a 250 score indoors with a recurve or a 270 score with a compound or proof that you have shot that in the past?


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

I certainly think that there should be a minimum score shot to achieve coaching levels. 

I see Level 4 and 5 coaches listed that i have never seen at listed shooting a tournament, never seen on the rolling rank, never seen on any USA teams etc. If level 4 and 5 are national coaches, seems odd to me that they dont have that experience in their background. Level 4 and 5 should have a 70 meter qualification score. 

Level 1,2 and 3 which are community coaches or lower, i wouldnt expect much competition experience, but i still expect them to be able to shoot decently. Who wants to learn from someone who cant put an arrow on the paper. They should have a 40 cm qualification score. 

Of course, this would never be applied. The ones who dont shoot will vote it down. Much like term limits for Senators. 

Chris


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Yep, and with all equipment which they will coach (looking at you BB).


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I know L4 coaches that can't competently set up and tune a bow. Any kind of bow. 

Shooting aside, what kind of organization gives a person a L4 cert. when they cannot prove any working knowledge of the tool their students are using? We may as well turn archery into gymnastics and give points for form alone if that's the case.

As for proficiency, I've suggested many times that PGA certified teaching pros have to pass a playing test. I see no reason why archery should be any different. 

And yes, certifications should be validated for the discipline and not across the board. L4R or L4C or L4B, not just "L4"


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

The assumption is that one cannot be a good coach unless he/she has achieved some level of mastery himself, correct? Archery is often compared to golf. Would we make the same assumption for all of the coaches of PGA tour players?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Arcus said:


> The assumption is that one cannot be a good coach unless he/she has achieved some level of mastery himself, correct? Archery is often compared to golf. Would we make the same assumption for all of the coaches of PGA tour players?


are you aware of any successful golf coaches, working with PGA level players, who never played the game?


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Is there any National level sport that has high level coaches who never played said sport.

Gymnastics? Basketball? Baseball? Football? Hockey? Tennis? 

How about Curling? Bowling? Swimming? 

Can you imagine a Hockey Coach who never learned to skate? A swim coach who never learned to swim? A diving coach who never dived? 

Just typing this is ridiculous. And even if you found one. Basing the entire rest of coaching on one anomaly is ridiculous. 

can people really argue the opposite with any seriousness?

Perhaps its beneficial to have arm chair coaches which have no experience, so then they have no background to judge/ challenge said system in the sport. 

Chris


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

Jim C said:


> are you aware of any successful golf coaches, working with PGA level players, who never played the game?


Sorry; I guess I misunderstood. I thought you were proposing a certain level of proficiency instead of merely having archery experience.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Arcus said:


> Sorry; I guess I misunderstood. I thought you were proposing a certain level of proficiency instead of merely having archery experience.


Even caddies can play very well. And they just carry the bag. 


Chris


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

And what is wrong with proposing BOTH a certain level of proficiency as well as actual practical experience?

There is an argument that one can be a great coach yet be a poor shooter. The idea being that being a coach or instructor takes a certain skill beyond that of just shooting.

It IS true that being a coach or instructor requires additional skills.

BUT at the same time, how in Hades can a person be a coach or instructor in a subject in which they are incompetent, or worse yet, totally ignorant?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Arcus said:


> Sorry; I guess I misunderstood. I thought you were proposing a certain level of proficiency instead of merely having archery experience.


I am-not rigorous-say 250/300 on an indoor 18M event to become a LEVEL III with a recurve. 270 for a compound. 210 for BB. 

30 points lower for a Level II. slightly higher for a level IV.


----------



## iArch (Apr 17, 2015)

I agree on having skill req/proficiency test for certs. This sounds more like a "coach to coach title battle" issue rather than a problem that actually addresses the needs of the archers/members.

Some coaches obsess too much about their "resume" of certs, students, achievements. As a student, if there's something I can/want to learn from a coach, they're good enough! Screw the titles LOL.


----------



## f_thomas (Oct 12, 2006)

An interesting discussion! I am new to Olympic style archery and want to find a good coach/instructor to help me develop proper form from the beginning. I'm a former US Army helicopter pilot. My flight instructors were highly qualified and exceptional pilots and there are different levels of instructors, such as the Standardization Check Pilots who teach and test the instructor pilot - IP. 

The above discussion describes the delima I find myself in looking for a "Coach". My military experience leads me to try and find an experienced archer as a instructor / coach. You don't want tho learn engine failure and autorotation from someone who can't nail It! My hunt for a archery instructor/ coach is complicated further by living overseas.

Relevant proficiency and experience makes total sense to me.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

chrstphr said:


> Even caddies can play very well. And they just carry the bag.
> 
> 
> Chris


They do a heluva lot more than just carry a bag but yes, it's amazing how well some of the caddies can play. Which is why they are great caddies. 

I have no idea how I could help some of my higher level archers without having shot at a high level myself. It would be pure speculation and trial and error, which is what I think we have with too many of our higher level certified coaches right now who have never shot at a high enough level to understand what they need to tell their student.

I do believe some gifted coaches have the ability to process the material well enough to coach at a high level without ever having been a high level archer themselves. But those folks are few and far between. Most high level coaches are just regurgitating what they were told to say, and if their students are lucky and stick with it, using the experience they have with that student (guinea pig) to know how to make adjustments from there. 

At a minimum, there should be a merit-based certification system and I don't mean just being a team manager on an international trip. That's not coaching. Our current cert. system without any merit-based recognition is simply a test in memorization, money and time. While it's important for a coach to be able to remember the steps they are teaching, exactly what happens once their student learns all those steps and then cannot score very well because their bow is not set up properly, their arrows are not correctly chosen, or they have no idea how to shoot in the wind? Hmmmm?

And that's not even scratching the surface of teaching the mental game, which is best learned through experience. Even Lanny Bassham himself needed his personal experience to develop his mental management system.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> And what is wrong with proposing BOTH a certain level of proficiency as well as actual practical experience?


Absolutely nothing. Which is why every student I coach makes me a better coach. Because I learn something from all of them.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

f_thomas said:


> An interesting discussion! I am new to Olympic style archery and want to find a good coach/instructor to help me develop proper form from the beginning. I'm a former US Army helicopter pilot. My flight instructors were highly qualified and exceptional pilots and there are different levels of instructors, such as the Standardization Check Pilots who teach and test the instructor pilot - IP.
> 
> The above discussion describes the delima I find myself in looking for a "Coach". My military experience leads me to try and find an experienced archer as a instructor / coach. You don't want tho learn engine failure and autorotation from someone who can't nail It! My hunt for a archery instructor/ coach is complicated further by living overseas.
> 
> Relevant proficiency and experience makes total sense to me.


I think what a lot of people don't understand or won't admit is that eventually, almost every student - if they progress far enough - is going to seek out a coach who they have confidence in, and once a student becomes a proficient archer, confidence comes in the form of someone who has "been there and done that." 

I have gained my share of students because of this. This is not a criticism of any of their former coaches, or coaches who have lower level certifications. But at some point the student will need a higher level of instruction and archery students tend to be pretty smart as a rule. They quickly figure out if their coach knows more than they do. Most don't stay with coaches who don't know more than they do. Some are very loyal and will, but it's rare. And this goes not just for students but also parents. They often know when their child is more advanced than their child's coach, and will start seeking out more experienced coaching for their kid.

I know my limits as a coach and have been very up front about them with several of my high-achieving students who eventually went on to train at the OTC. A good coach knows their limits and hopefully helps their students find their next coach when they outgrow them. 

Relevant proficiency and experience doesn't just make total sense to you. It does to a lot of people. I'm not sure why we have gotten to the point we have in archery certifications.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Jim -

To be blunt - YES. 

I know too many L3 and L4 "coaches" who shouldn't be allowed in the same room as a bow. Forget the L1 and L2 pay to play types.
In fact, I know a number who flat out won't shoot in front of their students - and for good reason. 

The "coach" doesn't need to be n Olympic level shooter, but he does need to be able to demonstrate what he's teaching and show the results. 

Most of the people I teach came to me because they saw me shoot. I think that says a lot.

Viper1 out.


----------



## Cuthbert (Nov 28, 2005)

Viper1 said:


> Jim -
> 
> To be blunt - YES.
> 
> ...


What he said.


----------



## camperjim (Oct 22, 2016)

I wonder how well Kisik Lee can shoot.

At one time, coaching in most sports was based on the former star athletes passing on their techniques and training methods. Maybe there are reasons that is necessary for archery, but for most sports that approach is long out of date. Look at football coaches for college or pro teams. None would last 5 minutes on the field. Most never achieved much recognition or proficiency as strong athletes. The head coach has become a team leader with scouts, recruiters, play analysts, physical trainers, offensive and defensive specialists, sports psychologists and others involved. So maybe what happens with team sports is irrelevant. Then we should look at the shooting sports such as Olympic riflery. Due to military competition starting in the cold war and national pride, there has been a much more developed and sophisticated approach to coaching. Again, we find that coaching by the equivalent of the star athlete has been replaced or at least greatly supplemented. Shooters are being wired up to EEGs and motion detectors, all sorts of bio monitors and high speed cameras. Everything about the shot cycle has been studied including breathing, pupil size, blinking, and heart rate. It was discovered that top athletes control their heart beats and can consistently have the shot break between beats. Advanced knowledge has changed the approaches to training and coaching. I was taught by a former Olympian but his ability to shoot a rifle did little to improve my shooting beyond just learning the basics.

I believe someone mentioned the mental aspects of archery. Clearly, especially at a high level, the mental aspects are more important than the physical. In the past it was up to the individual to learn to cope and excel under pressure. Training in this area was merely a matter of experience and time. That approach appears to be out of date at least for most sports. Within the past couple of decades, sports psychology has become an important part of training and coaching. The techniques of sports psych are likely to become even more sophisticated and important. Those who are the experts and the teachers and the coaches for the most important aspects of sports proficiency are rarely those who have any actual proficiency in the sport involved. Again, maybe archery is different but I don't see why. I suspect archery is just one of the minor sports where coaching has not progressed as much as it has for some other sports.


----------



## iArch (Apr 17, 2015)

Viper1 said:


> Most of the people I teach came to me because they saw me shoot. I think that says a lot.


There are some coaches who SHOULD shoot in front of their students...and some who shouldn't. Monkey see monkey do.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

I don't think there is any difference of opinion here. What I see is a practical issue. USAA needs a coaching infrastructure to drive growth. As that infrastructure and growth becomes mature, it can then refine it. 

Golf instruction has been used as a model. But golf in its infancy had little structure for coaching. It wasn't until much later that standards were put in place. As a niche sport which is growing, USAA cannot be very fussy with who is coaching the sport. Is that time close? Perhaps. Should the sport be exacting about competence in coaching at its upper levels? I think that time is upon us.


----------



## Tbarkeriii (Jun 24, 2016)

> I know my limits as a coach and have been very up front about them with several of my high-achieving students who eventually went on to train at the OTC. A good coach knows their limits and hopefully helps their students find their next coach when they outgrow them.


John is correct here. Sometimes it is just adding to the team. But, let's be careful here to not throw out the "little league" coaches who are trying to learn as much as they can to help teach fundamentals to the beginners and help with talent identification. I think there is a difference between certification and access to knowledge. I am ok with letting "instructors" "audit" level 4 clinics to acquire knowledge on mechanics and tuning who can't shoot too well themselves. It's a good thing in long term athlete development that the beginners coaches and instructors have sound grounding in technique and equipment.


----------



## bowmaster1972 (Oct 22, 2012)

I would prefer to see a bow speciality listed on the certification. I know a few upper level coaches who have all their shooting experience in compound. Are they really a good choice for a recurve shooter? Same would be said for the reverse. I am a recurve shooter and coach. While I can get a compound archer started, I don't know enough about that equipment to really provide technical support to a more advanced shooter. 

To play a little of "Devil's advocate", just because someone can shoot a certain score, does not mean that person would be a good coach and vise versa. A recent example would be Joe Madden, manager of the Chicago Cubs. He never made it above single A ball, but his managerial skills are highly respected. I tend to put more emphasis on a coaches achievements with their students over how the coach did individually.


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

This is a great thread!

Coaching is definitely a skill that is completely different and separate from archery. I know many high level archers who would be a complete disaster as a coach.

I do agree, however, that a degree of proficiency should be required for coaches. I do not think they need to be high scores, but they do need to know how to actually shoot and perform the required maintenance tasks. I would say, however, this would be with a certain equipment class. OR, compound, and barebow recurve are very different disciplines and it is not realistic for any coach to master all of them. I think that equipment class should be stated along with the credential.

Note also that there is a distinction between instructors and coaches. The former is more procedural and the latter is more about human performance.

In total, I think the USAA certifications are a good thing that should improve over time. It is certainly better than no certifications and only word-of-mouth.

Finally, I think it is common to work more than shoot as you move up the archery ranks. I know many who struggle with that. Age can also make it infeasible for the coach to perform at the same level as the athlete, and coaching is often a way to give back to the sport.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Let the market decide if anyone who has been certified by the current system can end up being a successful coach. If someone is a certified L3 or higher, they are going to be dealing with experienced shooters who should have little difficulty realizing that the person they are going to for help is useless.

There are already too many rules and regulations to start demanding that prospective coaches meet arbitrary performance standards.

And besides, who sets the standard? What qualifies anyone or any committee to decide what is the magic number? And if it does get set at, say, 1200 FITA round for recurve, why that particular number? How is it significantly better than 1199? Are you going to deny a potentially valuable coach from developing further because of one 9 that was just out on his PB round from 15 years ago?

Just curious, don't know his competitive record, but would Al Henderson have been able to qualify under some performance standard?

No, the problem in the USA and Canada regarding competitive archery, especially among the recurve women, is not ineffuctual coaching, it's the lack of truly motivated archers.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

John, I do like your LR, LC, LB idea. Got a couple of well respected top level recurve coaches in my club who don't want to have anything to do with compounds, or just don't have a clue about them. Not criticizing them for it in any way, as it's their preference and they have a right to choose what type of archery they want to participate in, same as the shooters do.

There is enough difference between the 3 main disciplines (or rather, the 2 main disciplines and the other one ) that some degree of coach specialization should be developed.


----------



## GoldArcher403 (Jun 25, 2014)

I have often thought USA Archery is much to lax when it comes to certifying people. Where I live, there are about as many level 3 coaches as there are blades of grass on my lawn. I have found that many of these L3's do not shoot themselves, have little to no knowledge on equipment and or tuning, and often do not really know how to coach. Some do, but many do not. If it were up to me, the certification process would be much more demanding and strict.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> They do a heluva lot more than just carry a bag.


I was being facetious. 


Chris


----------



## RickBac (Sep 18, 2011)

skimming through this, I see a general consensus of yes. I feel it should be Level 3 and higher. While Level 3 is still a community Level, they are supposed to be proficient and not just to set up a JOAD club.

I had a Level 3 ask me when is it time to put a plunger on a recurve bow. I was floored. I know Level 4's who have never shot a bow in competition, ever.

A coach here that does a lot of Coach Certification Classes puts in an element of bow set up. It is needed desperately. 

If you are going to take coaching any sport seriously, your learning does not stop at taking the certification test. I try to gather all the knowledge I can. As I become a more proficient coach I can decipher how much is valuable and how much is crap.

Bow set up, mental strength, various shooting forms, helping students through personal struggles, etc. all part of being a good coach.

USA Archery's responsibility should fall on not just shot cycle but on bow set up, mental toughness, tournament competition and running a tournament, just to name a few.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I wonder how well Kisik Lee can shoot.


I think some people forget, or never knew, that Lee was an elite level national team shooter before he was ever a coach.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I had a Level 3 ask me when is it time to put a plunger on a recurve bow. I was floored. I know Level 4's who have never shot a bow in competition, ever.


I've seen worse. And I too was floored.

I would NEVER presume to be a L4 compound coach for instance. I'm doing good to shoot deer at 20 yards with my compound. But I know my share of L4 coaches who are compound experts and probably no next to nothing about barebow for example.

Yes, the very first change I would make to the cert. system is to make it equipment specific. 2nd change is to add a barebow component. A serious one.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> between the 3 main disciplines (or rather, the 2 main disciplines and the other one


LOL. All you gotta do for the "other one" is teach folks how to burn incense, mind meld and channel the force.


----------



## Rylando (Jul 30, 2016)

I find it very odd that the coaching certifications are not specific to a bow style. In fencing you have Foil coaches, Sabre coaches and Epee coaches. Some may intertwine between them but they're not a homogenized lump. Same for martial arts. 

I can't see why USAA would be against this, they could make THREE times as much for someone to be certified in all three fields


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rylando said:


> I find it very odd that the coaching certifications are not specific to a bow style. In fencing you have Foil coaches, Sabre coaches and Epee coaches. Some may intertwine between them but they're not a homogenized lump. Same for martial arts.
> 
> I can't see why USAA would be against this, they could make THREE times as much for someone to be certified in all three fields


Ryland, don't give them any ideas. Esp. when you have so many still to earn! LOL


----------



## Rylando (Jul 30, 2016)

limbwalker said:


> Ryland, don't give them any ideas. Esp. when you have so many still to earn! LOL


Lol! I better hurry up so I can get grandfathered in!

I'm curious what people's opinion is on, forgive me if I'm wrong I'm working off of old memory, that to get certain coaching certs you have to coach X atheletes to world teams. Why not replace that (or make it another option) with requiring the person seeking that certification to have made a world team, USAT, or top x% or something similar at nationals? 

I can see arguments for and against that. Against that being yeah but they didn't coach themselves there (theoretically). For that being that if they got to that point they most likely internalized all that information and teaching that got them there and (theoretically) can teach that to someone else now.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

L5 is the only cert. I know of that requires a coach to prove they have coached archers to national teams, etc. It also requires international "coaching" experience, but IMO taking a group of archers on an international trip , while an important skill, does not prove a coach knows how to prepare athletes for international competition. It just proves they can manage travel and scheduling.


----------



## Rylando (Jul 30, 2016)

Do you (or anyone else, chime in) think that requiring someone to have been on a world team, USAT, or similar level of achievement is too much to ask for the high(est) levels of certification? Should it replace the coaching someone to an international level requirement? Maybe make it an option so they could bypass the having coached someone to that level part?

To me I feel like the archer that has competed at that international level has much more experience (that's useful for competition) than someone who has only coached someone to that level and never personally shot at it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yes. If a coach has proven then can take someone to an elite level, whether or not they were ever there themselves, then I think that is sufficient. But they have to prove that. I know plenty of coaches who get credit for getting archers to elite levels but in fact the archer would have been there with or without that coach.

What I would say is that a coach who has been there themselves, will have an easier time getting an archer there. There is a reason that so many world class coaches were once world class competitors themselves. They just have more experience in those shoes, period.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Yes there should be some measure of compentecy.
Would I qualify? Not sure, but I do shoot. Competed compound for years. 
Even if its not a "set number" there should be some sort of verification of knowing how to shoot, how to setup and tune the equipment, etc. not just classroom testing but an evaluation their understanding of the sport.

PSIA/AASI national ski and snowboard associations as well as USSA (racing coaches) requires a very high standard for certification. Pass rates for L3 are in the 5-10% nationally. Of those taking the exams probably 95% of the examined at L3 are FULL TIME instructors during the winter months. And thats just the proficiency part. Then they have to prove that know how to teach/coach as well. Pass rates for L2 and L1 are higher but they are not just "gimme" certifications. In some divisions the candidates do have to run gates at a pretty high level too. We used to have to go into the terrain park and show some proficiency as well. We didn't have to throw big air, but we were expected to be able to do more than just ski through.


----------



## ausmzoo (Sep 16, 2015)

I do not agree at all that a high level coach needs to be a (very) good athlete. I also come from table tennis but not in the US. I had the highest national coaching license and I was a national coach in two different countries. I have administrated courses for new coaches and I have seen so many high-level athletes that would have been great coaches as I have seen players of low level that turned into great coaches. I have also seen high-level athletes that had absolutly no coaching skills (as I have seen low level players with no coaching skills. If there are coaches with high level certificates that are not good then the courses are not good enough. Of course high-level athletes have some advantages when becoming coaches but that doesn´t mean that they are automatically better coaches. A good coach understands the sport, knows the scientific basics (periodisation, biomecanics, and so on) and is able to adapt them to every athlete. And of course he knows how to teach.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

ausmzoo said:


> ...And of course he knows how to teach.


There's also the thought that good teachers are not necessarily good coaches (they can be). But just because one might be able to convey "how to do something" well, even demonstrate how to do that something (ie actually shoot), does not mean they know how to look at a good or even great athlete, Figure out what drives them, and turn that into an elite athlete. A good coach needs to (or at least should) be able to do just that.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

iArch said:


> I agree on having skill req/proficiency test for certs. This sounds more like a "coach to coach title battle" issue rather than a problem that actually addresses the needs of the archers/members.
> 
> Some coaches obsess too much about their "resume" of certs, students, achievements. As a student, if there's something I can/want to learn from a coach, they're good enough! Screw the titles LOL.


I have seen this before, where some coaches don't want to work with kids who have challenges because that student is most likely not going to make USAT or win a bunch of titles. Or they will glom onto a promising shooter someone else has developed and then claim that archer as their own.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I do not agree at all that a high level coach needs to be a (very) good athlete


 Not sure who you are disagreeing with because I didn't see where anyone said that.


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

List the great coaches and compare their shooting skills. Is there a correlation and are there any who were not skilled shooters?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Of course there are always exceptions and every great coach has a combination of experiences that made them so. 

The question I would ask is that all else remaining equal, would you want YOUR coach to have been a high level competitor at one point, or not? I don't know anyone who - again, all else being equal - would say no. This falls under the heading of "common sense."

Lannie Bassham went on from his career as a Gold Medal winning shooter to become an elite shooting coach. Does anyone honestly think he was only teaching the mental game to his shooters? 

Yes, there are elite coaches who have never been elite shooters. But I bet if you asked them, they would have preferred that they were.


----------



## StarDog (Feb 17, 2007)

I think there should be an ability to coach someone else to be better requirement. Just because someone has a coaching whats is doesn't mean diddly to me. All it means is they passed some test. I have more business coaching than most of these people. Because I know how to get people to get it into the middle. And I'm not a level anything coach. Because I really don't care to go down that road except for safe sport at this point.

One of the coaches at our place shoots like crap (target panic of epic proportions). I told her I don't care about HER shooting, I care about her ability to communicate t me about MY shooting. That was very important for her to hear.

Met a guy who I can beat blind folded. He was all about having a coach who could outshoot him and he bragged about that.. He is in my opinion "uncoachable" . God couldn't help this man.

That doesn't mean my friend doesn't know what it should feel and look like. She does. And she can communicate that and people get better. I know she wants to shoot well, but that's the real deal with coaching -- helping someone else to get better.

Even the Level 3 coach at our place is not capable of helping recurve people even set up a bow. Seriously.

The head coach -- entirely another matter. She knows her stuff, she is a very good coach. Level 4. Worth every dime.


----------



## StarDog (Feb 17, 2007)

and oh yes, the head coach wins.


----------



## 1/2 Bubble Off (Dec 29, 2016)

I volunteer to teach/coach kids every Saturday during the winter. Most of them never touched a bow till they showed up at the club. Of the 3 coaches, none of us are certified. (I did look into getting certified but wasn't able to pull off the classes with my work schedule) In fact, I never even considered competing (outside of a few beer bets while shooting 3D with my buddies) with a bow until my daughter started shooting. She doesn't really have a desire to hunt (I'm still hopeful) but she loves shooting targets. (she's pretty good too... see pic below) So, I started entering in local tourneys/leagues so I could help her through the "tournament process".

Do I think I could coach a shooter to National/World class??? I don't know right now (probably not) but... I might be able to answer this question in a few years!!! The point I'm trying to make is, just because someone hasn't shot competitively doesn't mean they aren't great shooters and unable to pass on valuable knowledge to shooters who do shoot competitively. This being said, if/when my daughter decides she wants to pursue competitive archery completely, I'm not going to a hunting club looking for a coach. I'm going to look for the best coach with the most accomplished resume I can afford. 









My daughters trophy shelf... She's 10


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

lcaillo said:


> List the great coaches and compare their shooting skills. Is there a correlation and are there any who were not skilled shooters?


In my experience I cannot think of any "great" coaches who were not skilled shooters at some point in their career.


----------



## fango0000 (Mar 16, 2011)

lcaillo said:


> List the great coaches and compare their shooting skills. Is there a correlation and are there any who were not skilled shooters?
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk


I think you had to have competed at a high level at some point in your career to gain the insight and sympathy to the struggles and experiences that the athlete goes through. Here at UC Davis, Katherine and I have personally competed in the regional and national collegiate tournaments as well as the USATs (and still currently compete USATs) and we both feel that it gives us the experience to coach and prepare our athletes for high pressure situations like medal elimination matches and team rounds. We also make sure that the club team captains have attended at least a regional and national level tournament as well because they pass down wisdom to the new recruits and help support them on the shooting line where the coaches can't be.


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> The question I would ask is that all else remaining equal, would you want YOUR coach to have been a high level competitor at one point, or not? I don't know anyone who - again, all else being equal - would say no. This falls under the heading of "common sense."


At the risk of being categorized as lacking common sense, I'll ask this: Would a coach who produces elite archers trump the importance of him being at one time a high level archer?


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

It would, if you could find one. My point was exactly what has been said. I can't think of any. I think this is a case where the common sense aligns with the empirical data. Anyone who would make the case for not requiring experience should be able to produce examples. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk


----------



## camperjim (Oct 22, 2016)

fango0000 said:


> ......... Here at UC Davis, Katherine and I have personally competed in the regional and national collegiate tournaments as well as the USATs (and still currently compete USATs) and we both feel that it gives us the experience to coach and prepare our athletes for high pressure situations like medal elimination matches and team rounds..............


I am curious. How do you coach athletes to perform in high pressure situations? What does your experience contribute to your approach?

The reason I am curious is that I have not seen any techniques other than positive reinforcement and ongoing competition practice.


----------



## iArch (Apr 17, 2015)

I prefer a coach who can kick my butt blindfolded over a coach that I can outshoot. I think there are many other students like me that have a tendency to not listen to people who can't outshoot them.


----------



## sprinke (Jul 9, 2015)

I definitely think some proficiency should probably be required, but struggle with how that might be implemented. Case in point: some of the best coaches in our club were people who picked up the sport later in life. They spent a few years shooting and practicing, but never had the time nor money to get to really high level of competition. Then, because of need, they put their personal archery to the side to help the club with instruction and eventually coaching. They still love the sport and are dedicated to helping young archers progress, but at the cost of their own development. There is something to be said for people who have the gift of teaching.


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

For most talented shooters, generally, there's a time when you can "snatch the pebble from the coach's hand". Often that's when you can learn more from the same coach.


----------



## Stephen Morley (Aug 11, 2016)

Our head Olympic Coach still holds national records from the 90's and I have a lot of respect for him as a Coach, another Coach (IFAA) shooting BB can barely shoot 200 on a 300 Indoor round and most of the students from that club appear to have very poorly tuned bows. I suppose we have both ends of the scale lol

Team girls are doing well under his guidance Olympic Freestyle girls team picked up Bronze at Europeans, and the Jnr girls Compound won Gold last week at Euro Indoors.

For a good Coach/student relationship a level of trust and respect helps with progress, knowing your Coach was a half decent shot in his day helps a lot towards building that relationship (for me at least).


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Arcus said:


> At the risk of being categorized as lacking common sense, I'll ask this: Would a coach who produces elite archers trump the importance of him being at one time a high level archer?


Like I said, there's a lot that goes into being a great coach. Do great interpersonal skills trump having a single student shoot at the elite level? Maybe so. We could play this game all day but in the end, most folks will take the coach who has been a high level archer over the one who never was, all other things being equal.

Being able to put into words, the things a person has learned in order to compete at a high level, is difficult at best. But at least they have it to draw from. Someone who has never competed at a high level won't even have that, but through experience could see how their archers handled the same situations, and learn from them. 

Both are valuable means to gain experience. Unfortunately, the current certification system rewards neither.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

The distinction I would make is this. Archery is a pure execution sport. You shoot, it either goes 10 or on bale or wide or whatever. Beyond some mental tactics, you can't "scheme" for a successful round in a meaningful fashion. The archer can either make the number or not. Nor does hustling effort matter. You do have to show up head in the game, and mental might be incremental, but hard work at the tournament isn't going to beat a better archer with superior scores.

So, my response would be, US Soccer coach Bruce Arena appeared for the US once, in a meaningless friendly, barely played pro soccer, had a longer lacrosse career. Bill Belichick played division 3 college football, lacrosse, and squash. There are plenty of examples of that in team sports. But those are team sports and scheme and motivation matter more.

In archery, the primary things that matter are setup and form. Secondarily fitness and mental management. The individual is the focus and they are either capable of execution at the highest levels or not. The coach, to be able to produce those kinds of competitors, has to know enough to create that level of setup and execution and mentality. You can't sign a team of veteran older archers who aren't individually as good and win games with a scheme like New England. Each individual archer is judged on their merits. While achieving something with a mediocre competitor might be a great feat relative to the clay that was molded, if you're talking top archers, you need to be able to tweak them to make them even better. In theory one could read a book and coach well, but the more likely scenario for someone knowing all the ins and outs to produce top notch quality would be having been there themselves and/or having shared information with other leading archers (also while being there).

The real test should probably be "throughput" as opposed to "coach performance" because you want to know if the student can shoot, not you. But I think that's more likely to be produced if the coach not only "knows" what they are doing but has also "done it."


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Here is my 2 cents on the question.

1) The whole system needs to be revised in that we need to understand that you have two different types of coaches out there. Those who do it out of love for the sport, and those that do it because their kid(s) love the sport. There is a huge difference here, and you will find both types of coaches as head coaches of JOAD clubs. These two types of coaches have significantly different needs. This really needs to be addressed in the certification system.

2) The coaches that get into it because of their kids, need and are looking for knowledge so that they can help their kids. These types of folks become coaches because quite frankly if their kids are going to participate in archery, they have to. They are in areas where there is no archery, or the current local coaches they have no trust in. So USAA or some other organization, to help these men and women, need to and should provide coaching clinics, for both them and their children, so both can progress. An idea would be is to have an USAA archery clinic(s) where the kids get coached by knowledgeable coaches while the parent is going through a coaching clinic themselves with a knowledgeable coach to give them the knowledge to reinforce with their children what they are learning in the clinic they are taking. Also USAA or some other organization should be providing coaching clinics that are targeted for the growth of the coach, which is something that has been discussed on this thread. Having modules on topics such as the various archery disciplines, as well as, bow tuning, mental management, club or program management, etc. that aren't tied to a certification would be a great way to growing the knowledge of these coaches. Another thing would be an easy to access knowledge center for said coach and perhaps even a mentor coach that they can contact when they are have questions they can't find answers to. 

3) The folks that coach because they want to pass on their love of the sport to the next generation, obviously doesn't need as much instruction and knowledge on the art of archery than the guy or gal above that I described. For these folks what they need more than anything is club management and overall coaching skills. Clinics and modules that focus on these needs would be what they need. Forcing these folks to go through clinics to get certified, that they themselves could teach is just plain a waste of time and money on their part.

4) So what to do? I think that the certification system needs to be separated from the clinics. To get certified should be dependent upon that person's ability to display his or her knowledge of the sport, i.e. though exams, practical tests, past and current accomplishments, etc.; and not the ability to regurgitate what they just heard in a classroom environment. Seriously how many people would fail to get certified as a level one or two after taking the class and right afterwards taking the test? USAA should provide coaching clinics and on-line learning modules that help coaches to become more knowledgeable in the sport. Some examples of modules and focused clinics that they can provide are: NTS recurve system, NTS compound system, Barebow, Bow tuning for recurve, for compound, for barebow, mental management, club administration, coaching kids, coaching adults, coaching para-archers, basic training techniques, intermediate training techniques, advanced training techniques, periodization training for archers, etc. After the level one certification, have future certifications based upon what modules and clinics they participate in, and their ability to show their understanding of those topics. Then for those who are going after the more advanced certifications add a skill level requirement, and the ability to show their coaching skills. 

Anyway my this is my 2 cents.

Another thing real quick. I really don't get the BS about the difference between instructor and coach, and the idea that one isn't a coach until they get their level 3 certification, especially considering a level 2 "instructor" can be a head "coach" of a JOAD club. This is just plain stupid. I can see calling an Explore Archery instructor, just that an instructor; but if you are a level 2 or for that matter a level one certified "instructor" involved in "coaching" a JOAD club, you are coaching, and are not just an instructor. So this idea of their being a difference between a coach and an instructor based upon what level of certification one has is just plain illogical. You are either a coach or an instructor based upon what kind of program you are running or participating in.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I think a smart archer looking for a coach should consider coach's personal success alongside that coach's record of productivity. But I don't think personal performance should be a short cut into the profession because, can you actually coach? And even if a score probably hints you know most of the content in a few levels in your sleep, we want the coach sitting through the classes. If there were no tenure requirements to going up levels, and one could pass the tests, perhaps a personal score could be a proxy for what level you should start at. But once you're started, if we require year(s) of tenure to rise, ok, you have students now during those years, how do they do? Be a little like asking me what my GPA, SAT, LSAT were, and not how many cases do I win, having been doing this for years.

I'd stick to the student-based assessments as opposed to coach's performance. I think an experienced and successful coach is more likely to produce those kind of students in turn. But I think their performance begs the question in terms of coaching ability. If we're talking doing this with levels 3, 4, 5, how have their students done?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

There are a lot of group coaches in this sport, but far fewer individual coaches who have taken on the great responsibility of a single archer's career, often for years. Big difference in those two things. I do like how the L5 requires a coach to have a student make USAT or podium at major event. That's just common sense.

erose makes a good point - abeit a bit off topic - about parent coaches vs. coaches. Huge difference. I've sadly learned that there are very, very few people who care enough about other people's kids to volunteer their time to coach them, long term. The vast majority are only there as long as their kids are, and then they are gone, which is a real shame.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

One thing I really would like to see is setting up a system of mentor coaches, i.e. having level 5s setup as mentors of a group of level 4s, 4s mentoring an assigned group of 3s, and 3s some 2s. Of course all of this would be voluntary. I don't know if this would be a good thing in today's situation, if what is being said on this thread is true, with having 3s and 4s not knowing what they are doing. I'm just thinking about ideas of disseminating information from THE head coach down the pipe line.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

At the lowest levels, we're talking about basic skill knowledge and safety so that a JOAD with some parent leaders can be a little more informed and as much more safe as possible. Ideally the people from that JOAD can find people with more knowledge if they enjoy it, but in that context it's like teeball or kiddie soccer, the real idea is try it and see if you enjoy it. I don't think I had a coach who had played soccer until the 4th grade and I turned out fine.

Other end of the spectrum you're talking about elite coaches in their own right or people who either are or aspire to be the national team coach or his support staff. If they care about the credential, and if the core concept is funneling towards the national team coach, the credential should reflect whether they can in fact productively coach.

I might push along, in the middle, high individual performers, but I'm leery of doing that very high up the totem pole because I want them promoted on coaching and not their own archery. Conversely, I don't want someone who is either just a coach, or who has never been a big deal themselves, but who can in fact coach (somehow), to be held back if they are coaching up a bunch of super kids. I can't imagine there would be many, but I'd leave the door open for some superparent who helped coach a high quality archer child and then proceeded into coaching others, or some other scenario where someone hung around the edges enough to learn something but never picked up the sport itself at a high level. I think it's much less likely than in team sports, but I think individual performance either shouldn't be a factor, should be a modest demand, should be a factor that can be offset, and that their students' performances should be primary.


----------



## BrandonMReeves (Dec 27, 2016)

My two cents as a new archery parent:

While I have the benefit of having a local store/range nearby that offers a JOAD program, this is not the same I've seen in my business travels in the Western US. I know we're lucky, as my kids have a great coach who is always looking to increase his own skills and training, keeps his bow(s) on hand at the range for practical demonstrations in front of the kids, and who shoots regularly (placed well in the recurve flights this year in Vegas, with other students close behind) in local and national competitions, as time permits. He also works in the shop and carries a good deal of equipment knowledge forward for families like mine.


Coming from automotive, motorcycles, and motorsports, a few of the challenges I've experienced include:


There are a number of sanctioning bodies and competitive organizations (USAA/NAA, NFAA, CBH/SAA are a few we encounter) that alone provide for a great deal of confusion to the new archer when they are first looking to enter the sport and possibly compete

The lack of equivalent resources nationally for all archers (good local shops and ranges providing this infrastructure) makes it difficult to achieve parity in information and support for a lot of people who would otherwise rely on coaches and other shooters, often providing anecdotal information that may not always be the most current or even correct, as well as being relegated to equipment purchases through a single online resource who's main purpose is generating sales first, customer support second and very far after the fact

No universal definitions of shooters, ages (what makes a shooter a Bowman, Cub, or Cadet in USAA, NFAA, and CBH are not strictly aligned, and may vary by just a few months in a calendar year), classifications, equipment (Simplicity says what is recurve in one organization, may be called FITA or Olympic Recurve in another), etc..., which provides yet another level of confusion to the new, and sometimes seasoned archer, as minor differences in these definitions reduce clarity when an archer is looking to compete across sanctioning organizations

The sport as a whole, compared to my other experiences, suffers on several levels from a lack of focused marketing and PR, and isn't necesarrily all that welcoming to outsiders. My family has lived just a few miles from a facility for over five years, and only recently tried it in the last couple of years after my kids experienced archery at an outdoor, hunting, and fishing trade-show. Manufacturers seem to have unhitched themselves from this end of the sports support, but should instead be the major driving resources behind unification of rules and classifications, and revamping anything that becomes a hinderance to the sports growth, including qualifications for high-level coaches


Having a coach who has done more than sat through several hours of a certification course is really imperative in my mind. Someone that has shot competitively, and at a higher level, does have a certain amount of clout when they speak about the things your kids (or you) need to do to improve. Helping you buy and set up the right equipment the first time, working within budgets, is also very helpful. If you don't shoot, how can you speak to quality of one piece of equipment over another, except to regurgitate the sales literature supplied by the manufacturers? As well, if competitive shooting is in your (or your kids) future, it is good to know that the person you are relying on to help you achieve that has been down that path, and can help clarify many of the confusing pieces of information that are out there.

Lastly, as a parent supporting two young (13 and under) shooters, both with their own goals and achievements in mind, they take teaching more seriously from someone who has shown they can and have achieved a higher level of expertise as a competitive shooter themselves. When your kid's coach shows up on a tournament results roster posting a 285/300-290/300, they tend to get a lot more attentive when the coach talks after that. And it makes me feel better about the money I'm investing in them and this sport. Having someone with the qualifications and credentials is very important, not just in their ability to teach and coach, but to guide as well, and that is something that hasn't necessarily been touched on in many of the previous comments. Guidance as a skill, like it is in parenting, often comes from someone who has had the experiences from which they can confidently speak.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

All the things Brandon says are spot on. Only in archery is common sense suspended to support instructor certifications that are completely unburdened by results.


----------



## smird (Sep 14, 2013)

Hi parent here also. I've got a 12 year old that's been in JOAD for 4 years and is just now starting to really move up in competitions. We've had 4 different coaches in that time, they come and go from the shop. All of them have had experience shooting. But her current coach is quite good and competes regularly. The increase in her skill set since he's been teaching her is better by a magnitude.

At one of our classes our coach was working with a young lady is very good(I expect great things from her). Anyways she was tired or cranky that night and was having none of it, and blurted out "I SHOOT BETTER THAN YOU!"
He stopped grabbed his gear challenged her to a quick comp. Beat her soundly and she was more open to instruction from then on. I think she forgot that she gets a higher score but shoots at a much bigger target. 

I just a couple weeks ago got my level 2 cert. Been shooting on/off for 30 years mostly compound, self taught. But I least have some back ground. I got it mostly to help out my daughter. Also to take some pressure off the coach with constant stream of new kids that come for a few lessons and find it's not for them. Also to back him up at competitions.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I think the sport is "welcoming to outsiders," I think marketing and awareness is the real issue. It is something that people tend to enjoy when they try, and to be welcomed by participants and coaches when they arrive. However, it is something, as you say, where you could live "a few miles from a facility" and have no idea the sport exists in either a modern or traditional concept, or is being practiced by people that far away. But not "welcoming?" No. I've done stuff like sailing where the yachties can be aloof and seemingly interested in people who either have impressive things or are already good at the sport, which makes it not that "welcoming" for noobs who show up with used equipment working on their skills. They also have little public access to coaching to improve. In comparison to that, track, soccer, archery, every other sport I've done is more welcoming. At least in the big city archery is actually great in terms of access to coaching.

I still think the primary test of higher levels should be coaching performance itself. Your own score is at best an indirect proxy for how well you can teach your students. I do think the informed student should make themselves aware and use that information. But I don't know if I want it as a bar to promotion. Even if it was, I'd say there should be some sort of subjective "I know Harold and he knows his crap" exception that could be used for cases where someone has an injury, can't shoot anymore, or doesn't shoot but has a reputation of knowledge.

I mean, I generally find it convincing that with the nature of the sport the best coaches will be current or former competitors who learn the lessons along the way. But an absolute rule? I don't know about that.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

When I job hunted years ago some federal jobs in my field would be like, we will consider people with a master's in the discipline, or x amount of experience, or a bachelor's but only with >x GPA. Viewed one way, it treats each of these qualifications as similar. Master's = experience = high undergrad GPA in a sense. But it also creates different demands for the applicant depending on their qualifications. Someone with a master's doesn't have to have the undergrad GPA or the experience, so to speak. So if people really wanted performance considered, maybe it's an alternative route in with its own set of other application demands.

But I don't know if I like that because I don't want coaches who can't show student performance skating to promotion on their own scores.


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

The only thing I disagree with Brandon is that a coach posting high scores has nothing to do with an ability to "Helping you buy and set up the right equipment the first time, working within budgets". This is a skill born of experience working with others, not winning tournaments.

I also think that a coach posting high scores has nothing to do with their ability to teach or manage others. Finding a coach with both is very rare - preferable, but rare. I can think of a few elite coaches who are absolutely terrible working with people. Maybe OK for elite athletes who "can take it", but probably should not work with regular archers and definitely not beginners or young archers who would be driven away from the sport.

I like Erose's idea to add modules to the curriculum. For example, one might teach/coach recurve to a high level but compound only to a basic level. As it stands today, the certification is monolithic, with no differentiation between equipment or application. Similarly, the curriculum focuses only on Olympic archery. This is a no-brainer given the USAA heritage and role, however there should be modules for different applications. For example, I have no intention of coaching Olympic archers but can have very advanced expertise in barebow and field archery. I could be a L4 or L5 in that, but not Olympic recurve. The same could be true of compound. I can easily see coaches focusing on compound with no intent or desire to coach recurve. Someone could be an L4 compound and an L2 recurve, maybe even just an L1 recurve.

This is where I think USAA could really stand to improve, supporting other disciplines besides Olympic recurve. Elite archers are like the top of the pyramid - if you want to increase the height of the top (put more USA archers on podiums), you must expand the base. You expand the base by broadening the pool of archery equipment and disciplines, not just continually focusing only on the top.

I would not be too harsh with USAA, though. They are growing and evolving. Things are much better than they used to be. I remember when there was no curriculum and no certifications. This is a great thread with terrific ideas and wonderful suggestions, debate, etc. I hope someone at USAA is reading this.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

The big problem is all of this is certification in the NTS system which is ineffective bordering on worthless. 

What good is it to be a level 5 if it doesnt equate to a level one in an effective system like Ukraine or Korean (linear). 

I will never rise above level 2 in the NTS system and only have that to coach a JOAD club. If a higher level was required, i would probably let the club go and just coach my kids outside of USA archery. 

I have no respect for any level of coaching in NTS or the BEST system. And that is why you have so many armchair coaches in it. 
They dont know they are being fed the koolaid, and dont have the experience or knowledge to see its a flawed system that doesnt work.

In Korea, NTS is a joke. Here to me, it is ruining too many super promising kids, and it just makes me fume that it is continued to be forced on kids. 


As soon as someone says, I'm a level something and i teach NTS, to me, you are just ruining kids in the sport, and ruining their ability to do well and meet their goals.

NTS is a cancer in the sport of archery.



Chris


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

Then there's knowing one's limits and being willing to admit it, and seeking advice and/or coaching from others with more knowledge in that area.

I love our team of coaches and instructors at X10, and the easy access we have to the deep knowledge base we have in Texas. 

idk about the proficiency tests for coaches. I would ace the barebow, pass the compound, and _maybe_ squeak the recurve with the suggested scores. But, what does that tell a student about my interpersonal skills, reliability, equipment knowledge, ability to work with minds, structure, willingness to keep learning etc? It doesn't convey any of that. Any discerning student and/or parent will follow the path they need to for the archer's best growth opportunities. And, any understanding coach will support and even encourage that.

With all due respect, the mechanics are pretty simple. It's the rest of the package that takes some finessing, imho.

So perhaps proficiency testing is one part of a much deeper rabbit hole of coach expectations that should be tested?


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

The reason why I got my certifications for level 2 and level 3 was not for the certifications themselves, but for the ability to learn more about archery. A lot of those folks out there getting certifications are doing to primarily for that...knowledge. Provide the means for these folks to get the knowledge outside the certifications, then you would have fewer unqualified archery coaches. 

We need more opportunities to gain knowledge in this sport, than just reading books and watching videos, and hoping you are doing it right.

The NTS whether you like it or not, is now the American archery system. And yet USAA who wants all its coaches teaching the NTS system, thinks that a few hours is all one needs to not just master the system, but be able to coach it afterwards. That just isn't going to happen. If they want all its coaches fully knowing and understanding this system so that they can coach it effectively, then they really need to do a better job in providing clinics and resources to teach it to its coaches. A few hours in a certification class and a few hours at the symposium if one gets a chance to go, just isn't enough. Heck I spent two and a half days in a clinic with Coach Hardy Ward learning his system, which is a whole lot more simpler than the NTS and still don't think I have a full enough grasp as I would like. 

We need clinics and we need knowledge bases and hopefully we will get these sooner rather than later from USAA.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

This is an interesting topic.

I have always been one that resists the idea that to teach one has to have a long list of credentials to be able to teach. The ability to motivate and teach students a particular topic is a very special skill set that I do not believe can be taught in a class. Its something unique about the teacher who has the gift to teach. Anyone can get book knowledge, but very few can actually teach.

So making coaches have to meet certain level of credentials in order to be able to teach at certain levels is just insane because there is zero guarantee that that person has the ability to teach anything. So that is one extreme.

Then on the other side. A coach should have personal experience in going through all the work their students have are going through. Because that helps give certain insights that can only be learned through experience and not by books. The insights help in crafting and altering teaching techniques that help the student.

Should a coach be required to achieve Olympic or national level scores to be able to coach? Absolutely not. But a coach should be able to fully demonstrate what he/she is teaching. Often that implies higher level abilities than the average.


----------



## 50815 (Aug 7, 2006)

Hmmm, can't help but wonder what Béla Károlyi might have to say about this thread.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Woodstock said:


> Hmmm, can't help but wonder what Béla Károlyi might have to say about this thread.


This directly correlates. 
While he was not a gymnast, ( his wife was), he was a National Junior boxer and on the Hammer throwing team. So he did know what it took to make national teams as an athlete.

His system was superior in every way to the NTS of gymnastics at the time being taught at the OTC gymnastics camps. The USA National and Olympic coaches tried to keep him out. His kids made the Olympic teams and theirs did not. They even refused to give him credentials for the Olympics even though his kids were on the team. He had to sit in the stands. It was quite interesting to see his kids win and run into the stands to hug him. Not the USOC coaches. 

That lasted one Olympics. The next, HE was the national coach and his center the National training center. The USOC got the message loud and clear. He was training Olympic champions and the previous one was not against his methods. Much the same as NTS vs the Korean method. 

The same will eventually happen in archery, when the NTS system does not produce champions or Olympic team members and outside coaches do.



Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Very true. 

Competing at the highest levels brings with it great experience. Again, it's hard to put into words. But it's small things that those who never did, will not be familiar with.

One example is that coaches who have never shot at an advanced level, more readily accept mediocre efforts from their students, thinking they are great efforts, when in fact they are underperforming. Only the coach doesn't know better.

This is not so important with beginner or intermediate archers. It becomes more important as archers reach the expert and esp. the elite levels.


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

Azzurri said:


> I think a smart archer looking for a coach should consider coach's personal success alongside that coach's record of productivity. But I don't think personal performance should be a short cut into the profession because, can you actually coach? And even if a score probably hints you know most of the content in a few levels in your sleep, we want the coach sitting through the classes. If there were no tenure requirements to going up levels, and one could pass the tests, perhaps a personal score could be a proxy for what level you should start at. But once you're started, if we require year(s) of tenure to rise, ok, you have students now during those years, how do they do? Be a little like asking me what my GPA, SAT, LSAT were, and not how many cases do I win, having been doing this for years.
> 
> I'd stick to the student-based assessments as opposed to coach's performance. I think an experienced and successful coach is more likely to produce those kind of students in turn. But I think their performance begs the question in terms of coaching ability. If we're talking doing this with levels 3, 4, 5, how have their students done?


I think there is another perspective to consider here as well. How many archers are READY for a high level coach vs how many THINK they need one. Are they in need of someone who understands shooting at an elite level or do they still not have their shot yet? I gather from your post that you are an attorney by trade so and so in that light, how many people looking for an attorney really need someone who can argue cases before the supreme court? Do you need high end talent to draft a simple will when you are not a billionaire? Please don't take that personally. I am just trying to offer an alternative perspective.


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

rkumetz said:


> I think there is another perspective to consider here as well. How many archers are READY for a high level coach vs how many THINK they need one. Are they in need of someone who understands shooting at an elite level or do they still not have their shot yet? I gather from your post that you are an attorney by trade so and so in that light, how many people looking for an attorney really need someone who can argue cases before the supreme court? Do you need high end talent to draft a simple will when you are not a billionaire? Please don't take that personally. I am just trying to offer an alternative perspective.


This is basically the root of the question, the root of the "problem." It is why different coach levels were created. What has happened though is that attaining the different levels has become simply a matter of a person having the time and money, while no demonstration of actual skill or expertise is required.


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

Bender said:


> This is basically the root of the question, the root of the "problem." It is why different coach levels were created. What has happened though is that attaining the different levels has become simply a matter of a person having the time and money, while no demonstration of actual skill or expertise is required.


It is not just an issue of time and money. It is also an issue of agreeing to do things the way our head coach does them like robots. Given that criteria some of our most
successful and respected coaches would be "uncertifiable" for lack of a better description. It is not so much demonstrating coaching skill and or aptitude as it is demonstrating that
you are drinking the NTS Kool-Aid. 

I agree that certification should be skill based and somewhere down in this thread was a suggestion for coach mentors. I believe that is how the Canadian system is being structured.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Bender said:


> What has happened though is that attaining the different levels has become simply a matter of a person having the time and money, while no demonstration of actual skill or expertise is required.


When i took the Level 1 and Level 2 class, it was a two day seminar. One day for each. About 8 hours each day. Now i see Level 1 and 2 classes given at the ATA show in 20 minutes. 

Big difference there. 

Chris


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

rkumetz said:


> It is not just an issue of time and money. It is also an issue of agreeing to do things the way our head coach does them like robots. Given that criteria some of our most successful and respected coaches would be "uncertifiable" for lack of a better description. It is not so much demonstrating coaching skill and or aptitude as it is demonstrating that you are drinking the NTS Kool-Aid.


Completely agree...


Chris


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

rkumetz said:


> It is not just an issue of time and money. It is also an issue of agreeing to do things the way our head coach does them like robots. Given that criteria some of our most
> successful and respected coaches would be "uncertifiable" for lack of a better description. It is not so much demonstrating coaching skill and or aptitude as it is demonstrating that
> you are drinking the NTS Kool-Aid.


Agreed. But wouldn't calling for demonstrated skill and ability as both a shooter and as being able to effectively communicate those skills to others side step the fact that NTS isn't working?

As long as there is no need to show some level of competence, to generate actual results, then is all too easy to pretend that NTS not only "works" but that it is the only flavor of Kool-Aid in existence.


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

Without wanting to derail... about the NTS KoolAid. It's taken a while, but I'm seeing many cases where NTS just doesn't or can't work for an archer. I'm learning to adapt the shot to my athlete's physiological makeup. A coach with the competitive credentials would still have to learn these nuances, because everyone's different. A highly decorated athlete may tend to want to apply their own mechanics to an archer. That may not work. 

All that to say, regardless of level of shooting ability, there is still a ton of ongoing education that the coach must dedicate themselves to.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Ms.Speedmaster said:


> Without wanting to derail... about the NTS KoolAid. It's taken a while, but I'm seeing many cases where NTS just doesn't or can't work for an archer. I'm learning to adapt the shot to my athlete's physiological makeup. A coach with the competitive credentials would still have to learn these nuances, because everyone's different. A highly decorated athlete may tend to want to apply their own mechanics to an archer. That may not work.
> 
> All that to say, regardless of level of shooting ability, there is still a ton of ongoing education that the coach must dedicate themselves to.



good point. I think the key point is that no one system works for all archers. and pretending it does is folly. Just like there is no one way of shooting clay targets that works the best for everyone. I shot sustained lead in Skeet, but I watched Bob Schuele run a 100 straight in international skeet at the US Nationals in 1991 in 130 degree heat in a day that took us 12 hours to complete the 100 targets since the machines kept breaking down. The method I was taught by the national coaches worked for me but I realized lots of guys could win major events using the "other" or other methods. I have seen NTS work for some and I have seen kids who were shooting well try to change to this to please certain "powers that be" and their scores, and confidence went completely down the tubes.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

IMO, any higher level coach should be able to teach more than one form, know the strengths and weaknesses of each, and know which one is likely to work best for their individual student. I think we owe that to our students if it really is about them and not us, or about promoting a specific program.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

This is the reason why I would have liked to see the new USAA certification manuals discuss alternatives to the NTS system. Albeit for the most part they are head and shoulders above the old manuals, they make the impression that the only way to properly shoot a bow is the NTS system.

IMO they should have had someone like Rick McKinney write the manuals, to provide better understanding to new coaches that in archery there is always more than one way to skin that cat.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Coaches need alternatives, like Lynda said. We don't all work with elite archers who are committed to training every day. The trouble with the instruction we have right now is that it was written by someone who has always worked with advanced and elite archers. So if your whole career was spent working with elite archers who train full time, of course you can write the book on elite training methods. Meanwhile the rest of us down here in the trenches need simple tools that will work for archers who only touch their bows once a week, or less.


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

chrstphr said:


> When i took the Level 1 and Level 2 class, it was a two day seminar. One day for each. About 8 hours each day. Now i see Level 1 and 2 classes given at the ATA show in 20 minutes.
> 
> Big difference there.
> 
> Chris


Doing the certification in 20 minutes is bologna. If true that it is being done at an ATA event then USAA should definitely take action. It does bring up a good point... How can USAA enforce it? I suppose they can de-certify the coach and remove them from the coach locator on their website.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Re using McKinney, that would then reflect a choice to open things up to more choices, think the whole point is top-down one size fits all.

At least one reason to get away from that is institutional memory. You pick only one style to document and the written history is just that style a generation or two later. Individual coaches can teach their pupils other things but that to me is a more fungible oral history. At least part of the value of a book like Heretical Archer is documentation of a different way.

20 minutes for initial levels is crazed. I get a good archer might know much of the introductory material, but at least part of schooling is demanding a commitment, and that sounds like we'll assume things of the audience, and not even bother, when I'd err on the side of teaching the material because everyone has gaps in their knowledge. Even if you know most of it, it's the nuggets you don't, or the refresher. It also would not be good for the teaching dynamic where part of the process can be that more experienced students help teach the ones who know less.

If you're going to do it 20 minutes you might as well just rubber stamp it based on their own scores, because the teaching component at that point has become basically insincere.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

...whole point of the present regime, I should say....


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

I really would be surprised if the 20 minute classes were really happening. The USA Archery packets, especially the new ones, does have a recommended lesson plan, which although I think that level one should now be a two day course, it isn't 20 minutes.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

I guess one thing we can all get from this thread is that there is nearly a universal desire to see the current certification system overhauled. I think that the new certification manuals that they have come out for level one and two, can lead into that direction for sure. Lets hope that US Archery is watching these forums.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Oh, they watch.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

OK for clarification, i checked the ATA webpage. 

Level 1 course was 90 minutes to offer minimal time away from the floor.

Level two course was 4 hours so they could have two classes per day. 

https://www.archerytrade.org/news/instructor-certification-is-worth-it-sign-up-now


Seems classes were tailored to meet the needs of the ATA and USA Archery. 



Chris


----------



## smird (Sep 14, 2013)

Just got my level 2. The level 1 and 2 was about 10hours each. My instructor was very thorough. I think the safe sport cert took me about 2+ hours to watch all the videos and take the tests.


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

I have been able to streamline the Level 1 courses by requiring the work in advance (including the OAS online curriculum and paper test due at the beginning of class) so I can focus more on the specific required information for the Level 1 test and hands-on practice, but it is still pretty much an all-day class. 90 minutes is barely enough time for a briefing and taking the test itself. Even an L2 in 4 hours is quite accelerated. The only thing I can figure is that the students are experienced archers. Reading on the ATA website, they do state that "This certification class is tailored to meet the needs of ATA and USA Archery members who already know lots about archery." They also state that "The ATA Trade Show is a member-driven event to promote commerce within the archery and bowhunting industry. Owned and operated by the ATA, the show is closed to the public and is an order writing event."

LOL, my L1 and L2 were all-day events with plenty of homework ahead of time. My L3 was 2.5 days at the CV OTC, also with a ton of homework prior and during.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

When John was showing me how to set up a bow, he taught me a lot in a very short time and it was like taking a shower in a fire hose. However, I get surprised what content in there jumps back out when I am trying to do a task, and I haven't had a class with him in ages. When I am sitting in a professional continuing education class I get surprised what new angles or ideas I get sitting through otherwise familiar content. If you skip things because "they already know it" that opportunity is lost. You can't flash back to a class content they didn't make you take.

I also think you start wandering down the road of different courses for different audiences when the idea is supposed to be an assessment that you are at a particular, presumably standardized "level" of coaching. In history you don't get to skip the Vietnam War class and not take the quiz that week because your teacher knows you did a paper about it and know more than the other students. They might let you place out of a class but that's, ok, pass the final without taking the class, or pass the same course in some other form. Objective, not subjective.

If you want to fast track people with experience/knowledge there should be a test to do that with a generally applied standard. You're going to show me knowledge in a class or you're going to pass a test to skip the class. I am sure many of the ATA people are knowledgeable but the whole idea of classes and testing is to have a process to confirm that, not just assume it. And if the credentialing process is supposed to be standardized why aren't they just the smart kids in the class that day?


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Also, my kid sister played a few seasons of youth soccer. Her team needed a referee to contribute to the pool. I reffed one season. I had played select soccer for years at that point. But part of the reason to having me sit through a ref seminar to get that credential is to get me in a place thinking like a ref before I do it. I know some of you know the sport but here is how a ref handles this. I think there's a gap between knowing the sport and communicating aka coaching it that's being finessed. Part of what you want people in there for a full period doing is switching over to the coaching mindset.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

IMO make the tests online tests, where one can get at least their level one, by taking a test online. USAA already does this for judge candidates and level 2 trainers. This will take the whether or not one gets certified off of the trainer and puts it on the test alone.

Have coaching clinics still, and call them something like a basic instructor course (current level one book), club coach course (current level two book), and so forth. But have both tests done on-line with the level two certification requiring at least the club coach course. Make the basic instructor course two days, and the club coach course at least one day with the requirement of having the basic instructor course prior. 

Level three should be no less than three days of instruction and probably should be four days, IMO. The one I participated in felt rushed, and I feel like we didn't get everything we were suppose to cover, and that was over a two and a half day course. 

I think more clinics or on-line modules should be developed to expand the opportunities to grow in knowledge. These modules and/or clinics should cover NTS, Compound NTS, Barebow, Mental Training, Bow Tuning, Club management, Advance coaching techniques, etc. At every symposium Coach Lee complains that his level threes and fours don't know the NTS system. Well how many opportunities do we coaches truly get to get more instruction in the system? Outside of really level three courses, where do you get the instruction if you are not a student of a coach that teaches the system? Having coaching clinics over a weekend exclusively on the NTS and Compound NTS would be the best way to pass that knowledge on through the coaching ranks. Seriously for me to learn more about the NTS, it would require me to either set in another level 3 course, or go to a level four class. That is just not efficient at all. 

To advance to a level three and higher, make requirements, such as a number of modules and/or clinics, as well as performance requirements displayed or ability to show one's coaching skills by the performance of their students. 

Just some thoughts on how to perhaps fix the current system.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

I took Level II many years ago-it was two full weekends. It included a session on string tying which the Level IV coach had me teach since I ran a shop at the time and had tied lots of strings We also had to shoot 30 arrows for score on the Big 60 and one morning of the four days, he had his JOAD shooters show up and had them "demonstrate a problem" and would assign us to "fix it". I had already gone through the equivalent NFAA program and the first "Masters Camp" which was almost a week so most of the stuff was pretty well known to me and my wife but when I went to the Level III/IV (Best system) at the OTC, I had already done most of the stuff they covered. 4 hours for Level II seems a bit thin to me


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

Ms.Speedmaster said:


> Without wanting to derail... about the NTS KoolAid. It's taken a while, but I'm seeing many cases where NTS just doesn't or can't work for an archer. I'm learning to adapt the shot to my athlete's physiological makeup. A coach with the competitive credentials would still have to learn these nuances, because everyone's different. A highly decorated athlete may tend to want to apply their own mechanics to an archer. That may not work.
> 
> All that to say, regardless of level of shooting ability, there is still a ton of ongoing education that the coach must dedicate themselves to.


Something else to consider: People who are very good at something are often not the best teachers. My dad was one of those people to whom athletic pursuits came naturally. He could DO with ease but ask him to explain how or why and you were not going to get very far. I have seen very talented archers struggle to coach because to them it comes easy. Sometimes they just can't figure out why everyone can't just pick up the bow and do it. 

In that light, if you want to certify someone as an instructor or coach, teaching and coaching are what they should have to demonstrate effectively.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I think tacking a TNS module onto an existing class/testing regime (and then making people take it to achieve whatever level) is probably fairer to all concerned than making people take the whole class over for lack of NTS content. I also think if you required a module once every few years the variety of them might promote coaches learning new things. Some years in my professional continuing ed I just take new classes in familiar subjects, but some years I decide, ok, this year I want to learn about ______ subject. It might also help push students in the right direction if it's like BlahBlah Coach is a former recurve archer, Level X coach, has taken the recurve module. If you want compound instead, look for a guy with different experience/module. If you want to try compound from the recurve guy, well, he at least took a compound module, tells me he can try, etc....still buyer beware but some hint of the disciplines your coach has tried to learn.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

NTS module I meant


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> In that light, if you want to certify someone as an instructor or coach, teaching and coaching are what they should have to demonstrate effectively.


And that is not required until the very highest level.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

erose said:


> This is the reason why I would have liked to see the new USAA certification manuals discuss alternatives to the NTS system. Albeit for the most part they are head and shoulders above the old manuals, they make the impression that the only way to properly shoot a bow is the NTS system.
> 
> IMO they should have had someone like Rick McKinney write the manuals, to provide better understanding to new coaches that in archery there is always more than one way to skin that cat.



Frangilli's Heretic Archer is pretty good in that sense. Rick's book is also excellent


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

erose said:


> This is the reason why I would have liked to see the new USAA certification manuals discuss alternatives to the NTS system. Albeit for the most part they are head and shoulders above the old manuals, they make the impression that the only way to properly shoot a bow is the NTS system.


Wait, you mean there is an alternative? :smile:


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> IMO, any higher level coach should be able to teach more than one form, know the strengths and weaknesses of each, and know which one is likely to work best for their individual student. I think we owe that to our students if it really is about them and not us, or about promoting a specific program.


AND be willing to admit when we were wrong and figure out why and how to fix it.

Ask anyone who was coached by Al Henderson will tell you how much listening and watching he did vs talking. 

Coaching is a dynamic procedure. The archer is developing but so is the coach. 
Coaching is not just about telling the athlete what to do and pontificating. It is a 2 way dialog.

The current system is like a one of those "fun factory" things that forces archers through the same mold. Not everyone wants to be star shaped.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Ask anyone who was coached by Al Henderson will tell you how much listening and watching he did vs talking.
> 
> Coaching is a dynamic procedure. The archer is developing but so is the coach.
> Coaching is not just about telling the athlete what to do and pontificating. It is a 2 way dialog.


LOL

I got in trouble with one of my archers recently for being too "hands off."


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> LOL
> 
> I got in trouble with one of my archers recently for being too "hands off."


Came face to face with our instant gratification culture did you? LOL

I have seen archers (and my own daughter) on occasion exhibit and attitude that could be described as "don't teach me to fish damn it, just hold the pole for me".
They don't feel like participating in arriving at the answer they just want you to give it to them.

I don't believe that giving out answers like candy is always beneficial. What are you going to do on the line at a tournament if you need to think something through?
Part of developing an archery is not just developing form but also in learning to think like an archer. 

Maybe I am starting to sound too Yoda like.........


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

LOL, I suppose so. 

And no, you aren't. You're speaking the truth. 

A lot of younger folks today have never really worked hard (physically) in their life. Not their fault. Just the way it is. One of my own kids is that way. 

Anyway, at the higher levels, competitive archery requires some work. I don't call it work because I know what work is, and archery is not work. But to them it's work. And yes, they think they should be better quicker, not understanding how much time the Vic's and Brady's and Jake's and Khatuna's put in to get where they are. So when you tell them that they know everything they need to know, and now it's up to them to put the time in and "figure it out from there" - some of them like that and some don't. But that doesn't change the fact that it is what has to happen once they know what they need to know.

I think especially these days, coaches get too much credit. Too many people forget that the successful archers put in a LOT of their own time and effort to get to the top, without a coach in sight.


----------



## zootnewton (Mar 7, 2017)

I see huge problems with this: Let's say you have an incredibly proficient archer who easily passes the tests to get to the highest level of certification. What if said archer loses an arm in a terrible accident. Do we downgrade his level due to lack of proficiency? Do we maintain his level because he HAD that proficiency? What if skills slowly deteriorate with age or lack of practice. Does that instructor get a similar penalty? 

Archery is a skill that needs mental preparation, physical ability, knowledge of bows & arrows and proper form. I'd rather have an instructor be able to properly prepare me, who can identify my faults in form, fix issues with my equipment than be able to hit the 10s. 

Analogy: I work in the music business. I know many vocal coaches who are not as gifted as their students but they can TEACH and get results. Having the experience and know-how to identify a problem to make a student better seems like a much better way to identify proper instructors as opposed to the instructor's proficiency. I know some amazing musicians. Clearly born with a gift. But some of those great musicians cannot explain to others physically what to do to emulate their proficiency. They are unable to pass-on what makes them great and cannot improve their students' techniques.


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

limbwalker;1102185505
I think especially these days said:


> I don't in any way intend to devalue the contribution of a coach by saying this but that too is part of our instant gratification culture. Just as archers (and golfers and -insert name of sport here-) try to buy points with gadgets they think that a name brand coach can put them in the express lane to the podium. A coach can help sort things out so that when you are putting in the hard work you aren't spinning your wheels but the work is still necessary.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

zootnewton said:


> I see huge problems with this: Let's say you have an incredibly proficient archer who easily passes the tests to get to the highest level of certification. What if said archer loses an arm in a terrible accident. Do we downgrade his level due to lack of proficiency? Do we maintain his level because he HAD that proficiency? What if skills slowly deteriorate with age or lack of practice. Does that instructor get a similar penalty?
> 
> Archery is a skill that needs mental preparation, physical ability, knowledge of bows & arrows and proper form. I'd rather have an instructor be able to properly prepare me, who can identify my faults in form, fix issues with my equipment than be able to hit the 10s.
> 
> Analogy: I work in the music business. *I know many vocal coaches who are not as gifted as their students but they can TEACH and get results.* Having the experience and know-how to identify a problem to make a student better seems like a much better way to identify proper instructors as opposed to the instructor's proficiency. I know some amazing musicians. Clearly born with a gift. But some of those great musicians cannot explain to others physically what to do to emulate their proficiency. They are unable to pass-on what makes them great and cannot improve their students' techniques.


I think they need to be proficient, not professional. I don't think a coach needs to be able to shoot gold Olympian, but I don't think for example blue (260) Oly recurve is outrageous. If they can't demonstrate, and understand what the archer is doing/experiencing/feeling, then they are going to have a hard time coaching. 

Easy to say your hand should end up "here" on follow through. But if you can't show them why, and demonstrate what it looks like if you do it with different muscle groups resulting in different results then it is just words.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

Can't edit my post...

Should have been blue (250) or even red (265)...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I see huge problems with this: Let's say you have an incredibly proficient archer who easily passes the tests to get to the highest level of certification. What if said archer loses an arm in a terrible accident. Do we downgrade his level due to lack of proficiency? Do we maintain his level because he HAD that proficiency? What if skills slowly deteriorate with age or lack of practice. Does that instructor get a similar penalty?


We don't have to reinvent the wheel. PGA - an outfit "slightly" larger and more professional than USArchery - has already had proficiency tests for teaching pros for a long time now. How do they deal with situations like those you mention?

Folks, this is not only not a new idea, it's a very common sense idea. Pull a person off the street who knows nothing about archery, and ask them if highly certified archery coaches should be required to prove proficiency as either an archer or coach of proficient archers. I have no doubt 9/10 will say "of course." It just makes sense.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

No need to reinvent the wheel:



> Becoming a PGA Pro
> 
> You must be 18 years of age or have a high school diploma to be eligible. Have proof of U.S. citizenship or be a registered alien.
> 
> ...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

And the levels require more than just "form" instruction. *shocker*


----------



## zootnewton (Mar 7, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> No need to reinvent the wheel:


Fair enough. Golf does have world wide respected "par-for-the-course." To pass the PGA PAT test just score less than 15-over par over 36 holes. Makes sense to me. 

What is the archery equivalent of "par?"


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I can only speak from my own experience, but I worked pretty hard to get to a 4.5 handicap in golf from about 2000-2008. I never broke par but I shot it a few times. Usually, the last year I really worked at it, I would shoot in the mid to high 70's. So, about that 15 over number was a decent two-day's work for me. And I did shoot that in competition, twice.

Shooting 15 over for 36 holes - for me - was like shooting a 320 at 70M recurve or probably a 570 indoor fita.

Now maybe golf was just harder for me than archery is. Probably so. But 15 over after two rounds is not a number I ever saw many amateurs turn in. And there seems to be no shortage of PGA pros out there.

I recall one of the local college graduates who played on the golf team, working on his PGA card while I was a member where he worked. He had to try three times to pass his PAT.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

If you are going to do something like have a display of proficiency, I think that you have to look at the students, especially at the higher levels. For a level 3, are his/her student(s) standing on podiums at the local and state shoots? For a level 4, getting their student(s) in the top 25% at National shoots, and for level 5 getting to either the podium or in the top 5% at National shoots for example. Of course even this would be subjective as a lot of this is based upon the archers they are teaching and their personal desires to succeed. I do believe that an archer with an unusual desire to be successful at archery will succeed, no matter if they have a competent coach or not.


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Folks, this is not only not a new idea, it's a very common sense idea. Pull a person off the street who knows nothing about archery, and ask them if highly certified archery coaches should be required to prove proficiency as either an archer or coach of proficient archers. I have no doubt 9/10 will say "of course." It just makes sense.


Even though that person that you grabbed off the street, who knows nothing about archery, would say that proficiency is required, he would not be able to define proficiency. Even though this thread is composed of comments by experienced archers, there has been more than one definition of proficiency.


----------



## tkaap (Nov 30, 2009)

Here's an angle to consider (in a thread with more angles than a geometry final exam):

I would split out the discussion of the L1 certification as separate from the others. The L1 is a recruiting tool. It brings together the great variety of archery programs to all get to be aware of each other. Scouts, 4-H, park districts, camps, churches, schools -- a ton of groups are standardizing to the NFAA/USAA L1 cert. So there's no great mystery for a camp instructor about who to talk to when a student wants more archery -- they know they can ask the org that published their L1 cert book to help find them a club/program/coach.

Most L1s have zero contact with bigger organizations, but at the very least they know that bigger orgs exist -- NASP, NFAA, USAA. I have more L1 certified folks in my state than I have USAA memberships. Clearly that's a huge number of folks (600+) who got an L1 for their own needs, but aren't married to the USAA.

But I'll certainly keep the door open if they want more.


So I'd keep the L1 simple. It's our best shot to eliminate old archery habits that are either counter-productive or dangerous -- table-loading bows with folks on a line, sky-drawing, fly-by anchoring, etc.

It should convey basic safety, basic T-form, standard range control (whistles), etiquette, and pulling safety. Identify parts of the bow, know how to help day-1 shooters not injure themselves or others. Keep it simple. One day max. Anything more in-depth than that should go into L2 or above.


With all of those caveats in mind, I don't have a huge problem with experienced instructors _with demonstrable coaching ability_ knocking out an L1 in 90 minutes at a seminar or trade show. The L1 is more about bringing that level of coach into the fold, not teaching them life-changing secret knowledge.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

zootnewton said:


> What is the archery equivalent of "par?"


Dunno. The statistical determination of Par in golf is the number of shots it takes a scratch (zero handicap golfer) to get to the green, and then 2 putts to the hole. Generally done via raw distance from the pin.

This is why I personally find the attempts at equating golf and archery somewhat unusual. Different sports with different needs.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Arcus said:


> Even though that person that you grabbed off the street, who knows nothing about archery, would say that proficiency is required, he would not be able to define proficiency. Even though this thread is composed of comments by experienced archers, there has been more than one definition of proficiency.


Proficiency is totally dependent on the needs and requirements of the constituents the coach is trying to serve.

I know that in my own club, the needs have changed over time. When I took over as the head coach, there was a desire and want to have a high performance component to things. Now that a lot of the kids who wanted that higher drive are approaching graduation, I'm seeing that the next generation of kids wants less high performance, and more on a social/generic level.

Playing the business side of the coin - I give the customers what they want and need.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

I'm thinking that I am going to start making level one classes that I teach two day classes instead of just one. The new manual IMO would lead to that. Make level two a one day class after getting a level one certification. Have the level two class focus more on club management and NTS. Just thinking out loud.


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

Beastmaster said:


> Dunno. The statistical determination of Par in golf is the number of shots it takes a scratch (zero handicap golfer) to get to the green, and then 2 putts to the hole. Generally done via raw distance from the pin.
> 
> This is why I personally find the attempts at equating golf and archery somewhat unusual. Different sports with different needs.


I think that a fair equivalent could be derived if you factor in (as someone already mentioned) the level of the students that the coach candidate would be working with.

The only real problem in comparing to golf is that being a golf coach (or whatever they call themselves) is potentially much much much more lucrative (did I mention the much part?) than being an archery coach. There are few places to get golf coaching for free whereas in archery often the mention of a coach charging for his/her time ruffles feathers. I would not want to even think about doing profitability comparison between golf and archery coaches. Why does this matter in this discussion? Because if someone can make a pile of cash coaching golf you can demand that they jump higher and through more hoops to be certified as a coach than if they are doing it on their own dime with little hope of making any money
with their certification.


----------



## rambo-yambo (Aug 12, 2008)

I think the titles need to be reclassified: L1 and L2 should be classified as “Instructors” and L3 and above classified as “Coaches”. Also there should be a specialty in L3 and above: Barebow, OR and Compound. In order to qualified for a specialty, you have to go through the training and meet a minimum score for that discipline.

In order to shoot at National Senior Games in archery, you have to meet a minimum performance standard to compete. For a 900 round, the minimum is 425 for Barebow, 600 for OR and 700 for Compound. Granted this is a very low standard, at least it demonstrates that you know something. If you can't meet that requirement you should not be a coach IMO. (You can still teach as an instructor.) A provision can be added that once you are qualified, you are qualified for life for that level.

Since USAA already has a pin system, we can use an equivalent of a colored pin (eg. Black) as a minimum requirement for a coach. You can coach outside your discipline as long as you let the others know that is not the discipline you are qualified for. As long as you identify yourself as a coach of certain discipline, and if someone want you to teach outside your discipline it is their business.


----------



## rkumetz (Jun 20, 2014)

rambo-yambo said:


> I think the titles need to be reclassified: L1 and L2 should be classified as “Instructors” and L3 and above classified as “Coaches”.


Ask and ye shall receive! You wanted it and here you go it is done! :smile:

http://www.teamusa.org/usa-archery/judges-and-coaches/coaches/usa-archery-become-a-coach


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

rambo-yambo said:


> I think the titles need to be reclassified: L1 and L2 should be classified as “Instructors” and L3 and above classified as “Coaches”.


 This is the way it is viewed currently. Here is the problem with this. A level two can be a head *coach* of a JOAD club. USAA views him/her as an instructor, and yet to be a head coach of a JOAD club requires one to coach. Instruction is what you do in an Explore Archery Program or something similar. You do both in a JOAD club, and there are level ones coaching in JOAD clubs as well. So the current classifications IMO are bogus and should be done away with.


----------



## rambo-yambo (Aug 12, 2008)

Would it be easier if we just change the title of the Head Coach in JOAD as a Head Instructor? Just define a job description of a Head Instructor (same as the duty of a prior head coach). A Head instructor can do everything the HEAD coach did before except with a title change. Are we so dead set about a title?


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

I am a level 2 "instructor" ( i say that but so not call myself that). 

I am also the Head Coach for Las Vegas JOAD. 

I consider myself an Archery Coach. I do not teach NTS, so i dont care if USA Archery calls me an instructor of NTS. Frankly i am a NTS nothing. But i am not an instructor of archery. I am a coach. Boy scouts and summer camps have archery instructors. I coach kids to national podiums and goals.

If i am forced in the future to teach NTS for my certification, i will not renew my Level 2, and would give up the JOAD club. If USA changed the requirement to have a JOAD to a higher certification, again i would let it go. What's better? A club that exists and functions with some who volunteer their time and everything. 

I am not interested in any higher levels of NTS, and would coach my kids without USA archery if forced to do so. While my kids like the pins and quarterly shoots, if i dont put them on, they arent happening in my area. And most of my kids are looking to USAT and nationals and olympics etc. My volunteer time with them is my own. I make no money from the JOAD or USA archery. I teach and coach for a love of the sport and a desire to help kids attain their goals of competing regionally, nationally and internationally. As i volunteer, i dont have to coach at all. 

USA archery only allowing one method of certification (NTS) is the problem. That and forcing kids to shoot it at the OTC / RA programs. 

I recently posted a video of Denise Parker shooting in a TV show in 1989. Her form is spot on and precise. She was a great archer. If she went to a JDT camp today with that 15 year old and her form, they would make her change to NTS and ruin the wonderful accuracy she has there. That is a crock of crap. 

Anyone watching that video, who has any coaching experience, would have no critique of her form and see issues to fix. I hope all my kids shoot their form as well as she does. You can see how she was accurate enough to win the team bronze shooting 24 lbs at 70,60,50 and 30 meters. 

The NAA had no such no sense. Since the BEST system and now NTS, it is easy to see why the USA has regressed in talent. And the current system of certifying of level whatever coaches is not helping. 

Chris


----------



## tkaap (Nov 30, 2009)

chrstphr said:


> I am a level 2 "instructor" ( i say that but so not call myself that).
> 
> I am also the Head Coach for Las Vegas JOAD.
> 
> I consider myself an Archery Coach. [...] But i am not an instructor of archery. I am a coach. Boy scouts and summer camps have archery instructors. I coach kids to national podiums and goals.


Well said. And I'm the opposite on that exact same measurement scale (but hold the same 'cert'). I'm an instructor. I'm a cheerleader. I shut-up, watch, and listen -- very impressed -- when I see coaching happening.

-T


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Arcus said:


> Even though that person that you grabbed off the street, who knows nothing about archery, would say that proficiency is required, he would not be able to define proficiency. Even though this thread is composed of comments by experienced archers, there has been more than one definition of proficiency.


Seems the PGA has figured it out how to define it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Beastmaster said:


> Dunno. The statistical determination of Par in golf is the number of shots it takes a scratch (zero handicap golfer) to get to the green, and then 2 putts to the hole. Generally done via raw distance from the pin.
> 
> This is why I personally find the attempts at equating golf and archery somewhat unusual. Different sports with different needs.


Point is that an organization as highly respected as the PGA requires proficiency testing for it's teaching professionals. I'd say their credibility worldwide is without equal in the sporting world.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

rambo-yambo said:


> Would it be easier if we just change the title of the Head Coach in JOAD as a Head Instructor? Just define a job description of a Head Instructor (same as the duty of a prior head coach). A Head instructor can do everything the HEAD coach did before except with a title change. Are we so dead set about a title?


You have to look at what the difference in the definitions of coach and instructor. You instruct an Explore Archery program; you coach a JOAD club. There is a difference there. I was a coach in archery before I earned my level three certification. I just think it is ludicrous to make the distinction between a coach and an instructor based upon your certification level.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Semantics.

Anyone is whatever their student introduces them as. Period.


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

I have thought about this a lot.

To answer the original question, there is no doubt in my mind what the answer should be, IF we wish to support the advancement of Archery. The answer is an unquestionable, undeniable "YES."

All it takes for me to come to this conclusion is drawing upon my experiences in my job.

I have a list of certifications, and training, and licenses, and continuing education as long as your arm. These are credentials that are earned by classwork and testing. Paper testing. Not once is a person ever called upon to ever actually demonstrate any actual skill, aptitude or ability. I have come know many in my field who have the exact same "credentials" that I do. WAY too many of these people have absolutely no business what so ever actually working in my field. They have no skill, ability, or aptitude for the work. And watching them work you come to realize that they never will. They come in, do a hack job, screw things up, give the business a bad rep, then get shuffled off down the road to fool another employer with their "credentials" and continue to screw things up and continue to give my chosen career field a bad name.

This thread is getting kind of derailed due to examining details.

Really, first we need to answer the original question. After that details can be addressed.

If, like me, you think the answer is "YES," great. But now is not the time to get bogged down in details. Egos and $ are at stake here. There are people in current positions of power and authority who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. They will be more than happy to allow potential positive change to flounder, drown, and soon die in argument over details.

So really, can we even come to a consensus on the simple Yes or No question, should there be a skills requirement?


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

I sympathize with Chris. Probably 90% of all archers will never do or require full NTS and it is an unnecessary complication for most volunteer coaches/instructors too. This is why I like the notion of creating modules. NTS could be a module, specific to preparing national and international competitors on the Olympic track. There should also be modules for recurve, barebow, and compound. The levels then would correspond to the specific depth of knowledge within each module. Another module could be coaching, focused on management and human performance.

Again, if Oly archers are the top of the pyramid (say 5%-10% of all archers), then you raise the height by increasing the base.

Of course, the trick to something like this module schema would be keeping it simple enough to easily understand. The current system is simple and easy to understand, but it just recognizes only one style, one equipment category, and one competitive destination.


----------



## tbrash01 (Oct 7, 2010)

chrstphr said:


> I am a level 2 "instructor" ( i say that but so not call myself that).
> 
> I am also the Head Coach for Las Vegas JOAD.
> 
> ...



Chris... Amen! I am in the exact same feeling and position you just stated. I have 34 years of Olympic Archery, yes I know I keep reminding everyone about my experience but the reason lies in both the "National" training system and in how long some have been in the sport. I was on USAT many moons ago and while we focused on the BEST method I too was transformed when at camps etc. I don't agree with NTS and shouldn't be forced to. I have debated for 3 years this time on whether to just get my "credentials" for coaching, oh wait I was a Level 4 in the 90s and that got changed years ago on me. Or... just keep doing what I do now. I don't "coach" officially, but more "help" others by offering my experience and knowledge. 

Personally I don't give a rats a** if I am ever recognized for one of my shooters winning it big. That courage, hard work, determination, and score is their own and not mine. I'm super proud when they do well but I don't call myself a coach, instructor, or anything. I am purely just another archer giving advice and watching them through the process. Isn't that what it's about? I too don't care about any "National" program. Archers aren't robots and everyone is different. I've had hundreds of coaches over the years and I've fired them all. Why? My current coach is not a coach, but another archer who has shot with me for years. They know me well enough to see what errors I make when it happens and God forbid any ever tells me, "hey they can't coach you because they aren't certified!" 

Sorry to ramble but this topic irritates me to no end. I have way more years of shooting than say John, or Jake, or even Brady, but hey I'll take advice from... Wait for it.... Wait for it... someone who CAN shoot at a high level because they have been there too and know about it regardless of how long they have been shooting. A good coach isnt a minion for a national body, but a mentor. JOAD is great. I remember when i started the first one with my dad in NM. We weren't coaches, but we were volunteers in a sport we love. Keep in mind that that new club produced a few great archers like Lindsay Langston. Hey we all should remember how we got started ourselves and translate that into "helping" someone new. Become their idol! Their mentor! Their friend! And does that mean we need to be a level 800 NTS to help "coach" them? Nope.


----------



## 2000Z-71 (Aug 10, 2012)

First off I'm a Level III, I shoot a compound and occasionally dabble in recurve. I have shot Vegas and state championship level tournaments. My own personal philosophy was that if I'm going to be coaching archers competing at these venues then I should know what it's like to shoot in them. It's through my own personal experiences of having those doubts and demons creep into my mental game that I can help my archers deal with them.

That said, I'll play devil's advocate. I know of a high level, very highly respected coach who can no longer shoot a bow due to a traumatic back injury. If there was a performance/proficiency requirement for coaches, this coach would be unable to shoot a bow and could not meet any type of demonstrated requirement. It would be a shame to lose the wisdom, knowledge and skill that he has acquired over a performance requirement.

Before others start suggesting writing exceptions for cases such as these, I'll ask what's the point of having a rule if exceptions are needed?


----------



## fita_chick (Jan 29, 2009)

chrstphr said:


> I recently posted a video of Denise Parker shooting in a TV show in 1989. Her form is spot on and precise. She was a great archer. If she went to a JDT camp today with that 15 year old and her form, they would make her change to NTS and ruin the wonderful accuracy she has there. That is a crock of crap.
> 
> Anyone watching that video, who has any coaching experience, would have no critique of her form and see issues to fix. I hope all my kids shoot their form as well as she does. You can see how she was accurate enough to win the team bronze shooting 24 lbs at 70,60,50 and 30 meters.


Agree! When I first started getting to go to the OTC was sort of a goal. Then I saw a few fellow archers that went out there & got their form totally rebuilt (& not for the better). 

I find it odd that the same person in the video is in charge of the organization that is pushing only 1 way of teaching. She must not remember what it's like to be "in the trenches".

I'm not a certified anything (certifiable though maybe) but can someone more experienced help me understand something. In general, can a certain body type/attribute be more appropriate for one type of form over another? If so, is (or was) that taught in coaching classes or is that learned thru experience & observation? And can that change over the course of growth (either physical growth or experience/archery growth) for a single archer?


----------



## GLaw1 (Feb 23, 2014)

They just carry the bag? They read greens, calculate distances , read the wind, and keep their player focused. Caddies do a hell of a lot more than just carry the bag.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Anyone watching that video, who has any coaching experience, would have no critique of her form and see issues to fix. I hope all my kids shoot their form as well as she does. You can see how she was accurate enough to win the team bronze shooting 24 lbs at 70,60,50 and 30 meters.


Not to be critical but I think it was 28# and she would probably be the first to tell you there is room for improvement in that form. The confidence and ability to deal with the situation... no room for improvement there - elite level.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

I think some people should require a certain skill level before posting about form or tuning on internet web boards too Lol. Many people don't have access to coaches so get a lot of info online, sadly much of that info does more harm than good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

A final thought from me. I’m not sure why so many threads break down into a NTS discussion. This one certainly didn’t need to go that way.

NTS, BEST, Kisik Lee, have all come under harsh scrutiny. The simple fact is, whomever the head coach is will bring a teaching methodology. From what I’ve heard, there is plenty of flexibility in the way Lee teaches. Perhaps it was a mistake to label his teachings as a ‘system’, but nobody really believes you can assemble athletes and teach them 10 different ways. This applies to all sports. So Kisik Lee teaches the shot his way, just as Brown, Kim, Tone, et al., teach their own way. There is nothing controversial about that. 

The rules clearly state what needs to be done to make USAT. No where does it state you have to be in alignment with the head coach. 

Perhaps USAA could assemble high performing archers, shooting all styles, for a collaborative get together, complete with fora discussing forms, equipment etc. That would be helpful and fun!

To think the head coach could, or should teach multiple styles is foolish. For better, or worse, you trust your head coach to develop archers and the results will speak for themselves.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

GLaw1 said:


> They just carry the bag? They read greens, calculate distances , read the wind, and keep their player focused. Caddies do a hell of a lot more than just carry the bag.



I already posted i was being sarcastic in that post. I know full well what caddies do. And they are fully qualified as a golfer even though they are carrying the golf bag. Which was my sarcastic point. 

Chris


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

midwayarcherywi said:


> A final thought from me. I’m not sure why so many threads break down into a NTS discussion. This one certainly didn’t need to go that way.
> 
> NTS, BEST, Kisik Lee, have all come under harsh scrutiny. The simple fact is, whomever the head coach is will bring a teaching methodology. From what I’ve heard, there is plenty of flexibility in the way Lee teaches. Perhaps it was a mistake to label his teachings as a ‘system’, but nobody really believes you can assemble athletes and teach them 10 different ways. This applies to all sports. So Kisik Lee teaches the shot his way, just as Brown, Kim, Tone, et al., teach their own way. There is nothing controversial about that.
> 
> ...



You are mistaken so I will explain briefly. 

Said archer shoots Korean style. Shoots it high enough to qualify for the RA program. Said archer needs the RA program to afford to go to all USAT tournaments and Nationals etc. Said archer already shoots at high level. At RA trials, Coaches demand he change his hook to NTS hook. For no reason other than to force said archer to shoot NTS. 

Said archer resists using this hook ans is told to leave. Said archer is told by Lee, you either shoot NTS or leave right now. 

Said archer tried NTS for one day, hates it and leaves. Now said archer has limited funds to shoot USATs to qualify for rolling rank. RA program archers are all funded to these tournaments. So using NTS as a blocker limits the access to funding for our top archers. 

There is no flexibility with Lee and NTS. You either shoot it, or you do not shoot at the OTC/RA/ JDT camps. And the head coach shouldnt be teaching ANY form. The national head coach should be running the national archery program. That is mostly administrative. The athletes personal coaches are who should be teaching form and system and method.

What part of all that do you not get?????


Chris


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

chrstphr said:


> You are mistaken so I will explain briefly.
> 
> Said archer shoots Korean style. Shoots it high enough to qualify for the RA program. Said archer needs the RA program to afford to go to all USAT tournaments and Nationals etc. Said archer already shoots at high level. At RA trials, Coaches demand he change his hook to NTS hook. For no reason other than to force aaid archer to shoot NTS.
> 
> ...


You bring a lot to the board, but your distaste for anything Lee is palpable. If Lee does not perform adequately, he will be replaced. 

What I get is if you shoot well enough, you will earn a USAT spot. To be an RA is not a necessary tool to be a USAT shooter. Funding is always an issue in niche sports. If Kim were head coach, it would be his prerogative to select the shooters he grooms. 

I think I get it just fine. What you don't get is this is the way it is until a different head coach, with a different methodology, comes on board.


----------



## iArch (Apr 17, 2015)

Hmm if a student comes to me and doesn't want to listen or learn from me...I would likely also tell them to leave. Also, I've seen RAs who have been at the OTC for years who do not shoot a textbook version of NTS, so that seems to be proof of a degree of flexibility.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

I do get that. That is why i am vocal about it. If no one is vocal about it, it will never get changed. 

Many have the same opinion as i do, i get many many messages all the time agreeing with me. But many are afraid to publically voice their opinion because they dont want their kids treated unfairly by Lee and the OTC coaches. 

If i stay quiet, no one will ever address the problem, or even acknowledge there is one. 

But more and more are starting to be vocal. If people dont like me for it, then oh well. But our top kid's archery careers are at stake here. And if i am the only advocate for them, then so be it. 


Chris


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

iArch said:


> Hmm if a student comes to me and doesn't want to listen or learn from me...I would likely also tell them to leave. Also, I've seen RAs who have been at the OTC for years who do not shoot a textbook version of NTS, so that seems to be proof of a degree of flexibility.



Once you are an Olympian, you can not be stopped from training at the OTC. So Katuna doesnt shoot NTS, and can train there. Lee cant stop her or force her to change. This also applied to Butch and Vic etc. 

However, if you are not an olympian, then you must shoot NTS to train there. And top national archers arent there to listen and learn. They are there to be able to train full time. They already have their form down to get there.

The RA program is to get 620 archers shooting above 660. 

Chris


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

chrstphr said:


> I do get that. That is why i am vocal about it. If no one is vocal about it, it will never get changed.
> 
> Many have the same opinion as i do, i get many many messages all the time agreeing with me. But many are afraid to publically voice their opinion because they dont want their kids treated unfairly by Lee and the OTC coaches.
> 
> ...


Chris, teach your kids to shoot. The results will speak for themselves. They always do.


----------



## iArch (Apr 17, 2015)

chrstphr said:


> Once you are an Olympian, you can not be stopped from training at the OTC. So Katuna doesnt shoot NTS, and can train there. Lee cant stop her or force her to change. This also applied to Butch and Vic etc.
> 
> However, if you are not an olympian, then you must shoot NTS to train there. And top national archers arent there to listen and learn. They are there to be able to train full time. They already have their form down to get there.
> 
> ...


I was talking about RAs that were not Olympians. Coach Lee views the RA program as a development program. There are a few folks within USA Archery who believe that the expectations, requirements, and definition of the RA program do not align with how Coach Lee views/utilizes it.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

iArch said:


> I was talking about RAs that were not Olympians. Coach Lee views the RA program as a development program. There are a few folks within USA Archery who believe that the expectations, requirements, and definition of the RA program do not align with how Coach Lee views/utilizes it.


then that is good to hear.


Chris


----------



## mcullumber (Jul 31, 2006)

chrstphr said:


> You are mistaken so I will explain briefly.
> 
> Said archer shoots Korean style. Shoots it high enough to qualify for the RA program. Said archer needs the RA program to afford to go to all USAT tournaments and Nationals etc. Said archer already shoots at high level. At RA trials, Coaches demand he change his hook to NTS hook. For no reason other than to force said archer to shoot NTS.
> 
> ...


Chris,

An archer does not need to be a RA to receive direct support from the USOC. The need to be in the top 5 on the USAT/rolling ranking system. It does not matter what "Style" of form they are using. Of course , this applies to the Senior Category only, not Cadets or Juniors. Also, there is now a stipend for Compound archers from USA Archery. http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/...gh-Performance-Teams/Athlete-Support-Programs

You are correct in that to participate in the JDT and RA Program you are asked to shoot NTS. Not trying to be argumentative, just wanted to point out there are other avenues to get help with expenses.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

The chicken/egg type logical conundrum y'all seem to be dancing around, is whether the purpose of RA is for the coach to groom those he likes in shooting more or less the way he wants, or should instead be for him to take in elite athletes with the best scores who make MQS/USAT and groom them in whatever style got them there. Is MQS a minimum bar to come train with Lee in NTS? A weed out to study under him. Or is it merely the standard to apply for RA, and then we can argue whether that entails supplication to the desired form, or should instead be an opportunity to either choose that or fully develop what brung you?

After all, when someone said the purpose is to push 620 types to 660, but then someone else who's been there and trained says its purpose is "development," one thing you get into is how finished a product we're going to act like we have. I get in a sense an archer generally isn't ever quite finished, til we bury them. But a catch 22 I see is requiring MQS while calling it development. is MQS really a development level score? Maybe if you're thinking Olympic gold. But versus the rest of us, how many people from both sides of trials would make MQS, particularly women? I say this because if the real goal is development you'd fudge MQS as necessary to get in people who have "something" and then leverage the crap out of the opportunity. If you emphasize MQS then you're demanding, in domestic terms at least, what many might view as a fairly high "finished product" score and then terming it development and saying try NTS. Granted, maybe some rare archer comes in with a 300+ MQS and gets even better trying NTS. And maybe people coming there should have the choice. But to demand a fairly high score for MQS and then essentially treat it as qualifying to start NTS all over from scratch? That sounds less like pure development and more like a minimum standard to use the coach's time, which he wants to use mostly in one form direction it sounds like.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Yes, Thank you Mike. I know there are other avenue streams. 

Actually this morning i sent one of my students that exact information regarding USA archery monthly stipend and USOC monthly stipend for being top 4 and top 8 on the rolling rank. 

My point was it is an advantage to be in the RA program and have your USATs funded, than to be an archer outside that and have to foot that entire travel bill. The young archers have to shoot enough USATs to get a full score to get to the top of the rolling rank. Many archers can not afford to shoot 3 USATs and nationals. 


Chris


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

The Karolyi example is actually ironically apt for RA. In gymnastics most of the team is subjectively chosen. Only 1-2 gymnasts per team make it for nationals performance. The selected gymnasts come from a variety of gyms. Karolyi comes in at the end of the cycle and picks who he wants. Every cycle there's a major or minor kerfuffle about a bubble gymnast or two left out, or ones on the team whose role gets minimized.

The odd part to me is otherwise this is very meritocratic, trials for everything, and even MQS which is semi-rigorously enforced to make RA.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Azzurri said:


> The chicken/egg type logical conundrum y'all seem to be dancing around, is whether the purpose of RA is for the coach to groom those he likes in shooting more or less the way he wants, or should instead be for him to take in elite athletes with the best scores who make MQS/USAT and groom them in whatever style got them there. Is MQS a minimum bar to come train with Lee in NTS? A weed out to study under him. Or is it merely the standard to apply for RA, and then we can argue whether that entails supplication to the desired form, or should instead be an opportunity to either choose that or fully develop what brung you?
> 
> After all, when someone said the purpose is to push 620 types to 660, but then someone else who's been there and trained says its purpose is "development," one thing you get into is how finished a product we're going to act like we have. I get in a sense an archer generally isn't ever quite finished, til we bury them. But a catch 22 I see is requiring MQS while calling it development. is MQS really a development level score? Maybe if you're thinking Olympic gold. But versus the rest of us, how many people from both sides of trials would make MQS, particularly women? I say this because if the real goal is development you'd fudge MQS as necessary to get in people who have "something" and then leverage the crap out of the opportunity. If you emphasize MQS then you're demanding, in domestic terms at least, what many might view as a fairly high "finished product" score and then terming it development and saying try NTS. Granted, maybe some rare archer comes in with a 300+ MQS and gets even better trying NTS. And maybe people coming there should have the choice. But to demand a fairly high score for MQS and then essentially treat it as qualifying to start NTS all over from scratch? That sounds less like pure development and more like a minimum standard to use the coach's time, which he wants to use mostly in one form direction it sounds like.


Excellent post. 

Here is a screen shot to make your point....

View attachment 5752841


Once you have shot that score, you can then come try out to see if you fit in with the current NGB program ( which means only shoot NTS). 

If you agree to change, you have a chance to stay. 

Chris


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Not to be critical but I think it was 28# *and she would probably be the first to tell you there is room for improvement in that form*. The confidence and ability to deal with the situation... no room for improvement there - *elite level*.


possibly, but you get the point i was making. 

Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> The rules clearly state what needs to be done to make USAT. No where does it state you have to be in alignment with the head coach.


To be honest, the travel and monetary benefits of making JDT and the RA program - which requires an archer to be in alignment with the head coach - far outweigh the benefits of making USAT. So it's kinda apples and oranges. Some folks want apples, others want oranges.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> To be honest, the travel and monetary benefits of making JDT and the RA program - which requires an archer to be in alignment with the head coach - far outweigh the benefits of making USAT. So it's kinda apples and oranges. Some folks want apples, others want oranges.


IMHO the finances of making the JDT and keeping up with its costs is crushing for lots of families. I have had four kids on JDT and I know what the families spent attending all the shoots required and the JDT camps. Now when two of those archers became RAs the situation completely reversed. But JDT at least from what I have seen as running a club that put four kids on JDT (and had others turn it down) was not cheap


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Good point Jim. Very true. 

Really, for those who can afford to shoot full time, the RA program is the only one that makes any financial sense to me.


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

Someone earlier in this thread asked why the topic veered to NTS and Coach Lee. It is because it stands at the crux of target archery in America, impacting and perhaps impeding both coach and athlete development. I wonder if national head coaches in other countries are so divisive?


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

How can it not veer to NTS. The entire certification is for NTS. 
And there are many coaches who are not interested to get any certification in NTS, or stop at Level 2 which is required for JOAD. 

Anyone not understanding that, is why there is a problem in the first place. 

This has everything to do with NTS and Coach Lee. If there was no NTS, this thread wouldnt even exist. 


Chris


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

The question is and remains, if coaches should be able to show proficiency at archery as they climb the coaching ladder.


----------



## Rylando (Jul 30, 2016)

midwayarcherywi said:


> The question is and remains, if coaches should be able to show proficiency at archery as they climb the coaching ladder.


Well should they show proficiency with NTS or with any style? Should it be solely based upon score? All those have to be taken into consideration.


----------



## Jay-El (Oct 16, 2012)

midwayarcherywi said:


> The question is and remains, if coaches should be able to show proficiency at archery as they climb the coaching ladder.



Yes. 

Why? It makes sense. 





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## iArch (Apr 17, 2015)

Rylando said:


> Well should they show proficiency with NTS or with any style? Should it be solely based upon score? All those have to be taken into consideration.


With the Level 4 NTS certification, coaches do have to show "proficiency" with NTS and demonstrate the technique with a stretch band or very light bow.


----------



## Rylando (Jul 30, 2016)

iArch said:


> With the Level 4 NTS certification, coaches do have to show "proficiency" with NTS and demonstrate the technique with a stretch band or very light bow.


Yep, but they are not asked to score X/300 using NTS, only show they know how to teach it, from what I understand.


----------



## Rylando (Jul 30, 2016)

I still think it's incredibly daft that there is one coaching program for three divisions. Have a basic archery certification and then split it up between the three.


----------



## X-file (Jul 7, 2012)

What's the old saying "those who can't do, teach". Just because someone doesn't have the skills or abilities of others doesn't mean they don't have an ability to coach


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Bowgren2 (Jul 13, 2016)

Those who are working on their own skills and abilities and working a job to support it seldom have the free time to coach in any sport. Knowledge of equipment, proper form, and the ability to train others by communicating are much more important. I have seen coaches who have great natural ability that have no idea how to explain or teach these skills to others. With age comes wisdom however skills sometimes become rusty. I helped teach the 4-H group the various rifle positions with air rifles and produced several excellent teams with top local shooters. Honestly almost any of them could out score the old man, however they would not have had a chance when I was 20 years old. Sadly I work harder now with lower scores in archery due to health and age. My biggest beef are the Level 1 coaches who never touched a bow in their lives that are working with our future archers.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

X-file said:


> What's the old saying "those who can't do, teach". Just because someone doesn't have the skills or abilities of others doesn't mean they don't have an ability to coach
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


That's not the point I was trying to make Charlie Pierson was not as good a FITA style archer as his top students such as Darrell Pace or Rick Wray etc. (Though Charlie was a legend in flight archery) I cannot shoot a crossbow as well as my top archer who holds a bunch of national and world records. Nick Bolleteri never won a grand slam title in tennis, unlike Jim Courier, Andre Agassi and Monica Seles. but Charlie was a long time competitive archer as am I and Bolleteri was a pretty good tennis player. We have level IIIs and IVs who have never competed in archery tournaments and some don't even shoot at all nor have they ever really shot. that's the point


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

Jim C said:


> That's not the point I was trying to make Charlie Pierson was not as good a FITA style archer as his top students such as Darrell Pace or Rick Wray etc. (Though Charlie was a legend in flight archery) I cannot shoot a crossbow as well as my top archer who holds a bunch of national and world records. Nick Bolleteri never won a grand slam title in tennis, unlike Jim Courier, Andre Agassi and Monica Seles. but Charlie was a long time competitive archer as am I and Bolleteri was a pretty good tennis player. We have level IIIs and IVs who have never competed in archery tournaments and some don't even shoot at all nor have they ever really shot. that's the point


Don't you think that the vast majority of the posters here agree with you, but the sticking point is defining what "proficiency" means?


----------



## X-file (Jul 7, 2012)

Jim C said:


> That's not the point I was trying to make Charlie Pierson was not as good a FITA style archer as his top students such as Darrell Pace or Rick Wray etc. (Though Charlie was a legend in flight archery) I cannot shoot a crossbow as well as my top archer who holds a bunch of national and world records. Nick Bolleteri never won a grand slam title in tennis, unlike Jim Courier, Andre Agassi and Monica Seles. but Charlie was a long time competitive archer as am I and Bolleteri was a pretty good tennis player. We have level IIIs and IVs who have never competed in archery tournaments and some don't even shoot at all nor have they ever really shot. that's the point


Understood. Just the point I'm trying to make is that there is more to coaching than being good at something


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

X-file said:


> Understood. Just the point I'm trying to make is that there is more to coaching than being good at something
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



I hear this over and over and over again, but it's pretty ridiculous and sometimes self-serving to ignore the fact that most top shooters got "good at something" because maybe they just KNEW more than the folks around them.

Shocking concept, I know, but I love how so many folks make believe that top archers don't necessarily know that much. They do, whether it's PC to say it or not. They do. You don't just "get good" by accident folks.

To the person, the top archers I know are incredibly knowledgeable about their craft.


----------



## X-file (Jul 7, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> I hear this over and over and over again, but it's pretty ridiculous and sometimes self-serving to ignore the fact that most top shooters got "good at something" because maybe they just KNEW more than the folks around them.
> 
> Shocking concept, I know, but I love how so many folks make believe that top archers don't necessarily know that much. They do, whether it's PC to say it or not. They do. You don't just "get good" by accident folks.


Okay..... Curious how my comments about coaching steered you to top shooters. 

Being a top shooter does not make you a great coach

And it's true it takes a lot of hard work and dedication to be a top shooter. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

X-file said:


> Okay..... Curious how my comments about coaching steered you to top shooters.
> 
> Being a top shooter does not make you a great coach
> 
> ...



It takes more than hard work and dedication. That's my whole point.

A lot of people work hard and are dedicated, but just haven't figured out enough to get better.

I know how that sounds but I no longer care about sounding PC. Some folks just "get it" more than others. And I would want someone who "gets it" to be coaching me or my kid.

No, being a top shooter does not automatically make someone a great coach, but it sure as hell gives them a better chance.


----------



## X-file (Jul 7, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> It takes more than hard work and dedication. That's my whole point.
> 
> A lot of people work hard and are dedicated, but just haven't figured out enough to get better.
> 
> ...


Very true. Some do get it and some don't. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Unk Bond (Aug 1, 2004)

limb walker said:


> It takes more than hard work and dedication. That's my whole point.
> 
> A lot of people work hard and are dedicated, but just haven't figured out enough to get better.
> 
> ...



=============

Hello limb walker and all.
I have followed this thread for some time now.
I am a self made archer. 

Reason being at my time of competing. There wasn't a coach to be had.
Well in my small area. I could hold my own. Went undefeated for challenge shoots for a year in my local club. 
My ego was quiet high I had taken down the top season club rooster.shooter of the club
So living in a small town area. And getting my comb red-er and red-er. There came my time and chance to go to a big event.

And that was Co Bo Hall In Detroit Michigan,
Walked in got set up and went to the line. Looked down the line. There was Vic Berger 4 targets to my right down. 
And Butts on an on with very top archers. That stadium was huge with a divider and more archers on the other side. Now right there and then I was beat be fore I drawled my first arrow.
Not only had stage fright set in with that huge crowd. The well name archers on the line helped add to it.

My point here. 
It doesn't matter how good you are. Or how good you think you are. One needs a coach that has had travel Ex- spearance, Socialized with big crowds and new the ropes . And a coach that was on hand to smooth you out. And bring you along. [ Later


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

fita_chick said:


> Agree! When I first started getting to go to the OTC was sort of a goal. Then I saw a few fellow archers that went out there & got their form totally rebuilt (& not for the better).
> 
> I find it odd that the same person in the video is in charge of the organization that is pushing only 1 way of teaching. She must not remember what it's like to be "in the trenches".
> 
> I'm not a certified anything (certifiable though maybe) but can someone more experienced help me understand something. In general, can a certain body type/attribute be more appropriate for one type of form over another? If so, is (or was) that taught in coaching classes or is that learned thru experience & observation? And can that change over the course of growth (either physical growth or experience/archery growth) for a single archer?


Denise's position is not quite as simple as your question might imply - changing positions or directions while balancing on a high wire calls for patience and methodical care.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Based upon what I've seen and heard from others, it looks to me that NTS and the RDT and JDT structures are part of a system to funnel revenue streams toward the top (Coach Lee and his inner circle/cadre of coaches). JDT appears, from what I've seen and heard, to hurt rather than help many of the young archers to make regular trips out there, with frequent form changes each time at camp (many times with a different coach assigned on each trip) and tuning changes that allow for little continuity for the archer. Some of the higher ups know the system isn't working, but are perplexed at this point as to how to fix it (and lots of political oranges to juggle). 

Coach Lee's NTS is a complicated technique to accomplish more draw weight at holding. This focus on the 'technique' leg (and the holy grail of holding weight) is the overriding animus/thrust of the program. Little shrift, relatively, is paid to the 'tuning' leg or the 'mental game' of the three-legged stool.

As Coach Lee and his inner circle have considerable $$$ interests in the current structure , I don't expect to see much change in the structure until there's a different coach (and perhaps a different source of where some of the money comes from).

As a comment about the 'can someone be a good coach if he/she never competed or shot at some level of proficiency?' ... I say "I doubt it, especially if that definition includes/requires an 'equipment tuning' expertise and a battle-tested 'mental game' experience/familiarity/proficiency."


----------



## Bowgren2 (Jul 13, 2016)

Lets make it so difficult to get that only a few will be qualified thus driving the price for lessons up. Currently I have become a Level 2 Instructor/trainer after two years as a Level 2, the amount of time and money to get this so I can work with Boy Scouts shows a commitment to the sport. So far I have not charged anything for lessons and equipment repair, so many argue that it is worthless. Those who do not believe training is necessary are running events since they hunted for years or know someone who shot a bow. The Genesis bows that we are repairing have been backed down too far, strings have never been waxed and arrows never inspected. Many argue that recurves are easier to care for without thinking about limb twist from improper stringing. Education is the difference, the average person thinks that hunting is cruel and should be stopped. It is difficult to get the respect of the students without us fighting with each other about shooting ability. Down grading level 1 and 2, can not help this situation. The NRA training that I took was similar, safety is number one. I was never ask to be a state champion to teach students how to score, and how to shoot. Most parents would not be satisfied if the national champion were coaching their child. The truth is the instructor, coach, teacher is just someone to blame for the students shortcomings. If love of the sport is not enough for most of us, the program would fall on its face.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Lets make it so difficult to get that only a few will be qualified thus driving the price for lessons up.


Archery at the higher levels is difficult. Obtaining certifications to teach at the higher levels should be even more difficult. 

Obtaining a PGA teaching pro certification is neither easy nor inexpensive. I love the sport of archery enough that I feel we deserve at least the same standard for our higher level coaches. We have so many archery "coaches" who would never be able to obtain the equivalent of a PGA teaching pro cert, it's laughable. 

Certainly, the standards should be raised for higher level certifications in this sport to include a merit-based qualification. Until then, our instructional system will always be second-class to mainstream sports.


----------



## skiisme753 (Jan 15, 2013)

Under the current system there is no vetting or shooting requirements for coaches. Anyone who shows up and can pass the test can become certified. The big issue is that there is zero value to being a level whatever coach. Yes, there are great coaches out there, but there are also really bad ones as well. It's up to the student to determine if a coach is knowledgeable or an egotistical moron who gets a level 4 certification to pump their own chest. Honestly there are many great coaches who have no certifications whatsoever. I would like to see some sort of shooting requirements for level 3 and up. Hopefully that would add credibility and value to the certifications which is currently lacking. It would be great to know a level 3 coach was a good shooter and was knowledgeable about the sport.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Regarding shooting qualifications- I know there was a push to have in the Level 4 requirements that anyone wanting to take their L4 would have had to prove they have shot any state level tournament (with posted scores). Tournament didn't have to be paper punching either - field and 3D were also supposed to be supported. 

I don't know if that push ever got accepted or not.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Beastmaster said:


> Regarding shooting qualifications- I know there was a push to have in the Level 4 requirements that anyone wanting to take their L4 would have had to prove they have shot any state level tournament (with posted scores). Tournament didn't have to be paper punching either - field and 3D were also supposed to be supported.
> 
> I don't know if that push ever got accepted or not.


If it doesn't, then we can really only draw one conclusion, and it's not very flattering.


----------



## Nick1959 (Apr 30, 2003)

I wrote a long reply on how all of these organizations are here to make money for a select few but I decided not to post it.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

erose said:


> This is the way it is viewed currently. Here is the problem with this. A level two can be a head *coach* of a JOAD club. USAA views him/her as an instructor, and yet to be a head coach of a JOAD club requires one to coach. Instruction is what you do in an Explore Archery Program or something similar. You do both in a JOAD club, and there are level ones coaching in JOAD clubs as well. So the current classifications IMO are bogus and should be done away with.


Is JOAD tee ball or kiddie soccer that parents usually coach, or is it serious bid-ness like select travel teams usually handled by a professional? I've seen both concepts. You need a class or classes that is basically either safety rules and basic knowledge for parents coaching, or "I want an official credential to coach but I don't care enough about your system to progress." You then need a track with a few levels for the serious types, working up to the top.

Even soccer usually has some sort of cert or orientation for parents who want to coach kid's teams, and the ball is not going to perforate the players if they get rowdy.

I would see the issue as, archery is still getting its feet and growing, and JOAD reflects that, and that while in some areas parents would have choices, in others they may not. In soccer you can dial up or down your choices depending how serious the kid wants to be. There are leagues that don't keep score for learners or people who want to keep it light. There are rec leagues that keep score. There are select leagues working their way up to a national championship. There are Olympic development teams, national teams, etc. Archery in the bigger cities fits that model but in some areas, you probably get whatever the JOAD concept is for that one team locally. If it's serious and you want serious, jackpot. If it's playing around, that's what you get unless you want to drive. I think that's a little bit of where this is going, is the fact right now JOAD is a cross between select and rec and often contains both types. So your particular notion of JOAD is shaping how you think it should be structured.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I want to see the reaction of a parent paying good $ for their kid's baseball travel team when they find out the coach never even played HS baseball.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> I want to see the reaction of a parent paying good $ for their kid's baseball travel team when they find out the coach never even played HS baseball.


yep, My squash coaches included a Three Time All-American who was the top 50 year old player in the world, and a woman who was on the pro tour and represented the USA in two other sports. The man who taught me Olympic style skeet was on the 76 Olympic team and the 77 world championship team. One of my table tennis coaches won the US Open 6 times, another was one of the top players in his homeland before wwII (Latvia). The archery coaches that have helped me the most had equal or higher competitive credentials. 

I think students want someone who has competed and knows the pressures.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jim C said:


> yep, My squash coaches included a Three Time All-American who was the top 50 year old player in the world, and a woman who was on the pro tour and represented the USA in two other sports. The man who taught me Olympic style skeet was on the 76 Olympic team and the 77 world championship team. One of my table tennis coaches won the US Open 6 times, another was one of the top players in his homeland before wwII (Latvia). The archery coaches that have helped me the most had equal or higher competitive credentials.
> 
> I think students want someone who has competed and knows the pressures.


Or even just the techniques. Because many of the intricate details that make a 310 shooter a 330 shooter, are learned through trial and error. 330 shooters all know this.


----------



## Bowgren2 (Jul 13, 2016)

Parents could not care less if their coach played HS baseball their kid's baseball team as long as they win. Our HS football coach warmed the bench at every game except when we were so far ahead that they had everyone play. He graduated from college with a degree which made him qualified. If it is so easy to just take the test, why are their so few listed in each state. The test for child protection alone is more than most of the general public would care to take. Completing the background checks and putting your money were your mouth is should count for something. I took the course from my coach at Lancaster, he knows that I can shoot but required me to test with right hand equipment and a recurve at that.
When I inquired about the course, he recommended that I take it due to my college degree. It is apparent to the instructor if the student for a Level does not display the knowledge and experience. Everyone in the course I took either worked in archery, shot in local competitions, or they could not have past the exam. Maybe we should only have people with college degrees apply for each level. My son was offered a position on the Penn State Archery Team. This did not exist when I started in archery and how many of you shot for your HS team. In the 70's they did not exist in my area. This sport is growing and could be great, without people questioning the qualifications of those willing to coach. Many of my student never make it beyond local competitions however they could if they wanted to. No everyone that plays baseball makes it to the majors leagues. My cousin made it to training camp, however I would not let him work with my kids.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Parents could not care less if their coach played HS baseball their kid's baseball team as long as they win.


Maybe not after that coach already has a winning record, which is why I say a merit-based system is in order.



> No everyone that plays baseball makes it to the majors leagues.


Nobody is saying you have to be a "major league" athlete to coach.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

At the upper rungs, I generally agree that in this sport you are judged by individual performance, and the best people to teach you the technique and setup and such to elevate your own performance will have had to elevate themselves at similarly high performance levels.

But I also agree with those who point out that not everyone who can perform, can also coach. It's a communication and management thing. So while ideally I might want my highest scorers coaching, not all of them will want to do it, and of those who do, some may not be able to communicate what they can do.

But I also feel like it's too absolute to shut the door on the enlightened amateur. A parent or adult helper who lacks a background might not immediately be much more than a "monitor." But the parents on my club soccer team as kids, who had been around for years, probably had second tier knowledge behind the kids and their coach. They have watched a ton of soccer. They have heard the coach critique. They can probably absorb it in more relaxed ways than the athletes can. If a parent pays attention and sometimes helps the kid out, and maybe does some classes, I'm sure the parents of some 300 type shooters "get it." Only some will take it up but I've seen a few parents become good in their own right. [Whether that's great for the kid, perfect parent-child relationship, another question.....]

I'm not advocating for elevation of beginner parent-coaches, and maybe we need to either educate about what the levels mean or limit what they can do, all I am saying is to run a sort of "roll out the ball and have fun" JOAD program like kid's soccer or tee-ball, you need some parents who get a crash course in safety and shooting, to give some supervision and coaching to noobs. Now, you wouldn't want them coaching the "travel team" type JOAD kids, but then that's getting more into making sure the different levels of seriousness are available all across the country, and have appropriate coaches for the skills and ambitions of the archers hanging around. But I don't think that changes that certain clubs would find a parent-coach sufficient, or want to have some to mix in to give them enough coverage and supervision.


----------

