# Will Lee keep his job...



## chrstphr

to be blunt, 

My guess would be if Brady decides to go for Paris in 2024, he will request that Lee stay...and Lee will stay.

USA Archery doesnt care about the results of the program obviously with the track record we have since Lee came. Its been more than a decade and we have had the program dumb us down to a third world country level of performance.

USA Archery only cares about what Brady and MacKenzie want since they are the top archers.

Thats how we have Chris Webster as the women's coach. The top archers pick the coach.

Nothing will change after Tokyo. Unless Brady retires, then Lee will retire as there isnt another Brady waiting in the wings to ride on the coat tails.

Chris


----------



## limbwalker

I can't see Brady not going for 2024, so I'll take your vote as a yes.


----------



## limbwalker

Lots of crickets here... LOL


----------



## Draven Olary

I would say No, but I doubt it is due to the results and if it happens will be months after the Tokyo. I don't see Brady going for 2024


----------



## limbwalker

Draven Olary said:


> I would say No, but I doubt it is due to the results and if it happens will be months after the Tokyo. I don't see Brady going for 2024


Sounds like "will Brady bring Lee with him to 2024?" is the better question!


----------



## Gregjlongbow

I don’t know enough about the politics, but it seems to me that we have a recruiting system with a very small pipeline for creating high level athletes, and I bet it’s not because they don’t exist. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Draven Olary

limbwalker said:


> Sounds like "will Brady bring Lee with him to 2024?" is the better question!


Maybe


----------



## FerrumVeritas

I’d like to see a break in the cult like following that the US has. I’m not aware of another sport where the national coach has so much control over all levels of coaching (other than USA Gymnastics of the past, which was a disaster)


----------



## Draven Olary

FerrumVeritas said:


> I’d like to see a break in the cult like following that the US has. I’m not aware of another sport where the national coach has so much control over all levels of coaching (other than USA Gymnastics of the past, which was a disaster)



I actually think the Head Coach has way less power than what is speculated from what I was reading here. As in any company, the power is on the "Council" side, the Coach is merely an employee.


----------



## chrstphr

Draven Olary said:


> I actually think the Head Coach has way less power than what is speculated from what I was reading here. As in any company, the power is on the "Council" side, the Coach is merely an employee.


the council here does what Brady says. Brady says Lee is in charge. So Lee is in charge of it all. The council doesnt boss Lee and hasnt for years. 


Chris


----------



## limbwalker

chrstphr said:


> the council here does what Brady says. Brady says Lee is in charge. So Lee is in charge of it all. The council doesnt boss Lee and hasnt for years.
> 
> 
> Chris


We've had one athlete running USArchery for quite some time. Good thing he is who he is. Brady is almost single-handedly responsible for Barebow coming back into outdoor nationals. Not many people understand that, but I was challenging Denise at the annual meeting about barebow, and if he hadn't stepped in and spoken in favor of including it, nothing would have changed. I will always give him so much credit for that. I was the direct recipient a year later, and he was the first person to congratulate me. Class act all the way.


----------



## Draven Olary

chrstphr said:


> the council here does what Brady says. Brady says Lee is in charge. So Lee is in charge of it all. The council doesnt boss Lee and hasnt for years.
> 
> 
> Chris


Chris, this logic is flawed. The Council bossed KSL to sign accreditations for coaches in his style of shooting and you check what Jake Kaminski is teaching on his channel and what the accredited coaches are teaching and you wonder “what the […]”. The power comes in many forms, making happen what you want without actually doing something is one of them 

PS This opinion is based on what was written here. KSL leaving and as I said above I don’t see Brady competing again in 2024, maybe will show who was the puppet and who was the puppeteer.


----------



## FerrumVeritas

I wonder if Brady wants the spot? Or if he could do it. 

I think he'll go for 2024 if he doesn't get a medal this year.


----------



## Draven Olary

That’s my personal wish: Brady to become Head Coach. After a Gold medal in Tokyo or not.


----------



## limbwalker

FerrumVeritas said:


> I wonder if Brady wants the spot? Or if he could do it.
> 
> I think he'll go for 2024 if he doesn't get a medal this year.


Brady can do anything he wants in this sport. I would love to see him teaching someday, but I don't expect him to tolerate the politics in a full-time gig.

Honestly, Brady and Jake could run the OTC better than anyone IMO.


----------



## FerrumVeritas

Jake's videos are an excellent resource. I think he and Brady could do a lot (more) for the sport.


----------



## limbwalker

FerrumVeritas said:


> Jake's videos are an excellent resource. I think he and Brady could do a lot (more) for the sport.


They already have. I've always seen them (and Mac) as leaders in our sport.


----------



## FerrumVeritas

Hence the "(more)."


----------



## chang

I like Brady's earlier form.


----------



## FerrumVeritas

I daresay most of us would prefer to be in the shape we were in in 2008.


----------



## Draven Olary

limbwalker said:


> They already have. I've always seen them (and Mac) as leaders in our sport.



Jake shooting 333-334 scores after big pauses makes me wonder how good he could be in a training camp as Coach for new-with-potential archers. He has definitely the Coach material in him with shooting credentials.


----------



## limbwalker

chang said:


> I like Brady's earlier form.
> View attachment 7439297


Him with that bow... So much to love.


----------



## limbwalker

FerrumVeritas said:


> I daresay most of us would prefer to be in the shape we were in in 2008.


Not me. I was fighting the only archery injury I've ever had at that time.


----------



## limbwalker

Draven Olary said:


> Jake shooting 333-334 scores after big pauses makes me wonder how good he could be in a training camp as Coach for new-with-potential archers. He has definitely the Coach material in him with shooting credentials.


Jake has always been a thinker. As he hones his teaching skill, he will be a real force. I'm sorry I left the JDT program before he arrived.


----------



## BubbaDean1

If a college or professional coach had the same record as Lee they would have been gone long ago. What amazes me is the thousands of kids in JOAD programs that have shot Oly recurve over the last ten or so years and this is the best we have. Brady is a phenom. I agree he is also an upstanding individual. Why is it that Korea is so far ahead of us. Training method? Coaching? National pride? Dedication? Lack of corporate sponsorship like Hyundai and others? These are the questions that need to be asked.


----------



## FerrumVeritas

BubbaDean1 said:


> If a college or professional coach had the same record as Lee they would have been gone long ago. What amazes me is the thousands of kids in JOAD programs that have shot Oly recurve over the last ten or so years and this is the best we have. Brady is a phenom. I agree he is also an upstanding individual. Why is it that Korea is so far ahead of us. Training method? Coaching? National pride? Dedication? Lack of corporate sponsorship like Hyundai and others? These are the questions that need to be asked.


To the last point, could you imagine what could be done if Bezos, Branson, and Musk decided to measure a portion of their anatomy by who funded the best archery team?


----------



## Ray.L

BubbaDean1 said:


> If a college or professional coach had the same record as Lee they would have been gone long ago. What amazes me is the thousands of kids in JOAD programs that have shot Oly recurve over the last ten or so years and this is the best we have. Brady is a phenom. I agree he is also an upstanding individual. Why is it that Korea is so far ahead of us. Training method? Coaching? National pride? Dedication? Lack of corporate sponsorship like Hyundai and others? These are the questions that need to be asked.


It seems like a combination of the above. They cast a much wider net much earlier (how visible is JOAD outside of archery circles?), it's a more viable pursuit (in terms of income and expenses covered), and there's a lot of national pride tied up with it.


----------



## Draven Olary

BubbaDean1 said:


> If a college or professional coach had the same record as Lee they would have been gone long ago. What amazes me is the thousands of kids in JOAD programs that have shot Oly recurve over the last ten or so years and this is the best we have. Brady is a phenom. I agree he is also an upstanding individual. Why is it that Korea is so far ahead of us. Training method? Coaching? National pride? Dedication? Lack of corporate sponsorship like Hyundai and others? These are the questions that need to be asked.


The quality of coaches at every level is what makes Korea great at archery. And their unbroken source of inspiration within traditional archery. Coach Kim, considered here as one of the best Coaches alive is also a master in traditional archery. I doubt it is just a coincidence, disregarding the type of archery or the fact that they were taught OA. Question: who’s responsible with the coach’s quality in US? You might get your answer.
PS Do you think Kim JD is there because he was a self-taught with talent?


----------



## crownimperial

BubbaDean1 said:


> If a college or professional coach had the same record as Lee they would have been gone long ago. What amazes me is the thousands of kids in JOAD programs that have shot Oly recurve over the last ten or so years and this is the best we have. Brady is a phenom. I agree he is also an upstanding individual. Why is it that Korea is so far ahead of us. Training method? Coaching? National pride? Dedication? Lack of corporate sponsorship like Hyundai and others? These are the questions that need to be asked.







This is a inside look at the Korean training program. They are starting these kids young, and bear in mind this isn't just a few schools in Korea , its almost every school. In the beginning they don't focus on scores or medals, they start them very softly and focus on form and perfection. One more thing I would like to add is that they dont necessarily push one particular way of shooting, they are willing to make adjustments to the technique in order too capitalize on your physical characteristics.


----------



## chang

crownimperial said:


> This is a inside look at the Korean training program. They are starting these kids young, and bear in mind this isn't just a few schools in Korea , its almost every school. In the beginning they don't focus on scores or medals, they start them very softly and focus on form and perfection. One more thing I would like to add is that they dont necessarily push one particular way of shooting, they are willing to make adjustments to the technique in order too capitalize on your physical characteristics.


That is more like a general observation of the Korean system. they have been many of this type of studies in the past. but it is worth to understand a bit of their background. First of all, there is no recreational archery community in Korea, The program are neither originated from nor supported by the recreational community. It was in the Late 60's, the Korean government carefully evaluated and selected archery as one of the four core sports to dominate in the Olympic.

The program can focus on a few techniques and picks the archers. and I remembered hearing from words like "champion body shape" "champian shoulder" from Korean coaches (ie Mr Kim Hyung Tak etc). which refer to the body types more suited for their techniques. Overall, the Korean system is more like the Soviets and Chinese that control were from the top, Archers are more like public servants, and are given jobs after their sport career ended. Most of retired Korean archers did not keep archery as hobby.

I am not so sure if they kinda training system really fits countries that have a large recreational community. and there are successful case of Korean coaches brought their technique to other countries and adapted to the local system and communities. 

For the Korean system Mr Lee brought. I have this kinda the feeling even when he was in Australia then


----------



## Glenredhawk

I believe we need to evaluate the whole system from top on down as how we go forward. We have the finest training facility's that are supported. I think you have to understand Archery is their national sport. It would be like them joining the NFL and trying to compete with us. We need to be more welcoming with kids joining the sport of Archery they are out there we need a better way of finding them. I don't believe that NTS has to be the way or the highway. I see Lee gone.


----------



## Boomer2094

I agree with others saying that the archer pick the coach... and because I think Brady will want to go to 2024 Olympic, I think coach Lee will stay.

Although, I believe the system will need some change. This mindset of "Either shoot NTS or GTFO" is not conducive to getting the talented archer into US Archery.

Brady is a phenom, he singlehandedly legitimized NTS as a valid method of archery, but besides handful of shooters (Brady, Mac, Jake, Casey, etc), how many talented archers could be shooting for USA that don't, and won't, shoot NTS? How many archers wouldn't consider shooting for USA because of the NTS system? How many talents did we lose yearly by our steadfast devotion to NTS?

I think this "shoot NTS or GTFO" mindset is hurting the USA Archery. I dunno who is pushing this, Coach Lee? Brady? USAA board of directors? I don't know, but it need to change.


----------



## Boomer2094

As for implementing system like South Korea has here in the US... It can be done, but will face many difficulties.

1) Every public school, from middle to high school, will need to have an archery program...and have the kids that want to join it. 

Consider how many other sports (football, baseball, etc) that are also competing for Kids, I don't know if we'll have enough kids that would join archery program for it to be feasible for every school.

2) We need private companies sponsorship for archers. 

And it could happen, although I don't foresee it. How many billionaires (Bezos, Musk, and others) even heard, known, or cared about archery? Archery is NOT part of culture in US like it is in Korea, so I don't see them stepping up and sponsor a whole bunch of archers just to compete in tournaments worldwide. They have many other sports/people they can sponsor that would increase their visibility in the World.

3) There are simply too many other sports in the US that kids can go into that has a lot brighter future compared to archery. 

Just the way it is...Sports like football, basketball, baseball, etc has full-ride scholarship through college and once out of college, has major leagues that could potentially pay them tens of thousands, or even millions of dollars yearly. What could archery offer to kids?

Knowing that we are competing with other sports that has a lot more to offer, we need to widen our nets as much as possible, so we could catch the next Brady and Mackenzie. The Narrow net of NTS is NOT going to get the job done.


----------



## hockeyref

Boomer2094 said:


> ..........
> 
> Although, I believe the system will need some change. This mindset of "Either shoot NTS or GTFO" is not conducive to getting the talented archer into US Archery.
> 
> Brady is a phenom, he singlehandedly legitimized NTS as a valid method of archery, but besides handful of shooters (Brady, Mac, Jake, Casey, etc), how many talented archers could be shooting for USA that don't, and won't, shoot NTS? How many archers wouldn't consider shooting for USA because of the NTS system? How many talents did we lose yearly by our steadfast devotion to NTS?
> 
> I think this "shoot NTS or GTFO" mindset is hurting the USA Archery. I dunno who is pushing this, Coach Lee? Brady? USAA board of directors? I don't know, but it need to change.



I seem to remember us beating the NTS horse to death waaaay back when Lee was first hired and the NTS was first discussed here.


----------



## Boomer2094

hockeyref said:


> I seem to remember us beating the NTS horse to death waaaay back when Lee was first hired and the NTS was first discussed here.


I remember that too... 

The difference being, we now have the result. 

Has NTS made USA more competitive? Has NTS give USA the archers to take over once Brady is done?


----------



## limbwalker

hockeyref said:


> I seem to remember us beating the NTS horse to death waaaay back when Lee was first hired and the NTS was first discussed here.


And about 100 times since.

NTS isn't what this thread is about. Rather, like any high profile coach whose team has a rough outing or two, the question always becomes, will they remain?


----------



## limbwalker

Boomer2094 said:


> I remember that too...
> 
> The difference being, we now have the result.
> 
> Has NTS made USA more competitive? Has NTS give USA the archers to take over once Brady is done?


If you want to talk NTS, please start a new thread for it. Thank you.


----------



## lcaillo

Will Lee lose his job, probably not. Should he? That depends. Without some clear vision of what a program should look like and what values it should operate under, a change may not result in any improvement and may make things worse. You could end up with greater chaos. There is a case to be made for letting things melt down, resulting in a clearer path forward, but this usually results in little progress, just more patches on a leaky hull.


----------



## limbwalker

lcaillo said:


> Will Lee lose his job, probably not. Should he? That depends. Without some clear vision of what a program should look like and what values it should operate under, a change may not result in any improvement and may make things worse. You could end up with greater chaos. There is a case to be made for letting things melt down, resulting in a clearer path forward, but this usually results in little progress, just more patches on a leaky hull.


I think the first step would be to decide how we define success and be realistic about it based on the foundation of the sport here in the U.S. compared to other nations. 

"patches on a leaky hull" doesn't set well with me. No offense, but that is an incredibly pessimistic way to view things. For all we know, we have overachieved for the past 3-4 cycles based on what's going on in the rest of the world. To just assume this is a sinking ship isn't being very objective.

A close examination of what other successful countries are doing, what our strengths and weaknesses are, and whether anyone else's (country) solutions would fit well in America is in order, I think. 

American athletes have a lot of strengths to build on. American archery has a lot of strengths other nations don't have. But we also have weaknesses and limitations those other nations don't have. So I think finding (or keeping) a coach that fits well in an American system - whatever we decide that is - would be important.


----------



## limbwalker

All that said - at the very least - our women's team ranking higher than our men's squad should not be unusual. That should be a primary goal - to have balance between the teams.


----------



## Boomer2094

limbwalker said:


> A close examination of what other successful countries are doing, what our strengths and weaknesses are, and whether anyone else's (country) solutions would fit well in America is in order, I think.
> 
> American athletes have a lot of strengths to build on. American archery has a lot of strengths other nations don't have. But we also have weaknesses and limitations those other nations don't have. So I think finding (or keeping) a coach that fits well in an American system - whatever we decide that is - would be important.


Well stated, I agree with this.

The problem is, with Brady still in the picture, and his clear preference of coach Lee, The point you are making - at least for now - is moot. Coach Lee will stay, the status quo is maintained, and nothing changes.



limbwalker said:


> All that said - at the very least - our women's team ranking higher than our men's squad should not be unusual. That should be a primary goal - to have balance between the teams.


I'm curious, Does coach Lee has direct influence on their success?


----------



## midnightwarrior

limbwalker said:


> after this performance in Tokyo?
> 
> What say you?


Based on his track record of creating so many Olympians, why should he not ? A Solid yes from me. I am sure you don't want to hear this. whats your interest in this anyway? seems as you are too fascinated by him. you want his job lol ? (joking)


----------



## limbwalker

midnightwarrior said:


> *Based on his track record of creating so many Olympians*, why should he not ? A Solid yes from me. I am sure you don't want to hear this. whats your interest in this anyway? seems as you are too fascinated by him. you want his job lol ? (joking)


Compared to whom? Canada? Indonesia? Turkey? Taipei?

Or are you saying compared to previous head coaches in the US?

It's an archery discussion forum. This is a very common question in the recurve target archery community. Frankly I couldn't care less either way, but I do care about the future of the sport in this country, as most here do.


----------



## midnightwarrior

based on what we saw today from american team, the future of the sport is solid. The Champ and Jack Williams both performed great


----------



## limbwalker

midnightwarrior said:


> based on what we saw today from american team, the future of the sport is solid. The Champ and Jack Williams both performed great


You mentioned representatives from half the team. Just thought I'd point that out (again). The men are in fact, just fine.

However, it seems Americans always forget that the US Olympic team is 1/2 women.


----------



## limbwalker

I think part of the answer to this question - as has been alluded to already - is who we have waiting in the wings (meaning archers). Is there another Brady/Jack/Jacob ready to take their place? Is there another Mac/Casey/Jennifer who will be ready for 2024?  Those three are young enough, but it would be nice to have three or four more. Four years (three in this case) is a long time. 

The presence or absence of a solid cadre ready to go for 2024 will determine a lot, I think.


----------



## midnightwarrior

Mac short great, her usual self. something changed in the trio since last night. even the commentator said. maybe Coach told them to get their act together?


----------



## limbwalker

midnightwarrior said:


> Mac short great, her usual self. something changed in the trio since last night. even the commentator said. maybe Coach told them to get their act together?


Mac is peaking at the right time. She has really struggled the past few years and was not her usual self. Glad she got it sorted at the right time. I have massive respect for her as an athlete and competitor.


----------



## midnightwarrior

limbwalker said:


> I think part of the answer to this question - as has been alluded to already - is who we have waiting in the wings (meaning archers). Is there another Brady/Jack/Jacob ready to take their place? Is there another Mac/Casey/Jennifer who will be ready for 2024? The presence or absence of a solid cadre ready to go for 2024 will determine a lot, I think.


i bet Mac/Casey/Jennifer


----------



## midnightwarrior

limbwalker said:


> Mac is peaking at the right time. She has really struggled the past few years and was not her usual self. Glad she got it sorted at the right time. I have massive respect for her as an athlete and competitor.


mac struggled when woo was coach. she has found her form again since woo left. my opinion.


----------



## limbwalker

midnightwarrior said:


> mac struggled when woo was coach. she has found her form again since woo left. my opinion.


She's not the only one. That was a train wreck inside a dumpster fire. One of my students was a casualty of that experiment.


----------



## midnightwarrior

how about those sixes today though from others....havn't seen that many six's shot since maybe Athens.


----------



## midnightwarrior

limbwalker said:


> She's not the only one. That was a train wreck inside a dumpster fire. One of my students was a casualty of that experiment.


lol. do you know who's brilliant idea was that? just for kicks?


----------



## limbwalker

midnightwarrior said:


> how about those sixes today though from others....havn't seen that many six's shot since maybe Athens.


Anytime the wind gets up in a stadium "bowl"... well, most of those archers aren't used to that and once they are lost, they don't know how to right the ship. World class archers don't have a lot of experience shooting 3's and 6's in big competitions. It's a real punch in the face at a moment when they don't have time to regroup.


----------



## midnightwarrior

im sad for Jack. he was brilliant today. hate the set system. but that young man is the future. today is bitter sweet for us.


----------



## limbwalker

midnightwarrior said:


> im sad for Jack. he was brilliant today. hate the set system. but that young man is the future. today is bitter sweet for us.


Jack is quite the talent. He will have a long, successful career if he stays healthy.


----------



## TheElBow

chang said:


> I like Brady's earlier form.
> View attachment 7439297


I like his earlier bow a lot more.


----------



## chrstphr

midnightwarrior said:


> lol. do you know who's brilliant idea was that? just for kicks?


She was hired by Denise to be independent of Lee and teach the Korean shot like she did with team Mexico for the London Olympics. She was to be equal to Lee, not under him. Her first few days at the OTC, Lee had her attend his NTS seminars and made it clear that NTS is what she was going to teach and she would be under him. She changed several archers that were shooting 640 and the linear shot to NTS and they shot poorly and got kicked out of the program (including John's student).

She was doomed from the start as Denise left for a better job with the IOC right when Woo started and the incoming CEO only wanted Lee. So USA archery decided to get rid of her as they were giving the women's team back to Lee.

The CEO Rod first tried with a safesport report violation which was rejected. They tried to make a case that she had married an archer that she coached ( like she used her position of authority to groom a relationship with him). But her husband was a full adult at the time, both were consenting, and there was no safesport violation.

When that failed, he just fired her and as of today USA archery has not even made an announcement that she is gone.

That is the story of that "train wreck".

Its no wonder i gave up all my USA archery affiliations.

Chris


----------



## Seattlepop

RE: Coach Woo. I'm not sure what the conflict was, her husband is/was a member of the British Team I think, not US. He has an excellent channel, "Online Archery Academy". https://www.youtube.com/c/OnlineArcheryAcademy/videos


----------



## nakedape

About - Online Archery Academy







www.onlinearcheryacademy.com






Safesport seems useless from the articles I read about the Olympic fencing fiasco.


----------



## midnightwarrior

So this is the Tokyo analysis so from straight from the source which I will not disclose









all three of coach lee student at the 2020 Olympics are top archers!!! Korea who??
Set systems does not paint the whole picture. Anyone can win. We are the best and our coach is the best. I sure am proud. There are opinions which everyone has, but then there are statistics.


----------



## FerrumVeritas

nakedape said:


> About - Online Archery Academy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.onlinearcheryacademy.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Safesport seems useless from the articles I read about the Olympic fencing fiasco.


That particular fencer had learned to fight a toothless system in college and then applied the same skills to Safesport. He’s also at a club that has a history of terrible decision making when it comes to protecting their prominent fencers and coaches.


----------



## stick monkey

BubbaDean1 said:


> If a college or professional coach had the same record as Lee they would have been gone long ago. What amazes me is the thousands of kids in JOAD programs that have shot Oly recurve over the last ten or so years and this is the best we have. Brady is a phenom. I agree he is also an upstanding individual. Why is it that Korea is so far ahead of us. Training method? Coaching? National pride? Dedication? Lack of corporate sponsorship like Hyundai and others? These are the questions that need to be asked.


Probably because they beat their students...rumor has it


----------



## Stash

BubbaDean1 said:


> ...What amazes me is the thousands of kids in JOAD programs that have shot Oly recurve over the last ten or so years and this is the best we have. Brady is a phenom. I agree he is also an upstanding individual. Why is it that Korea is so far ahead of us. Training method? Coaching? National pride? Dedication? Lack of corporate sponsorship like Hyundai and others? These are the questions that need to be asked.


You could blame NASP, and Mathews and the Genesis bow for starting kids towards the Dark Side. 😄


----------



## SHPoet

chrstphr said:


> to be blunt,
> 
> My guess would be if Brady decides to go for Paris in 2024, he will request that Lee stay...and Lee will stay.


My guess as well. We'll see in a few weeks I guess.


----------



## Boomer2094

BubbaDean1 said:


> If a college or professional coach had the same record as Lee they would have been gone long ago. What amazes me is the thousands of kids in JOAD programs that have shot Oly recurve over the last ten or so years and this is the best we have. Brady is a phenom. I agree he is also an upstanding individual. Why is it that Korea is so far ahead of us. Training method? Coaching? National pride? Dedication? Lack of corporate sponsorship like Hyundai and others? These are the questions that need to be asked.


Funny thing is, a lot of the kids in JOAD are not even shooting OR bows... This is direct quote from JOAD website.



> JOAD offers *barebow*, recurve and *compound* archers the opportunity to learn range safety and proper shooting technique in an environment that also fosters focus, increased self-confidence, and team building skills.


Is barebow and compound in Olympics? No. So why a program named "Junior *OLYMPIC* Archery Development" has barebow and compound in it? Doesn't make sense to me.

Now, should barebow and compound be in Olympics? I think it should. but at this moment, it isn't.

...So what is JOAD program actually "developing"?


----------



## tassie_devil

Boomer2094 said:


> ...So what is JOAD program actually "developing"?


 Archers. I presume someone thought get kids into archery for starters. The best US archer is a compound shooter who (I believe) switched to recurve because he wanted to go to the Olympics.

The idea may, or may not, be without merit... Only one way to find out.


----------



## Boomer2094

Tassie,

Valid point, I agree...

Maybe they should change the name to "Junior Archery Development Program"... but JADP isn't nearly as catchy as JOAD.

I just think if the program has Olympic in its name, it should be geared toward Olympic archers... Compound shooting kids already has NASP.


----------



## tassie_devil

Yeah. I don't know how it runs or how it's different from NASP. So technically you're certainly right. But it Sounds like that from LW & CH posts over the years that it's run by volunteers, so I wouldn't get hung up on the name. 

These days, if you can get kids into sport is it's a win, regardless of Olympic potential.


----------



## Boomer2094

tassie_devil said:


> Yeah. I don't know how it runs or how it's different from NASP. So technically you're certainly right. But it Sounds like that from LW & CH posts over the years that it's run by volunteers, so I wouldn't get hung up on the name.
> 
> These days, if you can get kids into sport is it's a win, regardless of Olympic potential.


I agree, the more kids we can get into archery, no matter what discipline, is a win. 

This thread is more about Olympic archers in the US, versus archer in general, that's what I based my post on.

I don't think US OR talent is lacking... the question is, is the current regime governing OR in US developing the next Brady, Jack, Jason, Mackenzie, Casey and Jennifer? Or are they just resting on the laurels of what we have now?


----------



## limbwalker

I'm not sure the statistics are in Lee's favor when you look at the number of his students who have made Olympic teams out of the possible total, particularly given all the resources he's been handed over and above previous national head coaches. It's not a record that reflects well on him. Even if we give him credit for the women's team making this Olympics and London (on which only 1 of six archers were his students), he's the only US coach to fail to field a full women's team at the games, not once but twice. Every fan of his constantly and consistently omits the performance of half of the US team, as if they don't even exist. This is nothing really new for USArchery and the NAA before that - the women have always been treated as 2nd class citizens, which is why he's gotten away with it as long as he has.

The troubles we've had in the women's program, I don't entirely blame on Lee. USArchery is as guilty as he is for ignoring and failing to support the women, right down to club-level JOAD coaches in many cases, not to mention the fans of the sport who prioritize watching and talking about the men every single time.


----------



## limbwalker

midnightwarrior said:


> So this is the Tokyo analysis so from straight from the source which I will not disclose
> View attachment 7439945
> 
> 
> all three of coach lee student at the 2020 Olympics are top archers!!! Korea who??
> Set systems does not paint the whole picture. Anyone can win. We are the best and our coach is the best. I sure am proud. There are opinions which everyone has, but then there are statistics.


Or, presented another way (same stats mind you) - fully half of the archers under the head coach's responsibility were not competitive at these games. 

Statistics are valuable when viewed in an objective manner. Otherwise, they are just fodder for bias.


----------



## SHPoet

nakedape said:


> About - Online Archery Academy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.onlinearcheryacademy.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Safesport seems useless from the articles I read about the Olympic fencing fiasco.


I think SafeSport is 10% information and 90% CYA for the amateur athletic governing bodies. I have to do it every year just to keep my certifications and I rarely ever work with kids. I did the JOAD thing before KSL came along and it was never worth the return on investment. Time or money.


----------



## limbwalker

Here's another statistic -

Under his tenure, Lee had the opportunity to fill 12 women's spots with his students (4 games x 3 women/team). He has placed one student, in two of those spots giving him a success rate of just 18%

How many of us get an 18% rating and get to keep our jobs?

If you include the men, the % improves, but is still just 11 of 24 or approximately 46%

If you paid full price for something, with bonuses, and then got 46% of what you expected, are you still satisfied?

To be fair, these statistics should be compared to other national head coaches in comparable situations (talent pool, funding/support, experience, etc.) This is how you objectively evaluate an employee's performance. That is, if we're interested in being objective.

Job #1 for a national head coach is to qualify a full 6-person team every cycle. Otherwise you're dealing with opportunity lost in your calculation. In other sports, it's the same as making the playoffs. Nobody cares if the team's QB is the GOAT if they miss the playoffs. How many times have you heard "just get in" whether it's the NFL playoffs or March madness - because anything can happen. Especially in archery.

In archery, if you don't field a full team, you disqualify your country from an entire event.


----------



## 123 4/8 P&Y

I think they'll keep him around. His mens teams got silver in the last 2 Olympics. That seems satisfactory to me. Of course as Americans we think we should be winning everything. But Olympic archery is not that popular here compared to the other nations with teams in the Olympics. That's the impression I get anyway.

I can't see Brady retiring either. Has he ever known a job outside of archery? He said archery is his life, so if he stops competing maybe the natural next step is coaching. But sometimes world class athletes don't make the best coaches.

Someone suggested Jake and Brady both coaching. That sounds nice in theory, except I'm pretty sure Jake has a deep-seated grudge against USA archery.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker

123 4/8 P&Y said:


> I think they'll keep him around. His mens teams got silver in the last 2 Olympics. That seems satisfactory to me. Of course as Americans we think we should be winning everything. But Olympic archery is not that popular here compared to the other nations with teams in the Olympics. That's the impression I get anyway.
> 
> I can't see Brady retiring either. Has he ever known a job outside of archery? He said archery is his life, so if he stops competing maybe the natural next step is coaching. But sometimes world class athletes don't make the best coaches.
> 
> Someone suggest Jake and Brady both coaching. That sounds nice in theory, except I'm pretty sure Jake has a deep-seated grudge against USA archery.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


No offense, but thinking the men's team medaling is "okay" while the women have been ignored is a very American way to look at things, in my experience. It's what we've been satisfied with for 30 years now. I still can't wrap my head around so many Americans, and officials within USArchery in particular, being just fine if only the men are medaling. Especially for one of the first Olympic sports to include women in the history of the games.

I was the one who said Brady and Jake could run that OTC better than anyone, but then I also mentioned politics (with respect to Brady) and I doubt either one of them would want to play that game to the degree that the national head coach is required to. And who could blame them really.


----------



## nakedape

stick monkey said:


> Probably because they beat their students...rumor has it


hey, if it works... LOL

Kim JD tells you the secret of their success at 1:40


----------



## nakedape

limbwalker said:


> The troubles we've had in the women's program, I don't entirely blame on Lee. USArchery is as guilty as he is for ignoring and failing to support the women, right down to club-level JOAD coaches in many cases, not to mention the fans of the sport who prioritize watching and talking about the men every single time.


More men participate in sports, more men watch sports, men prefer to watch other men play sports and *certain female sports*.

Every sociologists and psychologists understand this.

Don't blame the fans for the lack of interest in WNBA.

But for archery,
Go look at WA channel on Youtube. The 2nd most viewed video (Valentina Acosta, 10 mil views) and the 3rd most viewed video are junior women matches. 
The top 15 most viewed videos on the channel have more women than men.

WA has the same Valentina vs Ana video (with a whopping 33 mil views!) on their FB page, and has been using her image heavily this past week in their posts. Hey, gotta get those clicks! (They should be paying her, LOL)

Valentina has 1.5 mil followers on her instagram.

She finished 50th in the ranking round with a 627 and knocked out in the first elimination round.

yeah, life's not fair, so what...


----------



## limbwalker

nakedape said:


> yeah, life's not fair, so what...


You have daughters? Nieces? A wife? If so, is that what you tell them? Is that what you'd tell Mac?

I understand the metrics and the market. So in light of that, it's up to all of us to advocate for half our team particularly since they've been largely ignored for decades.

At the end of the day, those of us in the sport understand that it's the Korean women who are in fact, the best archers in the world.


----------



## Maggiemaebe

limbwalker said:


> At the end of the day, those of us in the sport understand that it's the Korean women who are in fact, the best archers in the world.


And this is precisely why the female videos are the most watched. We watch them, we analyze them, we show them to our students to try to demonstrate what 'perfect form' looks like. If you're going to emulate an archer's form, you should probably pick one who's fundamentals are amazing rather than one of the men who can mask their deficiencies through muscle.


----------



## nakedape

limbwalker said:


> You have daughters? Nieces? A wife? If so, is that what you tell them? Is that what you'd tell Mac?
> 
> I understand the metrics and the market. So in light of that, it's up to all of us to advocate for half our team particularly since they've been largely ignored for decades.
> 
> At the end of the day, those of us in the sport understand that it's the Korean women who are in fact, the best archers in the world.


No need to play the PC card with me.

It is what it is.

BTW, even the casuals know the Korean women are top of food chain, but that wasn't my point.


----------



## nakedape

Maggiemaebe said:


> And this is precisely why the female videos are the most watched.


um, no.


----------



## limbwalker

nakedape said:


> No need to play the PC card with me.
> 
> It is what it is.
> 
> BTW, even the casuals know the Korean women are top of food chain, but that wasn't my point.


What was your point? Women don't matter as much as men and you're okay with that? I mean, you wouldn't be unique there. If I have that wrong, feel free to correct me.


----------



## FerrumVeritas

If archery wants to grow as a sport, especially recurve archery, women are the key to that. That’s where the biggest opportunities and growth potential lie.


----------



## nakedape

*Perception Is Not Reality*


----------



## nakedape

FerrumVeritas said:


> If archery wants to grow as a sport, especially recurve archery, women are the key to that. That’s where the biggest opportunities and growth potential lie.


you mean "olympic recurve archery"

In my area, olympic recurve shooters are a tiny percentage of all archers.

Same probably goes for the rest of US.


----------



## FerrumVeritas

And men’s compound has hit saturation. There’s no growth there: it’s already big. Heck, with attitudes around hunting changing, you’re likely to see shrinking participation in some areas.


----------



## 123 4/8 P&Y

limbwalker said:


> No offense, but thinking the men's team medaling is "okay" while the women have been ignored is a very American way to look at things, in my experience. It's what we've been satisfied with for 30 years now. I still can't wrap my head around so many Americans, and officials within USArchery in particular, being just fine if only the men are medaling. Especially for one of the first Olympic sports to include women in the history of the games.
> 
> I was the one who said Brady and Jake could run that OTC better than anyone, but then I also mentioned politics (with respect to Brady) and I doubt either one of them would want to play that game to the degree that the national head coach is required to. And who could blame them really.


Well my point was that KSL brought home 2 team silvers in the last two consecutive olympics. Whether it was womens or mens does not matter to me. 3 total medals out of 36 possible over his tenure as the USA coach is not great, but it's something. Like I said, my perception is that olympic archery does not have the following here like it does in other parts of the world. So who knows how our talent pool compares.

To your statement about the men medaling while the women are ignored, do the heads of USA Archery deserve all the blame for the floundering womens teams? Or do you believe KSL is not doing as well coaching the women?

My opinions are not strong ones as I am not in touch with the inner workings of this segment of archery. But it has my interest and I'd like to get more involved locally.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## nakedape

*You know what is bad for women's archery?
This.*


----------



## limbwalker

nakedape said:


> *You know what is bad for women's archery?
> This.*
> 
> View attachment 7440216


Sigh...

Let's get back on track here.

I "think" I just heard above that 2 medals (actually 3) in 4 games, mostly due to the dominance of one male archer, is "okay" with some folks. Mkay. I'll take that as a yes.

Granted, we're all hoping for two more very soon.


----------



## nakedape

is that 
sigh.. I agree
sigh.. I disagree
or
sigh.. I better not say anything, because I might get canceled.

LOL


----------



## Ray.L

nakedape said:


> *You know what is bad for women's archery?
> This.*
> 
> View attachment 7440216


Put away the pearls. No one transitions so they can get eliminated in the first round of a sport non-archers don't watch.


----------



## limbwalker

nakedape said:


> is that
> sigh.. I agree
> sigh.. I disagree
> or
> sigh.. I better not say anything, because I might get canceled.
> 
> LOL


nah, just a sigh, why do we have to go there on this thread...


----------



## nakedape

LOL, well, you did accuse Lee, UsaArchery, NAA, Joad coaches, plus all the fans for being sexist male chauvinist pigs

Down with systematic sexism!
I feel like burning something now.


----------



## nakedape

Ray.L said:


> No one transitions so they can get eliminated in the first round of a sport non-archers don't watch.


u missed the point completely.
aim for the yellow.


----------



## limbwalker

nakedape said:


> LOL, well, you did accuse Lee, UsaArchery, NAA, Joad coaches, plus all the fans for being sexist male chauvinist pigs
> 
> Down with systematic sexism!
> I feel like burning something now.


*** are you talking about? 

I see we have another troll among us now.


----------



## nakedape

nah, just reality disagreeing with ur perception.


----------



## limbwalker

nakedape said:


> nah, just reality disagreeing with ur perception.


while contributing nothing to the thread. the definition of a troll.


----------



## Ray.L

nakedape said:


> u missed the point completely.
> aim for the yellow.


No... please... enlighten me... I'm sure it won't be the exact same slippery slope garbage take I've read every single time the topic of trans people in sports comes up....


----------



## limbwalker

Ray.L said:


> No... please... enlighten me... I'm sure it won't be the exact same slippery slope garbage take I've read every single time the topic of trans people in sports comes up....


don't encourage him


----------



## crownimperial

I must say that I agree with him. Also, because we are of a different opinion does not mean we should be hushed. Men and women are biologically different. This is a fact, it is science sir. Sports classes should be purely biological, anything else can create unfair advantages in either direction. How that is so difficult to understand is the real concern. Biological science does not care about your feelings.


----------



## limbwalker

crownimperial said:


> I must say that I agree with him. Also, because we are of a different opinion does not mean we should be hushed. Men and women are biologically different. This is a fact, it is science sir. Sports classes should be purely biological, anything else can create unfair advantages in either direction. How that is so difficult to understand is the real concern. Biological science does not care about your feelings.


Not the point of this thread. Start another one if you need to voice your insecurities.

Oh, and I'm a biological scientist. Are you? LOL


----------



## FerrumVeritas

crownimperial said:


> ...science does not care about your feelings.


This part is correct. The rest is fear mongering.
Since 2003 trans athletes have been allowed to compete under their gender following strict stipulations and hormone monitoring.
In nearly two decades, which included massive doping scandals, there has not been a single instance of a trans athlete being dominant in their sport.
If it actually conferred a distinct competitive advantage, and if the psychological trauma of being misgendered were so easy to deal with, then you would see athletes from unscrupulous countries (such as those that engage in state sponsored doping) changing gender just to compete.
You don't.
Those that do compete are not particularly good, and show no evidence of physical advantages outside of the range of other athletes in their sport.
So shut up. You're empirically wrong.
Science (or statistics) doesn't care about your feelings either.


----------



## nakedape

limbwalker said:


> don't encourage him


why? because it doesn't jive with your "reality"





limbwalker said:


> Oh, and I'm a biological scientist. Are you? LOL


Well, plenty of biological scientists believe in God also.
nothing wrong with that, just saying...

Very common for people to have two conflicting "realities" in their mind.


----------



## FerrumVeritas

I don't know Limbwalker personally, but I strongly suspect him to be a religious man.


----------



## limbwalker

FerrumVeritas said:


> I don't know Limbwalker personally, but I strongly suspect him to be a religious man.


You would be very correct about that.

But again, for the troll, that's not what this thread is about.


----------



## BubbaDean1

Boomer2094 said:


> Tassie,
> 
> Valid point, I agree...
> 
> Maybe they should change the name to "Junior Archery Development Program"... but JADP isn't nearly as catchy as JOAD.
> 
> I just think if the program has Olympic in its name, it should be geared toward Olympic archers... Compound shooting kids already has NASP.


NASP is a joke. In no way compares to barebow. However it is a great place to see if a child has interest in archery at low cost to parents.


----------



## nakedape

FerrumVeritas said:


> Those that do compete are not particularly good, and show no evidence of physical advantages outside of the range of other athletes in their sport.


nonsense. You obviously are out of the loop.

There are 4 transgender athletes in this Olympic that I am aware of. (and not counting intersex athletes.)

Laurel Hubbard (weightifting) and Chelsea Wolfe (bmx park), both have potential to medal

Rebecca Quinn (soccer) (I don't follow any soccer and don't care, so not sure about their medal potential)

and...
_Stephanie Barrett is a 42 year old Canadian computer game developer who, aged 37, took up archery. Within two years Barrett won gold at the 2018 Canadian Field and Target Championships, and this year Barrett equaled the Canadian women’s record by shooting 652 at the World Cup, and won the silver medal in the American Continental Qualification Tournament, ensuring qualification for Tokyo._

Barrett tweeted about his ‘transition’ to appear female in 2012.


----------



## nakedape

Ray.L said:


> No... please... enlighten me... I'm sure it won't be the exact same slippery slope garbage take I've read every single time the topic of trans people in sports comes up....


the valid arguments are out there,
you can educate yourself on it.


I will leave you this,
Ronda Rousey, Olympic Bronze medalist in Judo and UFC champion is against transgender in women's sport.
Doesn't that say a lot?

I don't know..
Maybe it's the nature of archery,
most archers are not exactly the athletic type, LOL


----------



## nakedape

FerrumVeritas said:


> I don't know Limbwalker personally, but I strongly suspect him to be a religious man.


nothing wrong with that or being transgender.

I am just pointing out the fallacy in his logic.


----------



## crownimperial

I politely disagree with you both. Also, I will never try and belittle you or shame you for being of a different opinion. That would indeed be an insecure thing to do. But yes, we stand on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to that subject. 

As for Kisik Lee,

I have heard that there is a lot of things he would like to do to improve our talent selection, among other things. From my understanding his hands are tied, USA archery is in bad need of a management change. We lost jake Kaminski due to their terrible leadership. He even said on camera that he will not be associated with USA archery again unless there is a change in management.


----------



## limbwalker

BubbaDean1 said:


> NASP is a joke. In no way compares to barebow. However it is a great place to see if a child has interest in archery at low cost to parents.


The most successful archery program in the history of the US is a joke. 

Uh, okay.


----------



## 123 4/8 P&Y

nakedape said:


> the valid arguments are out there,
> you can educate yourself on it.
> 
> 
> I will leave you this,
> Ronda Rousey, Olympic Silver medalist in Judo and UFC champion is against transgender in women's sport.
> Doesn't that say a lot?
> 
> I don't know..
> Maybe it's the nature of archery,
> most archers are not exactly the athletic type, LOL


Wait, I think you cracked the code. KSL can save his job and also improve the women's archery team. Your 2024 Team USA women's olympic team gold medalists are.....























Brandi Ellison
Jacki Williams
Jaclin Wukie

If they keep their implants to a reasonable size, they won't affect their shot. How's that for some on topic trolling?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## stick monkey

Do we really want to win medals with transgender athletes...is it really that important... transgender men are still men... It is a slap in the face to all women.


----------



## chang

I remembered it was about the time Coach Lee left Australia for US, this kinda discussion happened there also. Simon Fairweather had a open letter about the situation.


----------



## limbwalker

Mac might have just weighed in on the topic, I think.


----------



## limbwalker

crownimperial said:


> I politely disagree with you both. Also, I will never try and belittle you or shame you for being of a different opinion. That would indeed be an insecure thing to do. But yes, we stand on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to that subject.
> 
> As for Kisik Lee,
> 
> I have heard that there is a lot of things he would like to do to improve our talent selection, among other things. From my understanding his hands are tied, USA archery is in bad need of a management change. We lost jake Kaminski due to their terrible leadership. He even said on camera that he will not be associated with USA archery again unless there is a change in management.


I'd really love to know what he thinks the management has to do with the difference we've seen between the men's and women's teams, but I'd be willing to listen.


----------



## midnightwarrior

limbwalker said:


> *** are you talking about?
> 
> I see we have another troll among us now.


Hey, if anyone disagrees with you, especially the newcomers, they are trolls? Have some decency. I for one applaud, Vik for standing up to your bullying and really letting you have it. Yes, I read the Olympics thread fully. Don’t’ wreck this Olympics experience for the rest of us. I have been watching your pattern of behavior and must say you need a team of psychologists to tame you uncontrollable ego, or maybe you have a mental issue. You put up the thread, now let people say what they have to say. Calling member trolls for challenging your biased and unfounded comments is not warranted. Man up.
People are excited because it’s Olympics. Let them enjoy. Most of us won’t come to this **** hole after the games are over and you can again sit on top of this **** pile once again and have it all to yourself. So calm down and stop attacking people and wrecking it for the rest of us.


----------



## midnightwarrior

crownimperial said:


> I politely disagree with you both. Also, I will never try and belittle you or shame you for being of a different opinion. That would indeed be an insecure thing to do. But yes, we stand on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to that subject.
> 
> As for Kisik Lee,
> 
> I have heard that there is a lot of things he would like to do to improve our talent selection, among other things. From my understanding his hands are tied, USA archery is in bad need of a management change. We lost jake Kaminski due to their terrible leadership. He even said on camera that he will not be associated with USA archery again unless there is a change in management.


Correct!! Finally getting back to the main topic. Thank you. The problem lies in the USAA boardroom as someone else pointed it out on the other thread. There are few board members who shouldn’t be there at all and have clear conflict of interest. This was bought to USOC’s attention and there is an investigation going on into this matter. What becomes of it, only god knows. Maybe it’s just for show like the congressional hearings. But the board room has to be cleaned up of “special interest groups”

on the news side, a sad note, our women’s medal hope is over. Mac lost her match. She was on fire for a while. Wukie on the other hand was very impressive.


----------



## limbwalker

midnightwarrior said:


> Hey, if anyone disagrees with you, especially the newcomers, they are trolls? Have some decency. I for one applaud, Vik for standing up to your bullying and really letting you have it. Yes, I read the Olympics thread fully. Don’t’ wreck this Olympics experience for the rest of us. I have been watching your pattern of behavior and must say you need a team of psychologists to tame you uncontrollable ego, or maybe you have a mental issue. You put up the thread, now let people say what they have to say. Calling member trolls for challenging your biased and unfounded comments is not warranted. Man up.
> People are excited because it’s Olympics. Let them enjoy. Most of us won’t come to this *** hole after the games are over and you can again sit on top of this *** pile once again and have it all to yourself. So calm down and stop attacking people and wrecking it for the rest of us.


Please. Let's stick to the facts of the matter. If someone wants to debate facts, I'm game. But the personal attacks and introducing WAY off topic subjects to derail threads are just troll behavior.

Some would call your post above "bullying behavior" since it has nothing to do with the subject of the thread and is intended rather to simply attack and silence me. Are you proud of that? I was happy to compare statistics with you. Did you run out of statistics to post? You were doing so well too...

People are indeed excited because of the Olympics. Myself included. I set an alarm to get up and follow Mac's phenomenal run in the wee hours of the night and couldn't possibly be happier for her (and yes, for Lee also since she is his product).

But this is an archery discussion forum and the status of the national head coach is a common topic of discussion in the sport. Why should it be any different here.


----------



## limbwalker

midnightwarrior said:


> Correct!! Finally getting back to the min topic. Thank you.


A comment I already responded to.

I wonder how "tying Lee's hands" affected his track record with the women's program. I'd love to hear his side of that story. Did he put USArchery in a position to force them to tie his hands? Some people who were involved in hiring him would tell you that. There are always two sides to every story.

midnightwarrior, I wonder how recently into this program you came in based on your comments.


----------



## midnightwarrior

limbwalker said:


> Please. Let's stick to the facts of the matter. If someone wants to debate facts, I'm game. But the personal attacks and introducing WAY off topic subjects to derail threads are just troll behavior.
> 
> Some would call your post above "bullying behavior" since it has nothing to do with the subject of the thread and is intended rather to simply attack and silence me. Are you proud of that? I was happy to compare statistics with you. Did you run out of statistics to post? You were doing so well too...
> 
> People are indeed excited because of the Olympics. Myself included. I set an alarm to get up and follow Mac's phenomenal run in the wee hours of the night and couldn't possibly be happier for her (and yes, for Lee also since she is his product).
> 
> But this is an archery discussion forum and the status of the national head coach is a common topic of discussion in the sport. Why should it be any different here.


No I did not mean to bully you. Just don’t think it’s fair to call someone a troll if they disagree. That’s all. But it’s your thread so please let us chime in. Peace.


----------



## midnightwarrior

limbwalker said:


> A comment I already responded to.
> 
> I wonder how "tying Lee's hands" affected his track record with the women's program. I'd love to hear his side of that story. Did he put USArchery in a position to force them to tie his hands? Some people who were involved in hiring him would tell you that. There are always two sides to every story.
> 
> midnightwarrior, I wonder how recently into this program you came in based on your comments.


Yes, there are two sides to a story. I did not understand your question of when I came into this program. I’m not in a program. I shoot archery but it’s more like plinking. Sad about Mac.


----------



## limbwalker

midnightwarrior said:


> No I did not mean to bully you. Just don’t think it’s fair to call someone a troll if they disagree. That’s all. But it’s your thread so please let us chime in. Peace.


Go back and read the posts in this thread. How many times was I attacked before I used the word troll? Give me a break. It had nothing to do with him disagreeing with me and everything to do with him introducing distractions into the thread and personally attacking me. That's what trolls do. 

And I just realized you are standing up for Vik - as in Chantel? Did you seriously just do that? Do I have that right?

It also appears you created a profile on AT just for this thread. Is that correct?


----------



## midnightwarrior

I came to AT about half a year ago I think mostly becuse someone had told me about the classified forum. I don’t post here because of reasons just like this, however I believe coach lee is good for the sport so when your thread appeared, I got sucked into it. As for the USOC investigation, into the USAA boardroom workings, it public knowledge. Don’t worry I won’t wreck your thread anymore. This is not an important thing in my life to be upset over.


----------



## limbwalker

midnightwarrior said:


> I came to AT about half a year ago I think mostly becuse someone had told me about the classified forum. I don’t post here because of reasons just like this, however I believe coach lee is good for the sport so when your thread appeared, I got sucked into it. As for the USOC investigation, into the USAA boardroom workings, it public knowledge. Don’t worry I won’t wreck your thread anymore. This is not an important thing in my life to be upset over.


I already told you I welcome your statistics. IMO that's the first step in evaluating a coach. Run the numbers and see how people feel about them and why they are what they are. 

I just don't appreciate being accused of things I haven't done or said and yes, I'll call out a troll when I see one. But I'm happy to discuss/debate facts anytime.

This may surprise some here, but like you I have no reason to be upset over any of this anymore. I've taken a break from coaching (mostly due to the train wreck/dumpster fire that was the whole Lee-Woo "experience," but also because of some awful experiences with JOAD parents who were trying to use me and our club for their own purposes). Of course, the Olympics always pique my interest as they do most people who shoot this style. 

Whatever happens with Lee will affect me not one bit. I do wish the best for him as I do everyone (even gt ). But I find the whole story very interesting especially since I have been involved in it since before he arrived.


----------



## midnightwarrior

limbwalker said:


> Go back and read the posts in this thread. How many times was I attacked before I used the word troll? Give me a break. It had nothing to do with him disagreeing with me and everything to do with him introducing distractions into the thread and personally attacking me. That's what trolls do.
> 
> And I just realized you are standing up for Vik - as in Chantel? Did you seriously just do that? Do I have that right?
> 
> It also appears you created a profile on AT just for this thread. Is that correct?


You have the right, yes. Lol I’m not standing up for Vik. When I read that entire 27 page thread. I can put 2 and 2 together. My only point is not to intimidate others. This is you thread. So do what you want. Other people have emotion too. We too can get carried away. Maybe it’s the games that have stirred up the passion


----------



## tassie_devil

midnightwarrior said:


> I for one applaud, Vik for standing up to your bullying and really letting you have it.


I am pretty sure Vik’s behaviour in the Olympics threads is pretty much the definition of trolling. But anyway….


----------



## midnightwarrior

limbwalker said:


> I already told you I welcome your statistics. IMO that's the first step in evaluating a coach. Run the numbers and see how people feel about them and why they are what they are.
> 
> I just don't appreciate being accused of things I haven't done or said and yes, I'll call out a troll when I see one. But I'm happy to discuss/debate facts anytime.


I take your point well.


----------



## midnightwarrior

tassie_devil said:


> I am pretty sure Vik’s behaviour in the Olympics threads is pretty much the definition of trolling. But anyway….


Crime of passion lol.


----------



## midnightwarrior

…..Like I can’t get over Mac’s loss. Why must it get to me so much. Why does it bother me so much. After all I don’t even know her. Olympics just does something to one.


----------



## limbwalker

midnightwarrior said:


> I came to AT about half a year ago I think mostly becuse someone had told me about the classified forum. I don’t post here because of reasons just like this, however I believe coach lee is good for the sport so when your thread appeared, I got sucked into it. As for the USOC investigation, into the USAA boardroom workings, it public knowledge. Don’t worry I won’t wreck your thread anymore. This is not an important thing in my life to be upset over.


BTW, your statistics are right in line with what Lee showed us all in '06 when he was stating his case for the then BEST method. He used scores of world class archers as his measure and his argument was his method would help the US archers get to that world class level. I could use an assist here from a couple long-time members, but I only remember the slides he showed in his presentation including men's scores, and thought it was a bit odd at the time, but that was his approach.

So your statistics reminded me a lot of '06 and his earliest presentations to all of us in the organization.


----------



## limbwalker

midnightwarrior said:


> …..Like I can’t get over Mac’s loss. Why must it get to me so much. Why does it bother me so much. After all I don’t even know her. Olympics just does something to one.


I've known Mac since she was a kid. Her dad brought her over to introduce her to me and Jenny at the 2009? State outdoor here in TX. I think she was 13 at the time. I missed getting to work with her on JDT because I stepped away from the program before she arrived, but I would have loved to have worked with her in that program. I'm certain she was one of the hardest workers that JDT has ever seen. Very respectful too, which is always appreciated when you're a volunteer coach.

She's also a Texas product which makes it easy for those of us here in TX to root for her. But she's just a good person all-around, a damn hard worker and amazing competitor.

It's actually her competitiveness I admire most about her. She has no give up in her at all and I love that. 

So yes, it was a heartbreaker to see her lose that bronze. It is a feeling I know all too well and I hate that she is feeling that now.


----------



## midnightwarrior

So one thing does bother me, I must be fair. There are no NEW up and coming archers. Brady, zack, Wukie are all for a decade ago and luckily still going strong. But no new males or, females, had it not been for hernandez who is from outside and not in NTS. Am I wrong? Jack Williams is the only “fresh” face. Whereas on the Korean side, we’ll what can I say. There was, BoChan, Lee wu Seok,…now Kim, they come up with new ones every year. Women, even more so.


----------



## tassie_devil

limbwalker said:


> BTW, your statistics are right in line with what Lee showed us all in '06 when he was stating his case for the then BEST method. He used scores of world class archers as his measure and his argument was his method would help the US archers get to that world class level. I could use an assist here from a couple long-time members, but I only remember the slides he showed in his presentation including men's scores, and thought it was a bit odd at the time, but that was his approach.
> 
> So your statistics reminded me a lot of '06 and his earliest presentations to all of us in the organization.


Now, to go back to the thread. The real question is if the relationship is causal. Reasons for doubt:

Fairweather had been a world champ before Lee came to Australia
Brady is a freak of nature who probably could have coached himself.

Reasons for:

I believe Simon Fairweather thought Lee did help him immensely. I may be wrong. Recurve isn’t big in Oz, but I’m a long way from the same orbit as elite shooters.
Brady likewise seems to value his presence.

So, his two biggest success stories, were probably already success stories. That said, both seem to give him some credit for helping them.

I’m not sure when he came to Oz, so can’t comment on how formative he was for Barnes and Cuddihy. 

John has already raised this point, but as a ‘national coach’ his record with Women’s teams is garbage. At best he should be Men’s coach.


----------



## tassie_devil

midnightwarrior said:


> So one thing does bother me, I must be fair. There are no NEW up and coming archers. Brady, zack, Wukie are all for a decade ago and luckily still going strong. But to new males or, females , had it not been for hernandez who is from outside and not in NTS. Am I wrong? Jack Williams is the only “afresh” face. Whereas on the Korean side, we’ll what can I say.


2/3 women < 20 yo. Mac 26. Several more Olympics with that team.
Jack I think is 21. Male depth did not look strong. Vik should get off the forums and practice…

Not sure what’s coming after that.


----------



## midnightwarrior

Oh on a side note,,,,how good is Wukie???? Amazing to see him balance his life like that. You know he is mentally the strongest in our team, so I am told. Nothing gets to him. And as they say, archery is a mental game.


----------



## tassie_devil

He shot some pretty clutch arrows in the FQT. I’m not writing him off one little bit.


----------



## Ray.L

Yeah he shot very well despite being visibly rocked around in the wind.


----------



## limbwalker

midnightwarrior said:


> So one thing does bother me, I must be fair. There are no NEW up and coming archers. Brady, zack, Wukie are all for a decade ago and luckily still going strong. But no new males or, females, had it not been for hernandez who is from outside and not in NTS. Am I wrong? Jack Williams is the only “fresh” face. Whereas on the Korean side, we’ll what can I say. There was, BoChan, Lee wu Seok,…now Kim, they come up with new ones every year. Women, even more so.


I brought this up earlier, perhaps in another thread - I don't recall. But I asked who those archers were that would be ready for 2024. Reason I asked is that if Lee has a crop of really high potential athletes, it may influence his decision to stay and USArchery's decision to keep him. 

I think the women are in the best shape they have been in, in a long, long time. Maybe 30 years. One could argue the London team was "better" score-wise but probably not. None of them were shooting the scores that Mac and Casey have been shooting lately, and that team had some major personality conflicts that led to the tragic end of the career of an incredibly talented young woman. So this trio is far ahead of where they were IMO and Jennifer is looking fantastic in terms of development and potential. 

However, on the men's side it's a bit of a different story. Jack is well positioned to make several teams, but who else? I suppose that's the big question mark right now - particularly since Lee has always focused more on the men (for a variety of reasons - some good, some bad).


----------



## midnightwarrior

In fear of derailing this thread, I don’t intend to, i must ask. I have noticed McKinney stress too much on the reference sight/sight pin. As an archer himself should he be proposing sight reliance in recurve? As we all know Olympic recurve is not an aiming sport. The sight is a reference sight, millimeters of movement does not matter. Can the OP chime in please?


----------



## Ray.L

limbwalker said:


> However, on the men's side it's a bit of a different story. Jack is well positioned to make several teams, but who else? I suppose that's the big question mark right now - particularly since Lee has always focused more on the men (for a variety of reasons - some good, some bad).


Joonsuh Oh?


----------



## midnightwarrior

limbwalker said:


> I brought this up earlier, perhaps in another thread - I don't recall. But I asked who those archers were that would be ready for 2024. Reason I asked is that if Lee has a crop of really high potential athletes, it may influence his decision to stay and USArchery's decision to keep him.
> 
> I think the women are in the best shape they have been in, in a long, long time. Maybe 30 years. One could argue the London team was "better" score-wise but probably not. None of them were shooting the scores that Mac and Casey have been shooting lately, and that team had some major personality conflicts that led to the tragic end of the career of an incredibly talented young woman. So this trio is far ahead of where they were IMO and Jennifer is looking fantastic in terms of development and potential.
> 
> “However, on the men's side it's a bit of a different story. Jack is well positioned to make several teams, but who else? I suppose that's the big question mark right now - particularly since Lee has always focused more on the men (for a variety of reasons - some good, some bad).


I would be interested to know that. What reasons make him focus more on men? Physical strength?


----------



## midnightwarrior

Ray.L said:


> Joonsuh Oh?


Yes! Trenton Cowels —-maybe. But Jack is the future of this sport


----------



## limbwalker

midnightwarrior said:


> Oh on a side note,,,,how good is Wukie???? Amazing to see him balance his life like that. You know he is mentally the strongest in our team, so I am told. Nothing gets to him. And as they say, archery is a mental game.


Wukie is this good BECAUSE he has a balanced life. He got the rest of his life in order and the Olympics are not a "life or death" proposition for him anymore (probably never were for him to be honest). I can certainly relate. When your life isn't going to change substantially if you medal or not, then you're just shooting for yourself and that's a good place to be mentally.


----------



## limbwalker

Ray.L said:


> Joonsuh Oh?


I certainly hope so - along with others.

It's a bit tragic that we lost Collin to the military and he wasn't able to continue training and competing because he was one hell of a competitor and still had a lot of years to play the game.


----------



## limbwalker

midnightwarrior said:


> In fear of derailing this thread, I don’t intend to, i must ask. I have noticed McKinney stress too much on the reference sight/sight pin. As an archer himself should he be proposing sight reliance in recurve? As we all know Olympic recurve is not an aiming sport. The sight is a reference sight, millimeters of movement does not matter. Can the OP chime in please?


Vittorio would tell you this is in fact, an aiming sport. Others would tell you that aiming should be solely subconscious. I personally think it's up to the individual to determine that, with the help of a skilled coach. I would introduce a pin and if I saw it slow down the shot sequence, we would remove it. I've said for a long while now that "pins are for experts" or at least, those who are not affected by the presence of a pin or fine aiming device. I shoot an open ring because a pin trashes my shot. Too many years of shooting without consciously aiming traditional bows for me. I want to focus 100% on the target with no distractions. But others can handle pins and some (a few) even rely on them to make them comfortable. It's a very individual thing.


----------



## limbwalker

midnightwarrior said:


> I would be interested to know that. What reasons make him focus more on men? Physical strength?


I think there is a temptation to focus on the men for every Olympic coach outside of Korea because let's be honest - what are the chances they will be able to build a single archer, much less a team, who will be able to compete with the Korean women? 

So if medal count is the performance measure, their odds are much better to build a competent men's team where the competition is more wide-open. 

So I believe that was first and foremost on his mind. But I also understand there are other reasons that I won't go into because I don't have the facts and would be speaking out of turn.

The Aussie women felt ignored. I do know that much because they told me and Stephanie that after we got to know them. But again, was that by design and was that Lee's decision or the organization who was looking for the softest target? I can't answer that.


----------



## lcaillo

Since I returned to archery in 2017 after being away for nearly 20 years I have noted that most have strong opinions about KSL. Other than what he has published I have not heard his perspective. Inevitably the national coach and programs will involve politics. While one might think the coach should steer clear of it all and focus on coaching it leaves a leadership void when all we hear is about him rather than from him. What do we need to do to be successful and what does he need from the organization?

Also, while Mack has to be disappointed with a 4th place finish, I think she earned a great deal of respect with her performance. She took the gold medalist to a shoot off, getting beat 10-9. And it took some great shooting to get there. She has all of my respect and gratitude for her hard work and dedication, as do the rest of the team. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker

lcaillo said:


> Since I returned to archery in 2017 after being away for nearly 20 years I have noted that most have strong opinions about KSL. Other than what he has published I have not heard his perspective. Inevitably the national coach and programs will involve politics. While one might think the coach should steer clear of it all and focus on coaching it leaves a leadership void when all we hear is about him rather than from him. What do we need to do to be successful and what does he need from the organization?
> 
> Also, while Mack has to be disappointed with a 4th place finish, I think she earned a great deal of respect with her performance. She took the gold medalist to a shoot off, getting beat 10-9. And it took some great shooting to get there. She has all of my respect and gratitude for her hard work and dedication, as do the rest of the team.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Well said.


----------



## 123 4/8 P&Y

limbwalker said:


> Wukie is this good BECAUSE he has a balanced life. He got the rest of his life in order and the Olympics are not a "life or death" proposition for him anymore (probably never were for him to be honest). I can certainly relate. When your life isn't going to change substantially if you medal or not, then you're just shooting for yourself and that's a good place to be mentally.


I wonder how Jacob will feel if he knocks off Brady.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker

123 4/8 P&Y said:


> I wonder how Jacob will feel if he knocks off Brady.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I'm sure those will be mixed feelings, but they have competed with and against one another a long time, and they will both be trying to win. I know shooting against Vic always brought out the best in me and we were both trying as hard as possible to beat one another, mostly out of respect for one another.


----------



## Draven Olary

limbwalker said:


> BTW, your statistics are right in line with what Lee showed us all in '06 when he was stating his case for the then BEST method. He used scores of world class archers as his measure and his argument was his method would help the US archers get to that world class level. I could use an assist here from a couple long-time members, but I only remember the slides he showed in his presentation including men's scores, and thought it was a bit odd at the time, but that was his approach.
> 
> So your statistics reminded me a lot of '06 and his earliest presentations to all of us in the organization.


Maybe this is the mistake: assumption that he can make all archers “world class” using the method. After all these years there are 3 (Jake, Brady and Mac) everybody agree I think -maybe other 2. Compared with other countries other than Korea I think is a good ratio.


----------



## limbwalker

Draven Olary said:


> Maybe this is the mistake: assumption that he can make all archers “world class” using the method. After all these years there are 3 (Jake, Brady and Mac) everybody agree I think -maybe other 2. Compared with other countries other than Korea I think is a good ratio.


I'd say as many as five men, but just one woman. But we've already covered that ground as to why the difference.

I'm on record for a dozen years or more saying his method works for strong young men. He's proven that. The rest is up for debate I think, based purely on the numbers.


----------



## Boomer2094

limbwalker said:


> I'd say as many as five men, but just one woman. But we've already covered that ground as to why the difference.
> 
> I'm on record for a dozen years or more saying his method works for strong young men. He's proven that. The rest is up for debate I think, based purely on the numbers.


I agree with the point you are making Limbwalker. But when there is another system that is well proven to work equally well with men and women, why are we staying with a system that is tailored toward strong young men?


----------



## limbwalker

Boomer2094 said:


> I agree with the point you are making Limbwalker. But when there is another system that is well proven to work equally well with men and women, why are we staying with a system that is tailored toward strong young men?


Which program are you thinking of?


----------



## Boomer2094

I'm thinking the system that South Korean use to teach their archers. The result is indisputable. South Korean archers, men and women, are among the best in the world. Do they win all their matches? No. but they are consistently competitive, and there are no shortage of talents to replace the aging champs. That's what we ultimately want, right?

Now, we don't have the infrastructure that the South Koreans has for their archers, but surely we can take what they teach their archers and use it stateside.


----------



## Draven Olary

I doubt that. I mean you can’t teach “korean style” just by reverse engineering and expecting results asap. It’s like learning karate from movies. Possible but you are just scratching the surface.
Why not using what was pre-KSL?


----------



## Boomer2094

Draven,

Just curious, what do they teach Canadian archers? Do Canada has a national training system like NTS in US?


----------



## limbwalker

Draven Olary said:


> I doubt that. I mean you can’t teach “korean style” just by reverse engineering and expecting results asap. It’s like learning karate from movies. Possible but you are just scratching the surface.
> Why not using what was pre-KSL?


I think some in the NAA felt we were falling behind the rest of the world in terms of competitive scores. A quick look at our ranking scores from Athens and Sydney before that doesn't contradict that idea. The fact that we were more competitive as a team at that time than we were individually is something I attribute to American exceptionalism - the idea that we think we're better than we often really are, to put it bluntly. But in sport, there is value in that. At least, for a little while. LOL


----------



## Draven Olary

Stash would be more qualified to say. “Western” archery, nothing even remotely related to “eastern” in depth knowledge.


----------



## limbwalker

I think there was also a desire - by some, not everyone - in positions of influence within the NAA to gain more control over the athletes and their training/prep/support. When Stephanie and I made the team, it was a big shock to the establishment. Tom Parrish told me very candidly that we had really upset the apple cart. So at that point, it was a "wait and see" mode through the games, and when we didn't medal, that was the confirmation they were looking for to take more control over the entire program. There have always been battles for control in the NAA/USArchery and there probably always will be. Some of the stories I heard from coaches and staff during those years... oh my. It was a real period of transition and uncertainty.


----------



## Maggiemaebe

Boomer2094 said:


> Just curious, what do they teach Canadian archers? Do Canada has a national training system like NTS in US?


The National Development Squad is our centralized system based in Toronto (kinda like your OTC model but without the RA's). The national level coaches used to teach a *******ization of Korean and NTS. Thankfully, they are now steering closer to the linear model with its emphasis on alignment. It definitely isn't a pure linear method but it's much closer then is was...much easier for kids to be consistent as they grow.

Having attended several high performance clinics over the years is pretty frustrating to watch national coaches show youth one system, have the youth practice that like crazy for a few years and then come to the next clinic to be shown something completely differently......definitely tough on confidence for young, growing archers.

We're improving but when we have so few archers at the elite level, it's really tough. We have Crispin, you have Brady. I think like you, it's easy for the coaches to be so invested in that one archer that it's tough to look too far down the road on the development side.

At the club level, the coaches are all volunteers so kids get who they get.


----------



## Maggiemaebe

Sorry about the asterisks in my previous post...my bad on the language!


----------



## Draven Olary

Btw, Alejandra Valencia has one of the best shot sequence IMO. She will remember that .5cm for a long time


----------



## Stash

Draven Olary said:


> Stash would be more qualified to say.


----------



## Maggiemaebe

Stash - is Joan or any of the other high performance folks on AT? Perhaps they can chime in to help us out.

I know that our program is desperately underfunded so everyone is doing what they can on the admin/management side to increase resources...tough to compete at the elite level on a pauper's budget!


----------



## limbwalker

Maggiemaebe said:


> Stash - is Joan or any of the other high performance folks on AT? Perhaps they can chime in to help us out.
> 
> I know that our program is desperately underfunded so everyone is doing what they can on the admin/management side to increase resources...tough to compete at the elite level on a pauper's budget!


Well, yes and no. I see so many 3rd world nations fielding very competent archers these days... I kinda want to know more about what they are doing to be honest.


----------



## Stash

Maggiemaebe said:


> Stash - is Joan or any of the other high performance folks on AT?


No, they’re all smarter than that.


----------



## Maggiemaebe

I should have been more specific John. I was meaning that it's tough to have more talent in the pool on our very limited budget to ensure that there is more coming out of the tap when it's needed. We can't expect archers to put their lives on hold indefinitely when there isn't much to support them along the way so that they're available and ready to go.


----------



## limbwalker

Maggiemaebe said:


> I should have been more specific John. I was meaning that it's tough to have more talent in the pool on our very limited budget to ensure that there is more coming out of the tap when it's needed. We can't expect archers to put their lives on hold indefinitely when there isn't much to support them along the way so that they're available and ready to go.


I understand, but I still want to know how some of those tiny impoverished nations keep beating our 1st world arses.


----------



## tassie_devil

limbwalker said:


> I understand, but I still want to know how some of those tiny impoverished nations keep beating our 1st world arses.


I say this with no real authority but my understanding is that in Malaysia they are introducing archery ‘en masse’ in schools. I think the same applies to Indonesia/Bangladesh as well. I don’t know the scale of coaching involved, but even by providing access it will allow the to find elite talent, rather than hoping it wanders into the sport.

The other aspect for poorer countries is that the meagre living afforded the full time archer, is probably a disincentive to pursue the sport in a wealthy country, but may still be an incentive in a poorer country. 

I’ve mentioned it before, but people really should watch Ladies First about Depeeka Kumari. It is fantastic. She didn’t really know what archery was but asked her parents to send her to an archery academy because they had no food and at the academy you got fed and a place to sleep.


----------



## ItsJim

tassie_devil said:


> I’ve mentioned it before, but people really should watch Ladies First about Depeeka Kumari. It is fantastic. She didn’t really know what archery was but asked her parents to send her to an archery academy because they had no food and at the academy you got fed and a place to sleep.


I believe this to be a condensed version - it is excellent.


----------



## limbwalker

That makes me wonder how much India spends on archery compared to the US and whether we're planting our seeds in the right fields.


----------



## strugglesticks

limbwalker said:


> That makes me wonder how much India spends on archery compared to the US and whether we're planting our seeds in the right fields.


How good do you think you could have been, if you grew up as an aspiring olympic archer? How many years of potential did you lose during your youth? What was the reason you were not exposed to olympic archery as a boy, and how can that be remedied in future generations?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker

strugglesticks said:


> How good do you think you could have been, if you grew up as an aspiring olympic archer? How many years of potential did you lose during your youth? What was the reason you were not exposed to olympic archery as a boy, and how can that be remedied in future generations?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


LOL oh I'm not taking that bait (not that you're trying to bait me) but if I told my story we'd be dealing with trolls the rest of the night. Thanks anyway tho 

I will say this - I was attracted to archery at a very young age and cannot remember a time I didn't have a bow of some kind, but my main goal was hunting and I was 33 years old before I ever saw an Olympic rig.


----------



## strugglesticks

limbwalker said:


> LOL oh I'm not taking that bait (not that you're trying to bait me) but if I told my story we'd be dealing with trolls the rest of the night. Thanks anyway tho
> 
> I will say this - I was attracted to archery at a very young age and cannot remember a time I didn't have a bow of some kind, but I was 33 years old before I ever saw an Olympic rig.


I was not trying to bait, just asking thought provoking questions. How many Jakes, Bradys, Johns, or Macs have never been bitten by the bow bug? And how in the heck do other nations recruit their talent?

It sounds like other countries treat their world class archers like celebrities. They are household names. Nobody I know has any clue who Brady Ellison is. Maybe that says more about me and who I associate with, than it does about the state of US Archery. But my point is, maybe we need to prop up our Olympic archers even higher, and use their fame and achievements to inspire the youngsters. Just my thoughts, right or wrong.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker

strugglesticks said:


> I was not trying to bait, just asking thought provoking questions. How many Jakes, Bradys, Johns, or Macs have never been bitten by the bow bug? And how in the heck do other nations recruit their talent?
> 
> It sounds like other countries treat their world class archers like celebrities. They are household names. Nobody I know has any clue who Brady Ellison is. Maybe that says more about me and who I associate with, than it does about the state of US Archery. But my point is, maybe we need to prop up our Olympic archers even higher, and use their fame and achievements to inspire the youngsters. Just my thoughts, right or wrong.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


No, you're right. And how many world class archers/athletes are just playing other sports. A ton, I suspect. Tom Barker and I used to daydream about making archers out of injured college athletes. It was a nice thought alright. They already knew how to train, take instruction and they had discipline and athleticism - things that often even our top juniors and cadet archers are lacking.


----------



## Hikari

We can simply replicate the Korean program in the US. Not possible, you say? Just run it like we run HS and college football. Archery not cool enough? Rename USArchery to the the 2022 Hunger Games and you might actually have a hit on your hands. I know, a bit tongue and cheek, but there is some truth to it...


----------



## limbwalker

Hikari said:


> We can simply replicate the Korean program in the US. Not possible, you say? Just run it like we run HS and college football. Archery not cool enough? Rename USArchery to the the 2022 Hunger Games and you might actually have a hit on your hands. I know, a bit tongue and cheek, but there is some truth to it...


We missed an opportunity when NASP created the Genesis bow - if you ask me.


----------



## FerrumVeritas

I'd love to see the Genesis replaced by Vittorio's new bow which almost matches its versatility. I just don't think the scale and costs would line up.


----------



## limbwalker

FerrumVeritas said:


> I'd love to see the Genesis replaced by Vittorio's new bow which almost matches its versatility. I just don't think the scale and costs would line up.


It's 15 years too late. Mathews and NASP figured it out and it's a phenomenon now. At least they do shoot with their fingers.


----------



## limbwalker

Lee did invite the two NASP national champs to the early JDT camps. One went on to become the women's olympic shooting coach (Ashleigh). They were great in camp and worked hard, but they didn't have nearly the background in archery that the other kids had, and they struggled.


----------



## FerrumVeritas

NASP is almost a good idea. It exposes a ton of kids to archery, which is awesome. But it's a dead end in some ways: kids have to change what they're doing to move on to anything else. Often the idea of having to do anything different is enough of a deterrent to decide you've grown out of something.


----------



## limbwalker

FerrumVeritas said:


> NASP is almost a good idea. It exposes a ton of kids to archery, which is awesome. But it's a dead end in some ways: kids have to change what they're doing to move on to anything else. Often the idea of having to do anything different is enough of a deterrent to decide you've grown out of something.


Nah, it's a great idea. The best intro to archery program of all time in this country. I have nothing but love for it.

I shot demos for NASP kids for years. They ate it up. Many of those kids would have never shot archery otherwise.


----------



## FerrumVeritas

Let me rephrase: it’s a great idea with poor execution if the goal is to create lifelong archers.
It is really successful at introducing tons of kids to archery, but it doesn’t provide them with a next step that it’s prepared them for


----------



## ItsJim

FerrumVeritas said:


> Let me rephrase: it’s a great idea with poor execution if the goal is to create lifelong archers.
> It is really successful at introducing tons of kids to archery, but it doesn’t provide them with a next step that it’s prepared them for


Yeah, that and the fact that they start them with Genesis compound bows doesn't help. If they had a choice and had recurves, etc as an option we might see more junior Olympians evolve.


----------



## limbwalker

ItsJim said:


> Yeah, that and the fact that they start them with Genesis compound bows doesn't help. If they had a choice and had recurves, etc as an option we might see more junior Olympians evolve.


I think that's true, but starting kids on recurve vs. the Genesis bow introduces a lot of problems that the program leaders don't have to face right now, hence the "one size fits all" Genesis bows. Just assembling and stringing the recurves at our 4-H every Tuesday night takes 1/3 of the time the kids are there. It would be nice if they had the option though, to shoot a lightweight recurve vs. those Genesis bows.

That said, I've come to the conclusion that if a child has an Olympic dream, they will follow it. Mackenzie and Jennifer are perfect examples of that. I guess Brady is as well.


----------



## limbwalker

So, who wants to weigh in on whether this was a good result for Lee's program in Tokyo? 

For me, the star(s) of the show were Mackenzie and Jacob, both Lee's products. But is that enough?


----------



## tassie_devil

limbwalker said:


> So, who wants to weigh in on whether this was a good result for Lee's program in Tokyo?
> 
> For me, the star(s) of the show were Mackenzie and Jacob, both Lee's products. But is that enough?


I said in the other post that you have to respect how hard it is to medal, but I don’t need to tell you that. Probably only the top 10 vs bottom 10 in the 1/32 round are unlikely to produce an upset. Most other matches aren’t a long way off 50/50. You’ve gotta win 5 (Ok, 4 for silver).

I guess it comes down to what it costs. Does the budget demand medals? I know Australia’s doesn’t sometimes you get one but hey. Is that good enough for the US?

Mackenzie shot well and did herself proud. Jacob likewise (and he was absolutely clutch in the FQT to earn the team spot with the others. Hah, I’ve typed a lot to not answer your question… wine time here….

Based on what he’s done in Australia and the US, KSL can be regarded as a decent coach who certainly has more success with men than women. I guess if USAA wants a decent coach stick. If they want an elite coach then need to have a long hard think about it.

May also well be that as the next Olympics are only 3 years away Brady keeps on trucking. If as you say, he gets what he wants, that might have more to do with it.


----------



## limbwalker

tassie_devil said:


> I said in the other post that you have to respect how hard it is to medal, but I don’t need to tell you that. Probably only the top 10 vs bottom 10 in the 1/32 round are unlikely to produce an upset. Most other matches aren’t a long way off 50/50. You’ve gotta win 5 (Ok, 4 for silver).
> 
> I guess it comes down to what it costs. Does the budget demand medals? I know Australia’s doesn’t sometimes you get one but hey. Is that good enough for the US?
> 
> Mackenzie shot well and did herself proud. Jacob likewise (and he was absolutely clutch in the FQT to earn the team spot with the others. Hah, I’ve typed a lot to not answer your question… wine time here….
> 
> Based on what he’s done in Australia and the US, KSL can be regarded as a decent coach who certainly has more success with men than women. I guess if USAA wants a decent coach stick. If they want an elite coach then need to have a long hard think about it.
> 
> May also well be that as the next Olympics are only 3 years away Brady keeps on trucking. If as you say, he gets what he wants, that might have more to do with it.


I have to say we're in agreement on this one.


----------



## Gregjlongbow

Didn’t we have the same number of top individual archers as Korea? Wukie, Ellison, Brown - San, Kang, Woojin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tassie_devil

Depends how you want to measure performance. Korea took 5 gold medals.

To be honest, for overall program strength I’d just look at the qualifying rounds. If you consistently top qualifying and don’t do well in match play investigate. But its difficult. 

Say you have a 75% chance of winning in match play based on superior ability. To win at those odds 4 times in a row is < 25%. 6 archers = 1.5 in the semis. I’m pretty sure the Koreans will have done the math and evaluate their progress accordingly.

James


----------



## Gregjlongbow

Good point


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vittorio

FerrumVeritas said:


> I'd love to see the Genesis replaced by Vittorio's new bow which almost matches its versatility. I just don't think the scale and costs would line up.


It is my final objective offer the most possible versatility and adjustment range to the final user even in the low price area. But we have to go step by step as something that looks simple is not really that simple. Genesis in Italy retails 199.00 Euro, GX will start at a bit more than double, so still a lot of work to do ...


----------



## lksseven

chrstphr said:


> to be blunt,
> 
> My guess would be if Brady decides to go for Paris in 2024, he will request that Lee stay...and Lee will stay.
> 
> USA Archery doesnt care about the results of the program obviously with the track record we have since Lee came. Its been more than a decade and we have had the program dumb us down to a third world country level of performance.
> 
> USA Archery only cares about what Brady and MacKenzie want since they are the top archers.
> 
> Thats how we have Chris Webster as the women's coach. The top archers pick the coach.
> 
> Nothing will change after Tokyo. Unless Brady retires, then Lee will retire as there isnt another Brady waiting in the wings to ride on the coat tails.
> 
> Chris


Agree with Chris here. Lee "stay or go" is Brady's decision.


----------



## woof156

Not exactly understanding why our total lack of medals is Lee's fault? You can train someone and train someone but if they clutch under pressure how is that the coaches fault? Both Brady and Mack are fine shooters, they know how to hit the BE, they have done it over and over and over-- but under pressure they clutched, folded and are now going home. Seems to me the fault lies with the people shooting the bow on the line that day. They clutched in the worst moment, end of story..otherwise it is like blaming the alignment of the stars or the flutter of butterfly wings-- at least to me the fault lies with the shooter. It happened to some of the Koreans too--blame their program????????


----------



## Rael84

Sports psychology is pretty well accepted at high levels of competition where mindset can mean the difference between winning and losing in otherwise well matched competitors. Even setting aside dedicated psychologists, you can set up the qualification to create greater pressure than the actual games -- which is what the Korean team goes through.


----------



## limbwalker

woof156 said:


> Not exactly understanding why our total lack of medals is Lee's fault? You can train someone and train someone but if they clutch under pressure how is that the coaches fault? Both Brady and Mack are fine shooters, they know how to hit the BE, they have done it over and over and over-- but under pressure they clutched, folded and are now going home. Seems to me the fault lies with the people shooting the bow on the line that day. They clutched in the worst moment, end of story..otherwise it is like blaming the alignment of the stars or the flutter of butterfly wings-- at least to me the fault lies with the shooter. It happened to some of the Koreans too--blame their program????????


Like it or not, the head coach takes the blame or the praise. Same is true in every sport. NFL hall of fame coaches have been fired after just one or two losing seasons. Of course, we've also seen pro teams stick with coaches year after year whose teams produced mediocre records. I'm a lifelong Cowboys fan who just suffered through 10 seasons of Jason Garrett. I think he's a good man (Jason) but he was only an average coach.

Also, if you were around in 2006 at Lee's first presentations to US coaches - he sold his method as the "best" method under pressure. That was his #1 sales pitch. We heard it over and over again. His words, not anyone elses.


----------



## Hikari

I wonder if the Koreans are thinking about their men's coaching...


----------



## limbwalker

Hikari said:


> I wonder if the Koreans are thinking about their men's coaching...


Individually, the Korean men have always been beatable. Their mental game isn't what the women's is for whatever reason. There are too many instances where Korean men dominate the ranking round and even the team event, but individually just underperform. I'd love to know the reason why the difference between the women and men. There is a chance the men's competition is just tighter, with more men who can be competitive with the Korean men. But is that all the reason?


----------



## Rael84

When I think about this topic my mind naturally goes to the other sport I follow with more than passing interest: MotoGP. I think the fact that winning and losing is ultimately an individual endeavor in both archery and motorcycle racing makes for a decently close analogy (even if the investment by each team for each race of MotoGP probably eclipses the yearly budget for most national archery programs and the stakes are considerably higher).

When you have a bad performance in MotoGP it could either be the bike or the rider. I'll exclude considerations over the bike because there's no equivalent for archery. To keep the analogy close to what we're discussing, if a rider qualifies well (i.e. the ranking round) but performs poorly in the race there are a few ways to address it. If it's consistent across a season the team invests in a sport psychologist -- the rider is essentially choking when it counts but it is a problem with a known solution. If it happens periodically it's usually the result of a poor race strategy which is a collaboration between the crew chief and the rider.

If the problem is known but keeps occurring season after season the solution is either sack the rider for the former or sack the crew chief for the latter. If neither occurs the management should be sacked but this rarely happens.


----------



## lcaillo

woof156 said:


> Not exactly understanding why our total lack of medals is Lee's fault? You can train someone and train someone but if they clutch under pressure how is that the coaches fault? Both Brady and Mack are fine shooters, they know how to hit the BE, they have done it over and over and over-- but under pressure they clutched, folded and are now going home. Seems to me the fault lies with the people shooting the bow on the line that day. They clutched in the worst moment, end of story..otherwise it is like blaming the alignment of the stars or the flutter of butterfly wings-- at least to me the fault lies with the shooter. It happened to some of the Koreans too--blame their program????????


I agree, but I think he has to take the responsibility for the lack of depth. If we had more world class shooters it would up the game of all. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hikari

limbwalker said:


> Individually, the Korean men have always been beatable. Their mental game isn't what the women's is for whatever reason. There are too many instances where Korean men dominate the ranking round and even the team event, but individually just underperform. I'd love to know the reason why the difference between the women and men. There is a chance the men's competition is just tighter, with more men who can be competitive with the Korean men. But is that all the reason?


It is a mystery. By the 1 in 8 bracket, Woojin Kim was the only man left and he shot perfect scores in all three ends in that match. The quarterfinals he had two 27s and three 28s and the 27s came from hitting 8s. There does not seem to be the consistency, at least in this Olympics.


----------



## limbwalker

Rael84 said:


> When I think about this topic my mind naturally goes to the other sport I follow with more than passing interest: MotoGP. I think the fact that winning and losing is ultimately an individual endeavor in both archery and motorcycle racing makes for a decently close analogy (even if the investment by each team for each race of MotoGP probably eclipses the yearly budget for most national archery programs and the stakes are considerably higher).
> 
> When you have a bad performance in MotoGP it could either be the bike or the rider. I'll exclude considerations over the bike because there's no equivalent for archery. To keep the analogy close to what we're discussing, if a rider qualifies well (i.e. the ranking round) but performs poorly in the race there are a few ways to address it. If it's consistent across a season the team invests in a sport psychologist -- the rider is essentially choking when it counts but it is a problem with a known solution. If it happens periodically it's usually the result of a poor race strategy which is a collaboration between the crew chief and the rider.
> 
> If the problem is known but keeps occurring season after season the solution is either sack the rider for the former or sack the crew chief for the latter. If neither occurs the management should be sacked but this rarely happens.


I still think the relative amount of talented athletes that pursue the sport at the highest level, is a consideration too. I don't think anyone could argue our best athletes in the US are playing other sports - ones that include prestigious D1 scholarships and potentially pro careers. If archery was a popular, respected sport in the US like it is in other countries, we'd see more talented, physical athletes picking up bows and bringing their athleticism and competition mindset to the sport. It's rare to get a pure athlete in archery. If we do, we usually lose them to baseball, softball, volleyball, swimming, etc. at the high school ages. So then what we're left with is young people who are just not great athletes and/or don't have a good competitive mindset. And every now and then, we get to keep a good athlete with a tough mental game and within short order, they are making USAT squads or international teams.

So, regardless of who the head coach is, or how the program is run, if we can't give good athletes a reason to take archery seriously, we're always going to be fishing in a shallow pool. I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but I've been an athlete my entire life and what I see in archery compared to other sports is pretty shocking at times. As a JOAD coach, I couldn't ask 90% of my students to do what 90% of high school athletes did every single day. It just wasn't going to happen.


----------



## Hikari

limbwalker said:


> Individually, the Korean men have always been beatable. Their mental game isn't what the women's is for whatever reason. There are too many instances where Korean men dominate the ranking round and even the team event, but individually just underperform. I'd love to know the reason why the difference between the women and men. There is a chance the men's competition is just tighter, with more men who can be competitive with the Korean men. But is that all the reason?


I never look at the stats that closely. I guess the men don't dominate.

Korean men's individual medals:

2016: Gold
2012: Gold
2008: Silver
1996: Bronze
1992: Silver
1988: Silver

Korean women's individual medals:

2020: Gold
2016: Gold, Bronze
2012: Gold
2008: Silver, Bronze
2004: Gold, Silver
2000: Gold, Silver, Bronze
1996: Gold
1992: Gold Silver
1988: Gold, Silver, Bronze
1984: Gold

I think the Korean men's team needs more women.


----------



## Rick McKinney

Giving this a lot of thought, I feel that Lee will continue if allowed. He has his methods which prove to work for some and disastrous to others, but he has been able to garner medals. The reason Wu's efforts failed is that the Korean culture does not allow a woman to be above or equal to the male, thus Lee had full control of Wu when she was here in the US. Anyone who has spent time in Korea would have known this. She immediately had to comply with Lee's demands, thus the switch from good quality linear Korean methods to the NTS. The US firing her was only 2nd worst to hiring her in the first place. The hiring of Chris was a bit suspicious at best. He appears to be a good friend of the female archers and makes a very good manager. He failed Casey and Jennifer as a coach by not telling them to move their sights. It was so obvious for one who had a scope and a clean target face. The arrow holes on the target was very telling, especially Jennifer's target. She possibly could have won the match if she moved her sight but kept going low enough to loose 1-2 points per end. 









The other issue is that US Archery is horrible when it comes to utilizing past champion archers. Italy has a slew of coaches who were past champions, dating back to Spigarelli. Valeeva was in the coach's box with Boari. If you look on the World Archery website at the Italian coaches, it is impressive. It appears they appreciate their champions and utilize them. The US has ignored the past champions such as Hardy Ward, John Williams, Luann Ryann, Darrell Pace, Butch Johnson, Vic Wunderle, Rod White and others. This is a travesty since they had so much to offer. Vic and Rod both work for the NFAA, Darrell helps on the field at US Nationals. The rest sit back and just shake their heads at some of the crazy thinking of US Archery. 

And finally, don't forget that the US is the country who introduced the sciences into the sport. In the 1980's we had full blown testing to help the archers, using tried and true systems that helped our archers such as Denise Parker, Justin Huish, Rod White, Vic Wunderle and others (Jr USAT). When I stepped down due to all of the political BS, the new leader felt it was unnecessary to continue to use the sciences and mental training. The US fell into a deep hole during that period and really have not recovered except with Lee's efforts. Although I am not a big fan of Lee, he did bring back some of the things we used nearly 35 years ago. As a matter of fact, the Korean's used to train near the USAT camps so that they could get the research data that we developed. It was unsettling but a US coach asked for the data and he turned around and handed the information right to the Korean coaches. That was their foundation of the sciences. While they developed programs to improve the system, the US floundered and fell into the abyss. 

Sorry for the lengthy explanations....


----------



## Stash

Hikari said:


> I think the Korean men's team needs more women.


nakedape would probably complain about that, too.


----------



## limbwalker

Stash said:


> nakedape would probably complain about that, too.


I was thinking the same thing. LOL


----------



## limbwalker

Rick McKinney said:


> Giving this a lot of thought, I feel that Lee will continue if allowed. He has his methods which prove to work for some and disastrous to others, but he has been able to garner medals. The reason Wu's efforts failed is that the Korean culture does not allow a woman to be above or equal to the male, thus Lee had full control of Wu when she was here in the US. Anyone who has spent time in Korea would have known this. She immediately had to comply with Lee's demands, thus the switch from good quality linear Korean methods to the NTS. The US firing her was only 2nd worst to hiring her in the first place. The hiring of Chris was a bit suspicious at best. He appears to be a good friend of the female archers and makes a very good manager. He failed Casey and Jennifer as a coach by not telling them to move their sights. It was so obvious for one who had a scope and a clean target face. The arrow holes on the target was very telling, especially Jennifer's target. She possibly could have won the match if she moved her sight but kept going low enough to loose 1-2 points per end.
> View attachment 7441232
> 
> 
> The other issue is that US Archery is horrible when it comes to utilizing past champion archers. Italy has a slew of coaches who were past champions, dating back to Spigarelli. Valeeva was in the coach's box with Boari. If you look on the World Archery website at the Italian coaches, it is impressive. It appears they appreciate their champions and utilize them. The US has ignored the past champions such as Hardy Ward, John Williams, Luann Ryann, Darrell Pace, Butch Johnson, Vic Wunderle, Rod White and others. This is a travesty since they had so much to offer. Vic and Rod both work for the NFAA, Darrell helps on the field at US Nationals. The rest sit back and just shake their heads at some of the crazy thinking of US Archery.
> 
> And finally, don't forget that the US is the country who introduced the sciences into the sport. In the 1980's we had full blown testing to help the archers, using tried and true systems that helped our archers such as Denise Parker, Justin Huish, Rod White, Vic Wunderle and others (Jr USAT). When I stepped down due to all of the political BS, the new leader felt it was unnecessary to continue to use the sciences and mental training. The US fell into a deep hole during that period and really have not recovered except with Lee's efforts. Although I am not a big fan of Lee, he did bring back some of the things we used nearly 35 years ago. As a matter of fact, the Korean's used to train near the USAT camps so that they could get the research data that we developed. It was unsettling but a US coach asked for the data and he turned around and handed the information right to the Korean coaches. That was their foundation of the sciences. While they developed programs to improve the system, the US floundered and fell into the abyss.
> 
> Sorry for the lengthy explanations....


Don't be sorry. You have the experience and authority to speak on this that few others have, here on the forum and in the real world. I appreciate you weighing in on what will be a very important decision over the next cycle.


----------



## Vittorio

Rick McKinney said:


> ...........................
> ........ Italy has a slew of coaches who were past champions, dating back to Spigarelli. Valeeva was in the coach's box with Boari. If you look on the World Archery website at the Italian coaches, it is impressive. It appears they appreciate their champions and utilize them. ...............


In this regard, Italy is very similar to Korea: the majority of our present coaches are former top level Italian archers and all of them are graduated to our Third level in coaching.
Natalia Valeeva, no need to explain, is coach of the women team
Amedeo Tonelli (winner of last World Games defeating Brady in the final match) is her second
Matteo Bisiani (2 Olympic Medals by the team) is the coach for the men
Ilario Di Buo' (do you need to know about him?) is presently the head coach for the Junior/Cadet team
Guendalina Sartori ( former world champion by team, 4th with the team in Rio) is his second
... Michele was supposed to join the Coaches side last year, but he decided to ...try again as an athlete
And, outside Italy at present:
-Alberto Zagami (Bronze 2013 at Mediterranean Games by team with Michele and Mauro and individually as well) is coach for GBR
- Filippo Clini (former Junior World champion by team) is coach for Switzerland after being coach for the Italian team for many years

Is our a perfect system? Not at all, as all of them, have very different backgrounds as archers and teach a very different ways of shooting, and this many times generates conflicts with athletes, but they all have one common strong positive part in their coaching: they perfectly know what it means to be on the shooting line in a major event and how to win it.


----------



## nakedape

Hikari said:


> I never look at the stats that closely. I guess the men don't dominate.
> 
> Korean men's individual medals:
> 
> 2016: Gold
> 2012: Gold
> 2008: Silver
> 1996: Bronze
> 1992: Silver
> 1988: Silver
> 
> Korean women's individual medals:
> 
> 2020: Gold
> 2016: Gold, Bronze
> 2012: Gold
> 2008: Silver, Bronze
> 2004: Gold, Silver
> 2000: Gold, Silver, Bronze
> 1996: Gold
> 1992: Gold Silver
> 1988: Gold, Silver, Bronze
> 1984: Gold


That is domination for the men's. (especially with unpredictable elimation set system, but hey it's good for TV...)

Even a blind ape can see the depth of competition is way weaker in women's division.

Reminds me when Ronda Rousey entered the UFC.
She dominated....... for a while till the competition caught up.




> I think the Korean men's team needs more women.


nah, they are smart enough to realize they don't want to destroy their program like what the Canadians did.


Welp, I will let all the Monday morning quarterbacks get back to what they do best.... .


----------



## lksseven

Haven't read through this whole thread yet. I think he'll keep his job if he wants to, and more importantly if Brady wants him to. 

But Lee comes out of this Olympics "0 for 9". Based on that, "should he keep his job?" is a much different question from "will he?"


----------



## strugglesticks

lksseven said:


> Haven't read through this whole thread yet. I think he'll keep his job if he wants to, and more importantly if Brady wants him to.
> 
> But Lee comes out of this Olympics "0 for 9". Based on that, "should he keep his job?" is a much different question from "will he?"


It is definitely disappointing. I thought we would at least get a medal or two.

5 events x 3 medals = 15 possible So IMO he's 0/15 on the year. Ouch.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## teebat

In other sports if the head coaches had this kind of track record they wouldn't be in the position any longer.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk


----------



## Hikari

You obviously have never seen the Orlando Magic...


----------



## limbwalker

Hikari said:


> You obviously have never seen the Orlando Magic...


Or the Dallas Cowboys for the past 25 years. LOL


----------



## limbwalker

I honestly feel like Rick killed this thread. I mean, there just isn't much more to discuss after his reply, it's so well informed and spot-on. 

I do appreciate everyone who weighed in. I have no dog in this fight. Won't matter to me one bit what happens. But just like I used to yell at the TV every time Jason Garrett made another bonehead decision, I do care enough about our Olympic archery program to want the best for our archers - particularly our women. So my prayer is they get what they need and we see the first US woman medal in the next games for the first time since 1988.


----------



## Albert Francis

Draven Olary said:


> check what Jake Kaminski is teaching on his channel and what the accredited coaches are teaching and you wonder “what the […]”


Can you clarify what you mean by this? Is what Jake is teaching on his channel wrong?


----------



## Draven Olary

Albert Francis said:


> Can you clarify what you mean by this? Is what Jake is teaching on his channel wrong?


The other way around. I think I wrote here that Jake should give seminars regarding KSL shot sequence to the coaches that are teaching it now.


----------



## limbwalker

Albert Francis said:


> Can you clarify what you mean by this? Is what Jake is teaching on his channel wrong?


I would trust Jake before I would trust all but maybe 4-5 coaches I can think of. Even then, I'd still listen to what they all have to say.


----------



## Albert Francis

Draven Olary said:


> The other way around. I think I wrote here that Jake should give seminars regarding KSL shot sequence to the coaches that are teaching it now.


Whats wrong with what accredited coaches are teaching? Jake has been trained in the NTS method by Lee and thats the same method coaches teach right?


----------



## Draven Olary

Albert Francis said:


> Whats wrong with what accredited coaches are teaching? Jake has been trained in the NTS method by Lee and thats the same method coaches teach right?


Subtle things missing in "translation", starting with the fact that very few coaches had first hand experience with KSL as direct coach. Just this would be enough. When Brady explained that his drawing half of the draw cycle using the torso movement it was a novelty for many. If you follow Jake's channel he said about the lollypop movement that was wrongfully taught. I've checked for my own curiosity when a Coach is required to know the importance of the breathing during the shooting cycle since the entire KSL shot sequence is designed for 1mm clicker and expansion through breathing - the level III is not required to know about it. In my opinion Jake, Brady and maybe very few working directly with KSL are able to provide the subtle things of the sequence because they've done it successfully.
I totally agree that a kid doesn't need to know all the subtle things, but he needs Coaches who are teaching something that is a continuity from a level to other, not a "forget what you knew, I will teach you other thing" when he moves up in levels.
Korean's opinion that their teachers are sequence oriented and their American counterpart is score oriented is disturbing - and this was said many times. Maybe this is the point where the table should turn around. You can't have strong archers if the system preparing them is not at least "on same page" on what to teach. If KSL style of shooting is hard to explain, get rid of it and use something better and easier to teach from grade 1


----------



## woof156

limbwalker said:


> Also, if you were around in 2006 at Lee's first presentations to US coaches - he sold his method as the "best" method under pressure. That was his #1 sales pitch. We heard it over and over again. His words, not anyone elses.


Was he referring to Biomechanical Efficient Shooting Technique or just the best tech for dealing with pressure?? From posts a ways back in time and space some poster were taking exception to his method of draw as being truly BEST... I wonder if any shooter truly uses any method without modification for their body style and configuration. Coaches give good advice, help correct errors but in the end shooters incorporate what works for them--Even on the Korean teams you see modifications that are unique to the shooter. As some here have pointed out I think Jake K has, on his channel, really clarified and some of the KSL method in practical ways--no question it would not work for everyone?? This is above my pay grade as an archer for sure and much of nuances are lost on me and I have never met KSL... So for me in the peanut gallery I want to take what sounds good, give it a try and if it helps I will try to use it tho I may look like Heinz 57 archer... Finally it seems great disadvantage is that we suffer from lack of depth in our program- some great shooters but we lack the pool of 60 great shooters to select from to take to the Olympics etc. Fixing that is more complicated, unless it is the coach who is driving good potential shooters away- if so then change out the coach.


----------



## Albert Francis

123 4/8 P&Y said:


> I'm pretty sure Jake has a deep-seated grudge against USA archery.


Why, what did USAA do to him?


----------



## Albert Francis

FerrumVeritas said:


> And men’s compound has hit saturation. There’s no growth there: it’s already big. Heck, with attitudes around hunting changing, you’re likely to see shrinking participation in some areas.


Can you elaborate? What has changed with attitudes regarding hunting?


----------



## limbwalker

Draven Olary said:


> Subtle things missing in "translation", starting with the fact that very few coaches had first hand experience with KSL as direct coach. Just this would be enough. When Brady explained that his drawing half of the draw cycle using the torso movement it was a novelty for many. If you follow Jake's channel he said about* the lollypop movement that was wrongfully taught.* I've checked for my own curiosity when a Coach is required to know the importance of the breathing during the shooting cycle since the entire KSL shot sequence is designed for 1mm clicker and expansion through breathing - the level III is not required to know about it. *In my opinion Jake, Brady and maybe very few working directly with KSL are able to provide the subtle things of the sequence because they've done it successfully.*
> I totally agree that a kid doesn't need to know all the subtle things, but he needs Coaches who are teaching something that is a continuity from a level to other, not a "forget what you knew, I will teach you other thing" when he moves up in levels.
> Korean's opinion that their teachers are sequence oriented and their American counterpart is score oriented is disturbing - and this was said many times. Maybe this is the point where the table should turn around. You can't have strong archers if the system preparing them is not at least "on same page" on what to teach. If KSL style of shooting is hard to explain, get rid of it and use something better and easier to teach from grade 1


I've been saying the same thing for quite some time now, and I was among the very first four coaches in the US who trained directly under Lee in '06-07. It is a complex system and only someone trained by Lee directly or with tons of 1st hand contact will 'get it'. 

The Lollypop (actually "candy cane") movement was atrocious and a perfect example of so many 2nd and 3rd level coaches getting things dead wrong and passing it along to their students. I once asked Lee about that candy cane motion and he just shook his head. He could not believe what he was seeing.


----------



## TER

Jake could be right while holding a grudge. Holding a grudge doesn't necessarily make a guy wrong. I'm not saying he's definitely right or wrong. Just saying a guy can be angry while being right.


----------



## Skeptix_907

limbwalker said:


> Like it or not, the head coach takes the blame or the praise. Same is true in every sport. NFL hall of fame coaches have been fired after just one or two losing seasons. Of course, we've also seen pro teams stick with coaches year after year whose teams produced mediocre records. I'm a lifelong Cowboys fan who just suffered through 10 seasons of Jason Garrett. I think he's a good man (Jason) but he was only an average coach.
> 
> Also, if you were around in 2006 at Lee's first presentations to US coaches - he sold his method as the "best" method under pressure. That was his #1 sales pitch. We heard it over and over again. His words, not anyone elses.


Lol. Seems like it's the opposite - US is great at getting to the dance, not great at winning golds.


----------



## Quailbil

limbwalker said:


> I still think the relative amount of talented athletes that pursue the sport at the highest level, is a consideration too. I don't think anyone could argue our best athletes in the US are playing other sports - ones that include prestigious D1 scholarships and potentially pro careers. If archery was a popular, respected sport in the US like it is in other countries, we'd see more talented, physical athletes picking up bows and bringing their athleticism and competition mindset to the sport. It's rare to get a pure athlete in archery. If we do, we usually lose them to baseball, softball, volleyball, swimming, etc. at the high school ages. So then what we're left with is young people who are just not great athletes and/or don't have a good competitive mindset. And every now and then, we get to keep a good athlete with a tough mental game and within short order, they are making USAT squads or international teams.
> 
> So, regardless of who the head coach is, or how the program is run, if we can't give good athletes a reason to take archery seriously, we're always going to be fishing in a shallow pool. I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but I've been an athlete my entire life and what I see in archery compared to other sports is pretty shocking at times. As a JOAD coach, I couldn't ask 90% of my students to do what 90% of high school athletes did every single day. It just wasn't going to happen.


This is true. My son shoots NASP and some barebow and I know he is not competing with the best athletes out there.
And JOAD further shrinks the pool as clubs are few and far between. Not every kid lives within a distance that makes it possible to partake.


----------



## woof156

Albert Francis said:


> Why, what did USAA do to him?


He discussed it in a Bow International ( June 10, 2021 ) magazine- something to do with lack of sponsorship but still required to shoot certain events?? No doubt there were extenuating factors as well.


----------



## Doughman

Hypothetically speaking, if US coaches were Darrell and Rick and our archers lost their games in Olympic, will we still discuss get rid of Darrell and Rick? I will think finding new archers are priority.

When my kids came home with bad grades, I won't think teachers need to be fired.


----------



## Skeptix_907

Doughman said:


> Hypothetically speaking, if US coaches were Darrell and Rick and our archers lost their games in Olympic, will we still discuss get rid of Darrell and Rick? I will think finding new archers are priority.
> 
> When my kids came home with bad grades, I won't think teachers need to be fired.


This isn't just about losing at the Olympics, this is about our national team (mens and womens) seemingly getting worse every year he is the coach. Look at 2012. Men's team BEAT the Koreans and only lost to a legendary Italian team by 1 pt. Also did incredibly well at the world stage outside of the olympics up to that year and whooped up on the korean team for months.

Fast forward to 2020. Didn't place at men's individual, didn't even place at men's team. Zero medals overall in the entire event. For a country that used to be at the top of Olympic archery, this was a complete and utter failure. It's not on the athletes - athletes are a product of a system, and right now the system just sucks.

And aside from K. Lee, the entire archery administration is a ****ing disaster. 2018 they pushed out one of the best archers the country ever had (jake kaminsky) with the new ridiculous competition schedule and not allowing a tiny amount of leeway to allow him to stay on the team. You watch him shoot on his channel with no practice and an out of tune bow and he still drills 10s.


----------



## limbwalker

strugglesticks said:


> It is definitely disappointing. I thought we would at least get a medal or two.
> 
> 5 events x 3 medals = 15 possible So IMO he's 0/15 on the year. Ouch.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


I woke up this morning thinking about the "0fer" stat. I guess I like statistics because they just are what they are.

Lee's stats in 4 games - 3 medals (Silver, Silver, Bronze) out of 51 available

American coaches in the previous 4 games - 4 medals (Gold, Gold, Silver, Bronze) out of 48 available. 

That's an interesting stat.


----------



## nopsled

I've always wondered if Jake's teammates and coach stood up for him when this happened.

I know it's sad but he probably wouldn't have been sharing his knowledge the way he is doing it today. I hope Brady does the same some day.

Sent from my SM-T387W using Tapatalk


----------



## Hikari

limbwalker said:


> I would trust Jake before I would trust all but maybe 4-5 coaches I can think of. Even then, I'd still listen to what they all have to say.


I am really new to archery and sports overall. I have found Jake's channel and found it extremely useful. There are things on there that really make sense and explain a lot. The experience I have had with coaches, and this is very limited and these are people with USA Archery lower level certification, has been lacking. I have appreciated their time, but the quality of the instruction has been mixed. I have found some really good online resources like Jake's channel and the Online Archery Academy.

I think the coaching program simply teaches knowledge of archery as has little to do with the art and science of teaching. For example, my coach told me to rotate my shoulder to get my forearm to be the the correct vertical position, but also to keep my shoulder down. I could do it, but it was also really painful. Then I watched the Online Archery Academy and the archer there simply said to rotate the elbow. And bingo, I got it--not perfect, but it got me to start getting my bow arm form. That subtle difference is big. Jakes is great, not only because he points at _what_ needs to be done, but also _why_ (and also will admit when he does not know something (good teachers recognize their limitations and will admit to them)).

I have actually been in education for a good part of my career. The error of the teacher only needs knowledge to be able to teach is really a common mistake. A teacher needs to frame problem so students can learn. It can be, in very simple terms, passing on comprehension of a discipline. Simply having a student imitating a form is not enough. Neither is knowledge, especially in a skill-based discipline (that is OK for writing essays at school, but not effective for execution of skill).


----------



## limbwalker

Jake is a thinker and always has been. He gives everything a critical look - in the best sense. He's not always right, but that's only because we're all biased in some ways. None of us are always right. But he searches for right and I respect the hell out of him for that. Being a thinker has always been a blessing and a curse to Jake. Thinkers can get far, but when they need to shut it off, sometimes they can't and they overthink. 

This sport often rewards the brain dead. It is what it is.


----------



## Hikari

limbwalker said:


> Thinkers can get far, but when they need to shut it off, sometimes they can't and they overthink.


I totally get that. That is actually why I like archery. There is clearly a place for logic and critical thinking, but at the same time, when you are shooting, it is just the performance--no thinking required. I really find that meditative.


----------



## limbwalker

nakedape said:


> It's called being in the zone, not brain dead


such insight from a world class athlete is rare. we should all thank you


----------



## limbwalker

nakedape said:


> It's only an interesting stat, when you are bad with statistics.


Is this truth too inconvenient for you?


----------



## limbwalker

nakedape said:


> ur welcome, Limbsaver.


More excellence. What would we do without you.


----------



## limbwalker

nakedape said:


> Limbsaver, go read the bible instead of wasting ur time insulting other people on forums.


More fascinating comments. I don't know how we've lived so long without you here.


----------



## Draven Olary

Btw, did I heard right? Jake Kaminski talking for a future comeback to get in Olympic Recurve archer competitor shape?
PS He mentioned this in his last video - maybe creating youtubes about “how to” do it.
1:08 mark

If this is even remotely true, I doubt KSL will go before 2024


----------



## limbwalker

Draven Olary said:


> Btw, did I heard right? Jake Kaminski talking for a future comeback to get in Olympic Recurve archer shape?
> PS He mentioned this in his last video - maybe creating youtubes about “how to” do it.


Anyone with his skills and knowledge and youth could make a run, provided they had their life sorted out. Jacob is a perfect example.


----------



## strugglesticks

Yes that is very true nakedape. But my point was, there were 15 medals up for grabs and we got skunked. The more I learn about USA Archery, the less I blame the coach. It sounds like a mess.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## TER

nakedape said:


> Don't believe everything you read. I blame trolls like Limbsaver for starting a thread like this during the Olympic competition. How is this supporting our team?
> 
> He really should be banned from this forum.


Our discussions here carry absolutely no weight outside of this forum. We're just having discussions that nobody else cares about. But I understand you know that, you're just amusing yourself trolling limbwalker.


----------



## limbwalker

TER said:


> Our discussions here carry absolutely no weight outside of this forum. We're just having discussions that nobody else cares about. But I understand you know that, you're just amusing yourself trolling limbwalker.


Some people can't even stand someone asking the question, they are so triggered by it.


----------



## chang

nakedape said:


> ...... I blame trolls like* Limbsaver* .........
> 
> He really should be banned from this forum.


Urm, Does John look anything like these







??


----------



## Jim C

BubbaDean1 said:


> If a college or professional coach had the same record as Lee they would have been gone long ago. What amazes me is the thousands of kids in JOAD programs that have shot Oly recurve over the last ten or so years and this is the best we have. Brady is a phenom. I agree he is also an upstanding individual. W*hy is it that Korea is so far ahead of us. *Training method? Coaching? National pride? Dedication? Lack of corporate sponsorship like Hyundai and others? These are the questions that need to be asked.


because it is a sport that Korea sees as one of the top three most important to them. Archery probably ranks about the same as Fencing or table tennis in America. WE do better in archery than Korea does in the sports they see as 30-35th in Importance. Korea doesn't win in the glamor sports-Track, Gymnastics, Swimming.


----------



## Jim C

nakedape said:


> Don't believe everything you read. I blame trolls like Limbsaver for starting a thread like this during the Olympic competition. How is this supporting our team?
> 
> He really should be banned from this forum.


I find this to be an ignorant statement-or worse. John provides a needed perspective on this board. I have known him for 17 or so years or so now, and his views are needed addition to this board-especially since many of the other very experienced world class archers no longer post here.


----------



## iceman747

Jim C said:


> because it is a sport that Korea sees as one of the top three most important to them. Archery probably ranks about the same as Fencing or table tennis in America. WE do better in archery than Korea does in the sports they see as 30-35th in Importance. Korea doesn't win in the glamor sports-Track, Gymnastics, Swimming.


Korea has already won two medals (one gold, one bronze) in gymnastics in these Olympics alone. The USA men's gymnastics team has won the same number of medals as the archery team.


----------



## limbwalker

nakedape said:


> He's a clout chaser.


Well I do have a national championship title in that event. LOL

Nakedape, it's clear you have a personal problem with me. If you want to remain on this forum you'll stick to the topic and stop violating the rules of behavior. Eventually the mods will enforce them and you'll be banned just like others have been for the same reasons.


----------



## limbwalker

nakedape said:


> Bad math.
> You can only get 9 medals max.


Seems someone forgot the mixed team event.

In Tokyo, there were a possible 15 placements available for any team that qualified 3+3 archers. In previous Olympics, there were a possible 12 placements available. Now, of course the odds of any country going 1, 2, 3 are nearly impossible, so that would need to be factored in. Also, a given team can only take one place, so there is that too. 

That said, the comparison still stands. Lee's record in 4 games is worse than his predecessors in the previous 4 games, and that's just the facts. Name call all you want, but it won't change that simple fact.


----------



## Draven Olary

Raw data without context is a very slippery road and most of the time is not saying the real story.
Based on pure numbers you were not suppose to change the Coach because you were doing just fine on your own. How many medals would have been won without KSL ?


----------



## limbwalker

Draven Olary said:


> Raw data without context is a very slippery road and most of the time is not saying the real story.
> Based on pure numbers you were not suppose to change the Coach because you were doing just fine on your own. How many medals would have been won without KSL ?


No way to know that, however as Rick and Vittorio point out, it's not like the NAA/USArchery was without world class resources at their disposal.

As for the raw data, is that not the performance measure? Total number of medals? If not, what is it then? That would be handy to know.


----------



## Draven Olary

Some pages ago you said KSL couldn’t believe what the coaches made out of his shot sequence. What was done to correct this? At the end of the day medals are in direct relation with the number of archers capable to challenge for one. I think his goal was to create 2 or 3 archers capable to do this and the goal was achieved. Challenging and actually get them is out of his hands imo.


----------



## limbwalker

Draven Olary said:


> Some pages ago you said KSL couldn’t believe what the coaches made out of his shot sequence. What was done to correct this? At the end of the day medals are in direct relation with the number of archers capable to challenge for one. I think his goal was to create 2 or 3 archers capable to do this and the goal was achieved. Challenging and actually get them is out of his hands imo.


I agree with you to some degree - but his method was sold to us coaches and administration in the then-NAA as one that will work better under pressure. That was his primary selling point. He even had pages of data showing match scores of his boys in Aus vs. the Koreans, etc., etc. He wasn't showing us ranking round scores to make that point. 

He spent a lot of time convincing officials and coaches early on that his system was better than the Korean system. Fewer injuries, no target panic, higher scores under pressure. Any coach who was at his early seminars will confirm this. Those are his words, not anyone else's.

More training - that's the answer to your first question. When Lee found out about how some coaches were "teaching" his method, he stepped in and corrected the problem from what I can tell. That said, I could show you video from some of the students at the earliest JDT camps that would just blow your mind and have you asking wt eff... It was clearly a guinea-pig, let's see if this works approach in those days, which was troubling after all we had been told pre-hire.


----------



## Draven Olary

Did he executed the shot sequence?


----------



## limbwalker

Draven Olary said:


> Did he executed the shot sequence?


With that reasoning, does any coach deserve credit for anything? LOL

If a coach sells themselves in all the ways Lee did, it's their job to back that up. The questions now before USArchery are, did he deliver on his promises, were the performance measures met, and are there better alternatives. Looking back at how the product was advertised/promoted and measuring it's performance vs. what we had in the past is a valid examination IMO.


----------



## Boomer2094

limbwalker said:


> With that reasoning, does any coach deserve credit for anything? LOL
> 
> If a coach sells themselves in all the ways Lee did, it's their job to back that up. The question now before USArchery is, *did he deliver on his promises, were the performance measures met, and are there better alternatives.* Looking back at how the product was advertised/promoted and measuring it's performance vs. what we had in the past is a valid examination IMO.


I didn't know how Coach Lee was selling his coaching system...I was not privy to that conversation. I will take Limbwalker at his word, because he was there.

I think the bolded part hit the nail right on the head... That should be the factor that decide wither Coach Lee stays or go. Unfortunately, because of current top-of-food-chain archer's preference of Coach Lee. I think he will stay for the foreseeable future. 

But if USAA is smart, they would be start looking for an alternative - someone/some system that would be better suited for USA Archery for the long run.


----------



## limbwalker

Boomer2094 said:


> I didn't know how Coach Lee was selling his coaching system...I was not privy to that conversation. I will take Limbwalker at his word, because he was there.
> 
> I think the bolded part hit the nail right on the head... That should be the factor that decide wither Coach Lee stays or go. Unfortunately, because of current top-of-food-chain archer's preference of Coach Lee. I think he will stay for the foreseeable future.
> 
> But if USAA is smart, they would be start looking for an alternative - someone/some system that would be better suited for USA Archery for the long run.


Rick was there too, as was JimC and many others who still post here. We were all in those early presentations and seminars and coaches trainings.

As for a "system..." I think the idea of a single coaching "system" in the U.S. is a flawed notion. It might fit for nations full of people who believe/obey what they are told without questioning things, but that's not America. I understand as administrators, you are always looking for a common operating system because managing many systems is just plain hard and it seems inefficient. But a case could be made that many systems is actually more efficient, the same way that having many scientists all working on the same problem in their own unique way is more efficient. 

It's been tried - to make all the USArchery-trained coaches teach the same method and we have seen how that experiment went. Hell, Lee himself was the biggest critic of the way his system was being taught by American coaches. For years he would stand at the head of the room and criticize volunteer American coaches for teaching "his" method the wrong way. Oh how much fun that was to listen to over and over again (and I know there are dozens of those coaches here who know exactly what I'm talking about).


----------



## Black46

Anyone know what KSL's actual job description is? That's what he should be evaluated on, just like the rest of us that have an employer. I assume he sits down with someone (Rod?) at least once a year and discuss goals, how he has or has not met this goals?

Paul


----------



## Boomer2094

Limbwalker,

Excellent point!

So, do you think if OTC would get rid of this "NTS or GTFO" mentality, More archers who may have potential to be great archers who doesn't work well with NTS would start to show up?


----------



## limbwalker

Boomer2094 said:


> Limbwalker,
> 
> Excellent point!
> 
> So, do you think if OTC would get rid of this "NTS or GTFO" mentality, More archers who may have potential to be great archers who doesn't work well with NTS would start to show up?


It's hard to say but I do think that some archers who don't respond well to NTS would have the potential to shoot a different style and still have the training/support resources available to them that NTS shooters have.

I also think we need to double down on our women's head coach, and have someone who is world class and is independent of the men's head coach. I mean, would we be okay with the women's soccer coach having to report to the men's soccer coach? I think not. Does the women's gymnastics or track coach have to report to the men's gymnastics or track coach? Somehow I doubt it.


----------



## Draven Olary

limbwalker said:


> With that reasoning, does any coach deserve credit for anything? LOL


I am used to coaches who can show what he wants from me when is a new thing. You just wrote above something that to me sounded like KSL shot was a result of trial and error. Maybe I didn’t understood right.


----------



## Stash

In order for is who are not that familiar with them, can someone (in as few words as possible) describe KSL and NTS and BEST? 

I understand how linear and angular draw differs, but can’t figure out why people seem to think one is somehow better than another. The Olympics results don’t seem to offer any evidence for that.


----------



## limbwalker

Draven Olary said:


> I am used to coaches who can show what he wants from me when is a new thing. You just wrote above something that to me sounded like KSL shot was a result of trial and error. Maybe I didn’t understood right.


In the early years here in the U.S., it most certainly was trial and error. Some will dispute that but they weren't there at the very beginning. You can ask Jackie Fiala, Gary Holstein, Jim Noble or Chelsea Barker or any of the first 2 years worth of JDT archers and they will tell you the same thing - Try this, try that, try something else. It seemed like anything but an established system in those early years, but that also could have been due to the communication barrier. All I know is I have some interesting video from those years that would make anyone wonder what on earth we were teaching those students. LOL


----------



## limbwalker

Stash said:


> In order for is who are not that familiar with them, can someone (in as few words as possible) describe KSL and NTS and BEST?
> 
> I understand how linear and angular draw differs, but can’t figure out why people seem to think one is somehow better than another. The Olympics results don’t seem to offer any evidence for that.


KSL - Kisik Lee (or Lee Ki Sik) who developed what he called the "BEST" (biomechanically efficient shooting technique) while in Australia and wrote a book about it with the help of Robert de Bondt. That was the method sold to the NAA. Later, it morphed into NTS which stands for the National Training System. There are those who will tell you NTS is not a specific shooting technique but rather a national training system, but the fact is there is only one nationally sanctioned technique being taught by NTS-certified coaches. And we saw what happened when Woo tried to teach something else at the OTC. 

This is an interesting article on this topic, looking back.









Archery : U.S. coach Lee plots Korea's downfall


South Korea is not thrilled that its top archery brains are guiding other Olympic nations but the sport's superpower is especially uncomfortable about master coach Lee Ki-sik's American success.




www.reuters.com


----------



## Stash

Yeah, I understand that, but what exactly IS the NTS system that makes it so different? I’ve watched videos and read descriptions, but it’s all gibberish to me.

“NTS uses sport science combining a biomechanically stable and efficient shooting technique with an 11 step shooting sequence. You can think of these two aspects as software and hardware, where the software are the steps of the shot and the hardware is the technique you use to execute the steps.”

And

“Drawing is done angularly using LAN2. LAN2 is a focal point centered between your draw elbow and shoulder on the back of the upper arm.When drawing, move LAN2 in an angular motion (movement around the central pivot point aka the spine). The draw elbow moves around and slightly up along the draw force line from the pressure point.”

Maybe I’d just have to have someone demo it in person, because I don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept, and why it’s “better” than the good old way that used to put arrows in the X just fine. NTS archers seemed to be able to screw up and shoot 6s and 7s last week as easily as any others did.


----------



## limbwalker

Stash said:


> Yeah, I understand that, but what exactly IS the NTS system that makes it so different? I’ve watched videos and read descriptions, but it’s all gibberish to me.
> 
> “NTS uses sport science combining a biomechanically stable and efficient shooting technique with an 11 step shooting sequence. You can think of these two aspects as software and hardware, where the software are the steps of the shot and the hardware is the technique you use to execute the steps.”
> 
> And
> 
> “Drawing is done angularly using LAN2. LAN2 is a focal point centered between your draw elbow and shoulder on the back of the upper arm.When drawing, move LAN2 in an angular motion (movement around the central pivot point aka the spine). The draw elbow moves around and slightly up along the draw force line from the pressure point.”
> 
> Maybe I’d just have to have someone demo it in person, because I don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept, and why it’s “better” than the good old way that used to put arrows in the X just fine. NTS archers seemed to be able to screw up and shoot 6s and 7s last week as easily as any others did.


It is angular vs. linear draw, in a nutshell, with some other bits and pieces thrown in. The twisty at the waist thing is another feature, although not unique to NTS, it is a hallmark of NTS that has caused a lot of people problems. I've never heard of sublaxated ribs before NTS. I will say that much.


----------



## Stash

limbwalker said:


> It is angular vs. linear draw, in a nutshell, with some other bits and pieces thrown in. The twisty at the waist thing is another feature, although not unique to NTS, it is a hallmark of NTS that has caused a lot of people problems.


That’s all it is?
🙄

Would it be fair to say that if a young Darrell or Rick showed up at a modern day US trials, they'd be told to change everything, or bugger off and go home? 😄


----------



## lcaillo

The NAA was definitely looking for a single system that could be applied universally and a color by numbers approach to biomechanical efficacy rather than actually having coaches learn basics about anatomy, mechanics, and physiology. I was no longer consulting for them by the time KSL came around but others have confirmed that he sold them on a system much like what was being asked for. 

I completely agree that a single system is pointless in the USA. That doesn’t mean there are not principles that all coaches should know. But to try to apply the same thing to everyone is just nonsense. The best coaches take the athlete where they are and apply their knowledge to move them forward on their individual path. They don’t try to make them look like the same model. Even Jake, who is a product of KSL and a proponent of NTS recognizes this. 

The bottom line is that the experiment has not really accomplished much different than the period before. 

What might move us forward would be organizational leadership with a vision. But even if it had that with that the bloat and politics of the USOC and IOC may make it difficult to substantially change the organization. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker

Stash said:


> That’s all it is?
> 🙄
> 
> Would it be fair to say that if a young Darrell or Rick showed up at a modern day US trials, they'd be told to change everything, or bugger off and go home? 😄


I think you mean showed up at the training center? There is no technique requirement at the trials. We've probably had a few young Darrells and Ricks that were told at the OTC to shoot this way or go home, and we may never know who they were. We will also never know how many might have been more successful shooting a different technique and who could have become household names but didn't.

I think another interesting number to know would be the number of young archers in the U.S. that Lee has had access to compared to his predecessors. Meaning, how many young archers were trained under his technique vs. his predecessors, and what is the success ratio of archers trained under his technique vs. his predecessors? 

Sometimes, the results are a function of lots of opportunities rather than the specific method.


----------



## Stash

Well that exhausts my knowledge of and interest in this topic. 😄

But if Brady doesn’t do better at the Worlds next month than he did last week, maybe he and KSL might both want to have a look at the job opportunities in the Arizona copper mining industry. 😄 “You’re holding that shovel wrong.”


----------



## Draven Olary

Stash said:


> Yeah, I understand that, but what exactly IS the NTS system that makes it so different? I’ve watched videos and read descriptions, but it’s all gibberish to me.
> 
> “NTS uses sport science combining a biomechanically stable and efficient shooting technique with an 11 step shooting sequence. You can think of these two aspects as software and hardware, where the software are the steps of the shot and the hardware is the technique you use to execute the steps.”
> 
> And
> 
> “Drawing is done angularly using LAN2. LAN2 is a focal point centered between your draw elbow and shoulder on the back of the upper arm.When drawing, move LAN2 in an angular motion (movement around the central pivot point aka the spine). The draw elbow moves around and slightly up along the draw force line from the pressure point.”
> 
> Maybe I’d just have to have someone demo it in person, because I don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept, and why it’s “better” than the good old way that used to put arrows in the X just fine. NTS archers seemed to be able to screw up and shoot 6s and 7s last week as easily as any others did.


As a person who trained a decent number of years in a type of archery using a linear draw style the first thing they are doing is to disrupt the natural link between "intention and making it happen" to be able to learn the shot sequence. Put a kid a bow in hands and he will want to shoot the arrow where he looks at. Give a kid a rubber band and you are on the way to teach him technique first. It takes weeks before you get a bow and months before you are in front of the target. Is this something you see in archery classes? I just heard Jake talking about this, not one amateur archer talking about this.
Based on my understanding KSL shot cycle is made to disrupt this link without looking for a year to get to shoot a target. Your arrow is not in the target unless you are at full draw, so until you are at full draw your mind is not bothered with "send the arrow there" - you learn to be aware of your shot sequence until you get there. When you are at full draw, your mind shifts to the "make it happen" - there is no "aiming" per se, because the sight is already where it was supposed to be when you decided to draw the bow. In his videos Jake talks a lot about tension and direction and one time he said that your single thing to do is to look at the gold and let your brain adjust for minute movements.
In my opinion, there is no difference between linear draw executed by a Korean who used the "traditional" path of learning aka "the sequence first" and NTS if you compare the mindset riding the sequence. But it can be a pain in the azz to shoot NTS if you don't understand why are you doing what you are doing.
I may be completely wrong since I am not in KSL's mind, but this is my take.


----------



## Draven Olary

PS If they screwed up and got 6 or 7 is due to sight or wrong decision of picking the right “gold” or emotions. The shot cycle is not at fault in my mind.


----------



## limbwalker

I still think something was wrong with Casey's bow.


----------



## Draven Olary

Before she got her 9 she adjusted the sight furiously almost.


----------



## limbwalker

Draven Olary said:


> Before she got her 9 she adjusted the sight furiously almost.


I saw that, but I think it was more than just a sight adjustment. I could be wrong. I just have that feeling based on watching and listening to her bow when she shot. It just didn't look or sound quite right.


----------



## Jim C

iceman747 said:


> Korea has already won two medals (one gold, one bronze) in gymnastics in these Olympics alone. The USA men's gymnastics team has won the same number of medals as the archery team.


and the US women won the foil title but I was talking about the usual results.


----------



## Jim C

years ago, I was at the ATP Masters tennis event in Mason Ohio-where all the top players in the world Play. I was sitting with a long time friend who had been a three time All-American and a top 100 touring pro. We were watching a young Andy Roddick-the year before he was world #1 -playing. The friend noted that if someone had tried to teach his son the same service motion (and his son became a D3 All American) as Roddick had, he would have fired the coach. And I said-but Roddick just aced one of the top players in the world 18 times. And the former pro noted that there is not one way to serve tennis balls and different body types have different optimal forms


----------



## Draven Olary

Agreed, but in same time your friend had in mind a specific way to serve when he made the comment. How you personalize a "framework" it is a 1on1 thing between a Coach and his student, doesn't matter what the father thinks about it.


----------



## Draven Olary

limbwalker said:


> I saw that, but I think it was more than just a sight adjustment. I could be wrong. I just have that feeling based on watching and listening to her bow when she shot. It just didn't look or sound quite right.


You remember in the video when Brady shot an 8 and turned to KSL who told him to adjust the sight? He watched his execution and everything else and gave the right feedback. This is what was not there on women side imo.


----------



## lksseven

strugglesticks said:


> Yes that is very true nakedape. But my point was, there were 15 medals up for grabs and we got skunked. The more I learn about USA Archery, the less I blame the coach. It sounds like a mess.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


Not to nitpick, but only 9 medals up for grabs. Mixed team could win only 1ea of gold, silver, or bronze; men's team could win only 1 each of gold, silver, or bronze; women's team could win only 1each of gold, silver, or bronze; plus each individual could win one medal of gold, silver, or bronze. That's 
Mixed team - 1 medal
Men's team - 1 medal
Women's team - 1 medal
Individuals:
Brady - 1 medal
Jack - 1 medal
Jacob - 1 medal
Mac - 1 medal
Casey - 1 medal
Jennifer - 1 medal 
*___*
9 chances total.


----------



## Jim C

Draven Olary said:


> Agreed, but in same time your friend had in mind a specific way to serve when he made the comment. How you personalize a "framework" it is a 1on1 thing between a Coach and his student, doesn't matter what the father thinks about it.


the point is, there is no one specifically correct way to serve a tennis ball or shoot a recurve bow. Back to the tennis analogy, 1968 US Open finalist (to Arthur Ashe) hit from a very "open" stance-which was considered a form flaw (Tom Okker, like Borg, had a table tennis background where that is required). Now it is the standard. Aaron Krickstein's double bend forehand was also considered unorthodox at the time too-it is now the most popular forehand stroke at top level tennis.


----------



## limbwalker

lksseven said:


> Not to nitpick, but only 9 medals up for grabs. Mixed team could win only 1ea of gold, silver, or bronze; men's team could win only 1 each of gold, silver, or bronze; women's team could win only 1each of gold, silver, or bronze; plus each individual could win one medal of gold, silver, or bronze. That's
> Mixed team - 1 medal
> Men's team - 1 medal
> Women's team - 1 medal
> Individuals:
> Brady - 1 medal
> Jack - 1 medal
> Jacob - 1 medal
> Mac - 1 medal
> Casey - 1 medal
> Jennifer - 1 medal
> *___*
> 9 chances total.


Regardless, when you compare the past four games to the 4 previous... If the measure is medals, well it's not been better in the past four than it was from 1992 to 2004. 

That's the important stat here.


----------



## Jim C

lksseven said:


> Not to nitpick, but only 9 medals up for grabs. Mixed team could win only 1ea of gold, silver, or bronze; men's team could win only 1 each of gold, silver, or bronze; women's team could win only 1each of gold, silver, or bronze; plus each individual could win one medal of gold, silver, or bronze. That's
> Mixed team - 1 medal
> Men's team - 1 medal
> Women's team - 1 medal
> Individuals:
> Brady - 1 medal
> Jack - 1 medal
> Jacob - 1 medal
> Mac - 1 medal
> Casey - 1 medal
> Jennifer - 1 medal
> *___*
> 9 chances total.


mathematically it is essentially almost impossible for a country to have all three of its archers medal due to the unpredictable nature of the seedings and the fact that the top three seeds have never finished 1-2-3 in any world or Olympic championship


----------



## limbwalker

Jim C said:


> mathematically it is essentially almost impossible for a country to have all three of its archers medal due to the unpredictable nature of the seedings and the fact that the top three seeds have never finished 1-2-3 in any world or Olympic championship


Correct. But the point still remains. However you do the math, 1992-2004 was a more successful 4-games period for the U.S. than 2008-2020, if medals are our measure.

(Ironically, one could argue that individual women's performances were slightly improved)

There will be plenty of people who get angry when someone points that out, but the fact is we all invested a product and we deserve to know how it performed. No different than buying stocks or anything else. You look at the record and try and predict the future and adjust accordingly. Sometimes doing nothing is your best option. Sometimes you need to change.

Like that NFL coach once said, you are what your record says you are.


----------



## Draven Olary

Jim C said:


> the point is, there is no one specifically correct way to serve a tennis ball or shoot a recurve bow. Back to the tennis analogy, 1968 US Open finalist (to Arthur Ashe) hit from a very "open" stance-which was considered a form flaw (Tom Okker, like Borg, had a table tennis background where that is required). Now it is the standard. Aaron Krickstein's double bend forehand was also considered unorthodox at the time too-it is now the most popular forehand stroke at top level tennis.



From what I see, it looks like - at least now - you think korean way is correct way. You even made a korean coach your national coach. And now he is discussed because what he is trying to do is not fitting the mold for american way. The ones that fit the mold are his personal students and is true, they are not everybody. But with an enough pool of archers trained “right way” some might step forward. Jake said you need 8-10 years of meaningful practice to start to be a contender. That’s a long time but he is right. Korea has hundred of years of uninterrupted bow legacy behind. I look how Coach Kim is teaching olympic archers and he uses all the knowledge he gathered, mixing traditional training methods and knowledge and applying to new.
PS Borg was playing with a wooden racket in those days and his athleticism was above his table tennis background. All the winners in that time were big guys with a lot of stamina to start with. Chang started to break the mold but his agility was off the charts.


----------



## lksseven

limbwalker said:


> Regardless, when you compare the past four games to the 4 previous... If the measure is medals, well it's not been better in the past four than it was from 1992 to 2004.
> 
> That's the important stat here.


Oh, agree with you, John. Lee's run is not impressive no matter how you crunch the numbers. I only spelled it out because I had originally made the same cocktail napkin mistake that Strugglesticks made, and thought others might benefit from my 'loop back around' calc.


----------



## lksseven

Boomer2094 said:


> But if USAA is smart,


----------



## Boomer2094

lksseven said:


>


That was tongue-in-cheek comment there...

But regardless, unless something drastic happens, the status quo will be maintained, nothing will change.


----------



## limbwalker

Boomer2094 said:


> That was tongue-in-cheek comment there...
> 
> But regardless, unless something drastic happens, the status quo will be maintained, nothing will change.


The thing that "changed" the way things were run until '04 is that none of the RA's made the Olympic team. That was, I'm sure, a major disappointment for the NAA and who can blame them? Everyone wants to see a return on their investment eventually.


----------



## Draven Olary

Limbwalker, do you think if Coach Kim is magically USA head Coach things will change in 3 years?
And another question if I may: is a psychologist specialized in sport performance mental training travelling with the Olympic team?


----------



## limbwalker

Draven Olary said:


> Limbwalker, do you think if Coach Kim is magically USA head Coach things will change in 3 years?


Probably not 3, but in 7? Yes, things would change. 

It really comes down to what USArchery is expecting from this position. Do they want an elite Olympic coach or do they want someone who can manage a national system of coaches and navigate all the politics that comes with that. The same person who can do both is a rare bird indeed. Personally I think it's asking too much from one position. The head coach should be able to coach. Someone else can manage the national certification program.

I think the implementation of BEST/NTS has been a catastrophic failure, but I'm not sure that's entirely Lee's fault. There was absolutely a lot lost in translation for many years. It would have helped if he had a better command of the English language to start with, but there are/were a lot of things outside of his control too. 

One thing I know is we need a better women's head coach than what we've had these past 16 years. I think Chris is a good interim solution but long term the women's program needs to have the same access to elite coaching and world class support that the men have had for a long time now. Frankly, I won't be satisfied unless our women are on the podium at the Olympics and WC's and I don't know why on earth anyone else would be either.


----------



## Boomer2094

limbwalker said:


> The thing that "changed" the way things were run until '04 is that none of the RA's made the Olympic team. That was, I'm sure, a major disappointment for the NAA and who can blame them? Everyone wants to see a return on their investment eventually.


Didn't know that about how the way OTC ran back then...I can certainly understand the need to change in a hurry if nobody made the Olympic team.



limbwalker said:


> Probably not 3, but in 7? Yes, things would change.
> 
> It really comes down to what USArchery is expecting from this position. Do they want an elite Olympic coach or do they want someone who can manage a national system of coaches and navigate all the politics that comes with that. The same person who can do both is a rare bird indeed. Personally I think it's asking too much from one position. The head coach should be able to coach. Someone else can manage the national certification program.
> 
> I think the implementation of BEST/NTS has been a catastrophic failure, but I'm not sure that's entirely Lee's fault. There was absolutely a lot lost in translation for many years. It would have helped if he had a better command of the English language to start with, but there are/were a lot of things outside of his control too.
> 
> One thing I know is we need a better women's head coach than what we've had these past 16 years. I think Chris is a good interim solution but long term the women's program needs to have the same access to elite coaching and world class support that the men have had for a long time now. Frankly, I won't be satisfied unless our women are on the podium at the Olympics and WC's and I don't know why on earth anyone else would be either.


I'm curious... is the mentality of "NTS or GTFO" originated from people working at OTC or Coach Lee?


----------



## nopsled

limbwalker said:


> There was absolutely a lot lost in translation for many years. It would have helped if he had a better command of the English language to start with, but there are/were a lot of things outside of his control too.


I think this plays a huge role. I figure this is probably one of the reasons Tyler Benner and Lee wrote Total Archery. I’ve seen YT videos of KSL giving seminars/workshops and I can see how the language barrier could work against the KSL technique. Communication is key!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Draven Olary

Has anybody viewed this video?


----------



## carlosii

123 4/8 P&Y said:


> I think they'll keep him around. His mens teams got silver in the last 2 Olympics. That seems satisfactory to me. Of course as Americans we think we should be winning everything. But Olympic archery is not that popular here compared to the other nations with teams in the Olympics. That's the impression I get anyway.
> 
> I can't see Brady retiring either. Has he ever known a job outside of archery? He said archery is his life, so if he stops competing maybe the natural next step is coaching. But sometimes world class athletes don't make the best coaches.
> 
> Someone suggested Jake and Brady both coaching. That sounds nice in theory, except I'm pretty sure Jake has a deep-seated grudge against USA archery.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I've never heard the full story of what happened there. Apparently ended in his leaving competitive archery.


----------



## chrstphr

carlosii said:


> I've never heard the full story of what happened there. Apparently ended in his leaving competitive archery.


If i recall, he needed off for something personal, but USA archery had him on a team for a tournament and required him to be there. He thought they should have used someone else and let him do his personal thing. USA archery didnt feel the same and they parted ways. But my memory over trivial things is not what it use to be and i dont pay much attention to him. 

Chris


----------



## carlosii

BubbaDean1 said:


> NASP is a joke. In no way compares to barebow. However it is a great place to see if a child has interest in archery at low cost to parents.


How would you rate S3DA? I was in Cullman last week for the ASA pro am and there were tons of kids shooting 3D. I have no idea how those kids might be encouraged to test Olympic style archery, but I suspect there would be some.


----------



## carlosii

chrstphr said:


> If i recall, he needed off for something personal, but USA archery had him on a team for a tournament and required him to be there. He thought they should have used someone else and let him do his personal thing. USA archery didnt feel the same and they parted ways. But my memory over trivial things is not what it use to be and i dont pay much attention to him.
> 
> Chris


Thank you.


----------



## limbwalker

Draven Olary said:


> Has anybody viewed this video?


I wonder if he got the proper permissions to use that Tiger Woods ad and music. LOL

Would Darrell Pace would recognize anything on the slide at 47:00

Can any American coach watch that and really think they understand what he's teaching by the end of his presentation?


----------



## carlosii

Maggiemaebe said:


> The National Development Squad is our centralized system based in Toronto (kinda like your OTC model but without the RA's). The national level coaches used to teach a *******ization of Korean and NTS. Thankfully, they are now steering closer to the linear model with its emphasis on alignment. It definitely isn't a pure linear method but it's much closer then is was...much easier for kids to be consistent as they grow.
> 
> Having attended several high performance clinics over the years is pretty frustrating to watch national coaches show youth one system, have the youth practice that like crazy for a few years and then come to the next clinic to be shown something completely differently......definitely tough on confidence for young, growing archers.
> 
> We're improving but when we have so few archers at the elite level, it's really tough. We have Crispin, you have Brady. I think like you, it's easy for the coaches to be so invested in that one archer that it's tough to look too far down the road on the development side.
> 
> At the club level, the coaches are all volunteers so kids get who they get.


OT, but you also have Chris Perkins on the compound side. Not too shabby.


----------



## strugglesticks

lksseven said:


> Not to nitpick, but only 9 medals up for grabs. Mixed team could win only 1ea of gold, silver, or bronze; men's team could win only 1 each of gold, silver, or bronze; women's team could win only 1each of gold, silver, or bronze; plus each individual could win one medal of gold, silver, or bronze. That's
> Mixed team - 1 medal
> Men's team - 1 medal
> Women's team - 1 medal
> Individuals:
> Brady - 1 medal
> Jack - 1 medal
> Jacob - 1 medal
> Mac - 1 medal
> Casey - 1 medal
> Jennifer - 1 medal
> *___*
> 9 chances total.


No I understand we could have won a maximum of 9. But they gave away 15 medals and we got zilch. Hopefully some positive changes come out of this past olympic cycle.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## chang

Draven Olary said:


> ..... korean way is correct way. .......


There could be more than one Korean ways. I have this western archery book "ACHERI KYOSHITSU" in Japanese by Takashi Irie. It was actually written in the 60's and 70's. and the figure below was from the book.










At the time, the author observed that form 4 was more popular among Western archers, and he believed this "Western form" had better utilization of the muscle power to go through the clicker, yet the author recommended No 1 for Japanese archer. Form 1was also appeared in some Coach Kim Htyung Tak's earlier seminar notes, as well as in 2 of Hiroshi Yamamoto's recent archery instruction books.

I felt what Coach Lee promoted ever since "Total Archery", was more close to the "Western form" described by above.


----------



## Stash

carlosii said:


> OT, but you also have Chris Perkins on the compound side. Not too shabby.


I think it would be fair to say that Chris (and Dietmar before him) did not obtain much benefit from the Canadian national coaching system.


----------



## Z3R0

chang said:


> There could be more than one Korean ways. I have this western archery book "ACHERI KYOSHITSU" in Japanese by Takashi Irie. It was actually written in the 60's and 70's. and the figure below was from the book.
> 
> View attachment 7442384
> 
> 
> At the time, the author observed that form 4 was more popular among Western archers, and he believed this "Western form" had better utilization of the muscle power to go through the clicker, yet the author recommended No 1 for Japanese archer. Form 1was also appeared in some Coach Kim Htyung Tak's earlier seminar notes, as well as in 2 of Hiroshi Yamamoto's recent archery instruction books.
> 
> I felt what Coach Lee promoted ever since "Total Archery", was more close to the "Western form" described by above.


What do the dashed lines represent?

Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## chang

Z3R0 said:


> What do the dashed lines represent?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk


Variants due to physique, somthing to do with the length ratio between shoulder, lower and upper arm.. no detail formula nor number given though.


----------



## lcaillo

carlosii said:


> I've never heard the full story of what happened there. Apparently ended in his leaving competitive archery.


In my conversations with Jake it sounded like a pretty simple decision between making a living an attending the tournaments required to stay on the team. He certainly has some resentment about it but seems rather circumspect and satisfied with sharing his knowledge and experience. I have a great deal of respect for him and he is a fine archer and coach, among many other skills. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nopsled

chang said:


> There could be more than one Korean ways. I have this western archery book "ACHERI KYOSHITSU" in Japanese by Takashi Irie. It was actually written in the 60's and 70's. and the figure below was from the book.
> 
> View attachment 7442384
> 
> 
> At the time, the author observed that form 4 was more popular among Western archers, and he believed this "Western form" had better utilization of the muscle power to go through the clicker, yet the author recommended No 1 for Japanese archer. Form 1was also appeared in some Coach Kim Htyung Tak's earlier seminar notes, as well as in 2 of Hiroshi Yamamoto's recent archery instruction books.
> 
> I felt what Coach Lee promoted ever since "Total Archery", was more close to the "Western form" described by above.


But 3 is the one where shoulders and the bow arm wrist are aligned.


----------



## lcaillo

You can find any of these among top archers. An understanding of what we are trying to get from alignment and what each archer is capable of at the moment of analysis is what is important for a coach. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker

Using the figures above, Lee has always said that 1 is good, 4 is better and 3 is best, if it can be achieved (as Chang eludes to).


----------



## nopsled

limbwalker said:


> Using the figures above, Lee has always said that 1 is good, 4 is better and 3 is best, if it can be achieved (as Chang eludes to).


Agree. If the limb lengths were drawn to reflect limb ratios, it appears to accomplish 3 an archer with a slightly shorter than forearm upper arm, if that's even possible, would have an advantage ? Not sure if that's Brady's case, but in this video (



) at 1:54, he's elbow is right behind the arrow line, but whether his shoulders are in line with his bow arm wrist cannot be seen.


----------



## Stash

limbwalker said:


> Using the figures above, Lee has always said that 1 is good, 4 is better and 3 is best, if it can be achieved (as Chang eludes to).


But the alignment from a side view is also significant, isn’t it? I don’t think it’s necessary to post pics, but we have many example of top archers with high elbows and top archers with in-line elbows.

Ideally, we want to see a straight line along the elbow, nocking point and grip in both the vertical (from above) line and horizontal (from the side), but not everyone's bodies have the proportions that allow that. You work with what you have.


----------



## limbwalker

Stash said:


> But the alignment from a side view is also significant, isn’t it? I don’t think it’s necessary to post pics, but we have many example of top archers with high elbows and top archers with in-line elbows.
> 
> Ideally, we want to see a straight line along the elbow, nocking point and grip in both the vertical (from above) line and horizontal (from the side), but not everyone's bodies have the proportions that allow that. You work with what you have.


Also true. The very first thing I noticed when seeing Jennifer Mucino was how great her alignment was, for example.


----------



## Draven Olary

In my opinion the height of the elbow is not that big of a deal *as long* your wrist and shoulders are on a line (or close to it) - if it was that important, you couldn't have multiple anchor points (neck, mouth, cheek etc). There is a leeway in elbow height before it interferes with the wrist-shoulders alignment.


----------



## Jim C

limbwalker said:


> Also true. The very first thing I noticed when seeing Jennifer Mucino was how great her alignment was, for example.


DP constantly stresses that alignment is the most important thing to our JOAD archers


----------



## lksseven

It always looks to me like Brady's string elbow is behind the line (as was Rick's back in the day). Wouldn't that be figure #2?


----------



## Draven Olary

chang said:


> There could be more than one Korean ways. I have this western archery book "ACHERI KYOSHITSU" in Japanese by Takashi Irie. It was actually written in the 60's and 70's. and the figure below was from the book.
> 
> View attachment 7442384
> 
> 
> At the time, the author observed that form 4 was more popular among Western archers, and he believed this "Western form" had better utilization of the muscle power to go through the clicker, yet the author recommended No 1 for Japanese archer. Form 1was also appeared in some Coach Kim Htyung Tak's earlier seminar notes, as well as in 2 of Hiroshi Yamamoto's recent archery instruction books.
> 
> I felt what Coach Lee promoted ever since "Total Archery", was more close to the "Western form" described by above.


I can see why Coack Kim and Hiroshi Yamamoto were agreing with 1 and 2 - because they make sense for trad archery where the arrow is on the right side. But things changed since '60s, I am sure those notes were just this: a reflection of a mind switch from "trad" to shooting using a clicker on the left side of the bow.


----------



## nopsled

lksseven said:


> It always looks to me like Brady's string elbow is behind the line (as was Rick's back in the day). Wouldn't that be figure #2?


The pics go 1 through 4, right to left.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nopsled

lksseven said:


> It always looks to me like Brady's string elbow is behind the line (as was Rick's back in the day). Wouldn't that be figure #2?


And Brady always aligns shoulders with bow hand wrist, or very close, so that would have to be 3 or 4.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chrstphr

nopsled said:


> But 3 is the one where shoulders and the bow arm wrist are aligned.


2 is more typically a compound archer form.

Chris


----------



## nopsled

chrstphr said:


> 3 is more typically a compound archer form.
> 
> Chris


Thanks for clarifying! So is the shoulders aligned with the bow arm wrist, although ideal, something on the very hard to achieve side of the recurve archery form spectrum ?


----------



## chrstphr

nopsled said:


> Thanks for clarifying! So is the shoulders aligned with the bow arm wrist, although ideal, something on the very hard to achieve side of the recurve archery form spectrum ?


going from right to left in the photos....

Personally i think its easier to have #2 with compound since they are holding a lot less poundage at full draw.

Number 4 gives a lot more leverage to hold 40-55lbs due to that alignment.

For me, 1 and 3 are bad form and bad alignment. Though #3 is how NTS ends up after coming thru the clicker if done correctly. So many would disagree with my statement.

#1 is how most recreational archers shoot ( and that form is not going to be very consistent in my opinion.

Chris


----------



## Draven Olary

Chris, are you sure you checked the numbers first? The drawings are right to left numbered not left to right as a westerner would think


----------



## limbwalker

Draven Olary said:


> Chris, are you sure you checked the numbers first? The drawings are right to left numbered not left to right as a westerner would think


that threw me at first too


----------



## chrstphr

Oh, Sorry, I was going from left to right. I will change the numbers in my post. I didnt realize the those were numbers on their side. I thought they were some kind of symbols.


Chris


----------



## nopsled

chang said:


> There could be more than one Korean ways. I have this western archery book "ACHERI KYOSHITSU" in Japanese by Takashi Irie. It was actually written in the 60's and 70's. and the figure below was from the book.
> 
> View attachment 7442384
> 
> 
> At the time, the author observed that form 4 was more popular among Western archers, and he believed this "Western form" had better utilization of the muscle power to go through the clicker, yet the author recommended No 1 for Japanese archer. Form 1was also appeared in some Coach Kim Htyung Tak's earlier seminar notes, as well as in 2 of Hiroshi Yamamoto's recent archery instruction books.
> 
> I felt what Coach Lee promoted ever since "Total Archery", was more close to the "Western form" described by above.


Just to confirm, are you referring to the graph numbering left to right or right to left? Also, are the graphs drawn to reflect limb ratios ? For example, 1st graph, left to right, looks like the upper arm is longer than the upper arm in the 2nd graph, assuming the draw arm is parallel to the ground. Out of curiosity, does the author say, in his opinion, which one is the ideal? Tried to find the book, no luck so far.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chang

Draven Olary said:


> I can see why Coack Kim and Hiroshi Yamamoto were agreing with 1 and 2 - because they make sense for trad archery where the arrow is on the right side. But things changed since '60s, I am sure those notes were just this: a reflection of a mind switch from "trad" to shooting using a clicker on the left side of the bow.


The reason for 1 was not because of method in Kyudo, it emphasiszed on the direction of the shoulder expansion should be *parallel to the DFL or aiming line*. and believed to be more stable naturally.


----------



## Draven Olary

To have the shoulder movement parallel with the aiming line the arrow should be on the right side (aiming using knuckle of bow hand - rudimentary sight). When you add a sight, the shifting is happening: arrow and shoulder / elbow in line while aiming line is parallel - not barreling down the arrow while using a sight. That’s the alignment most of the time used by compound archers today and some of the trad archers but they are barreling down the arrow having a canted bow.
But I would like to read their reasoning, how they got there : shoulder movement parallel with line of aiming is good if not from previous experience.


----------



## limbwalker

Draven Olary said:


> To have the shoulder movement parallel with the aiming line - using the knuckle - the arrow should be on the right side. When you add a sight, the shifting is happening this way: arrow and shoulder as forearm in line while aiming line is parallel.


So is that a yes or a no? LOL


----------



## Draven Olary

My take is yes, they used what they knew before and adapted to the new type of bow and aiming method. You don’t change easy what you knew it works at long distance (90m or 150m or whatever) even if, as it was said, the “western” way was better.

PS When you said the research was passed down to koreans?


----------



## efkarcher

Rick & John have been there and know in detail what they are talking about. Is pure NTS perfect? NO. We do not have an unlimited pool of athletes to draw from as do some of the other sports that pay higher rewards. We accept athletes that are less then perfect by the standards of countries like Korea. Our coaches have done an excellent job of adapting NTS to what they have to work with allowing many of them to achieve their dreams.


----------



## limbwalker

efkarcher said:


> Rick & John have been there and know in detail what they are talking about. Is pure NTS perfect? NO. We do not have an unlimited pool of athletes to draw from as do some of the other sports that pay higher rewards. We accept athletes that are less then perfect by the standards of countries like Korea. Our coaches have done an excellent job of adapting NTS to what they have to work with allowing many of them to achieve their dreams.


Well, Rick usually knows a lot more than I do about any archery-related topic. But we were two of the very first coaches in the US to attend all of Lee's earliest seminars/presentations and I was one of the first four JDT coaches, so we do know the history better than most. A lot of people who want to debate this subject weren't even around in those days to see how it was first presented, so they don't know how much it's changed or how to measure the system vs. what was initially sold to the organization.

We do accept a lot of archers into our elite training programs who are not athletes and who don't have an athlete's mindset - because we have to. Countries like Korea "weed out" those folks at a very early age. I could see the frustration building in Lee early because of some of the raw material he was given to work with. That's no knock on the individual archers. They were doing the very best they could. But I don't think he was used to that. I'm sure it was a helluva lot more work than he initially anticipated. I know for years when I asked why our women's team were not more competitive, I was told that the program needed better athletes to work with. Hard to argue they were wrong about that. When they got a great athlete (Mac) they did pretty good. Trouble is, how do we convince more Mac's to take archery seriously.


----------



## FerrumVeritas

If I had a brand new sport that I wanted to build up and attract athletes to in the US, the first thing I would try to do is build a strong collegiate system.
I know there is collegiate archery, but how prevalent and robust is it?
Collegiate programs give kids and parents a goal that doesn’t seem like a dead end (the Olympics are for most people).


----------



## styks n stryngs

I'm trying to get a collegiate program started at my school, and it is an absolute pain in the ass. They really make it hard to get started, and a part of it is because they still have a conception of archery being dangerous and not really a sport. It's a shame because there are some very good young archers at vandy right now, but they have no place to shoot while in Nashville.


----------



## limbwalker

styks n stryngs said:


> I'm trying to get a collegiate program started at my school, and it is an absolute pain in the ass. They really make it hard to get started, and a part of it is because they still have a conception of archery being dangerous and not really a sport. It's a shame because there are some very good young archers at vandy right now, but they have no place to shoot while in Nashville.


Yes, these are two big hurdles for archery in any school. There also isn't ever going to be any TV revenue from college archery, so administrators will be hard pressed to spend a dime on it.


----------



## Z3R0

As a non-American, it’s such a cultural shock for me to read about college administrators considering sports TV revenues…


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker

Z3R0 said:


> As a non-American, it’s such a cultural shock for me to read about college administrators considering sports TV revenues…
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Well this is 'Murica and capitalism is our primary religion, so...


----------



## Boomer2094

Z3R0 said:


> As a non-American, it’s such a cultural shock for me to read about college administrators considering sports TV revenues…
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Where do you think Division I college and universities got the money to built multi-million dollar stadium and arenas for their football/basketball program? How about those state-of-the-art physical training facilities for the student athlete? 

TV revenues, ticket sales, concession stand and merchandise sales. that's where they got their money to do all those things.

Other athletics program "leeches" off the income generated by football and basketball programs. it's sad, but until the college allocates more funding to the Athletics department, the above-mentioned income is the money they are living out of.


----------



## RMBX10

limbwalker said:


> I know for years when I asked why our women's team were not more competitive, I was told that the program needed better athletes to work with. Hard to argue they were wrong about that. When they got a great athlete (Mac) they did pretty good. Trouble is, how do we convince more Mac's to take archery seriously.


I think you've identified something important here. Karen Scavotto and Denise Parker were both fantastic athletes who were quite competitive in other sports although not to the same level as archery, obviously. Jenny Nichols and Khatuna Lorig were also athletic.


----------



## limbwalker

RMBX10 said:


> I think you've identified something important here. Karen Scavotto and Denise Parker were both fantastic athletes who were quite competitive in other sports although not to the same level as archery, obviously. Jenny Nichols and Khatuna Lorig were also athletic.


Like I said, Tom Barker and I used to sit around and daydream about training injured college volleyball and softball and basketball players how to shoot archery.

It's not enough to just be athletic either. One needs a competitor's mindset. These days, it seems to be almost discouraged in young people in the US and I'm afraid that's something that's going to get harder for archery coaches to find. A sad truth about archery is that it's often found by parents as a "less competitive" non-contact sport for their child to participate in. Of course, they would never say it like that, but we all know it's true.

There is also an intangible self-belief that I've seen in every Olympian I've met.

It's those three qualities - athleticism, competitiveness (driven) and self-belief that are common in every Olympian.

The final ingredient is a love for shooting. I've known a few highly ranked archers in the U.S. who had all three things above, but never fell in love with shooting and you could just tell they were just never going to put it all together, really through no fault of their own. Typically, these are the RA's and USAT members that quit shooting when they quit training for the Olympics. They either never had the love of shooting, or they lost it.

I think the best we can do is identify people with athleticism, drive and self-belief and then introduce them to the sport of archery. The ones who fall in love with it will have everything they need.


----------



## nopsled

limbwalker said:


> Trouble is, how do we convince more Mac's to take archery seriously.


I could be wrong/misinformed, but could it not be because in USA archery may not be as lucrative as other sports ? Potential athletes have to make a living too after their best years go by so what's their plan after their peak performance years pass ? How they see themselves in the future ? If they are going to invest their time as a professional athlete and they have a few sports on the table as options and want the best return of investment, is archery at the top ? Look at Jake, I bet he didn't have a good time once he realized he was by himself.


----------



## limbwalker

nopsled said:


> I could be wrong/misinformed, but could it not be because in USA archery may not be as lucrative as other sports ? Potential athletes have to make a living too after their best years go by so what's their plan after their peak performance years pass ? How they see themselves in the future ? If they are going to invest their time as a professional athlete and they have a few sports on the table as options and want the best return of investment, is archery at the top ? Look at Jake, I bet he didn't have a good time once he realized he was by himself.


Of course that's a big part of it. As I said pages ago, no D1 scholarships and no lucrative professional career. That's what parents think about even if the kid is a future star in the sport. It takes a pretty determined young person to overrule what their parents want them to play. 

Archery is a horrible return on investment though. One reason I admire Jacob so much is that he always knew where archery fit in the bigger picture, he prepared himself for a career and family outside the sport, and yet still came back to an elite level once he had all that in place. I would argue, because he had all that in place.


----------



## nopsled

limbwalker said:


> That's what parents think about even if the kid is a future star in the sport. It takes a pretty determined young person to overrule what their parents want them to play.


Very true, can't blame the parents for that. By the way, and I know this is off topic, but looks Jacob made some changes to his bow stabilization ?


----------



## Z3R0

Boomer2094 said:


> Where do you think Division I college and universities got the money to built multi-million dollar stadium and arenas for their football/basketball program? How about those state-of-the-art physical training facilities for the student athlete?
> 
> TV revenues, ticket sales, concession stand and merchandise sales. that's where they got their money to do all those things.
> 
> Other athletics program "leeches" off the income generated by football and basketball programs. it's sad, but until the college allocates more funding to the Athletics department, the above-mentioned income is the money they are living out of.


... I have no idea. I didn't really realize the scope of facilities your schools had, apparently, so I never had to consider where the money came from. Remember - not American. Don't see American school sports on TV, didn't go to an American school.

Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Boomer2094

Z3R0 said:


> ... I have no idea. I didn't really realize the scope of facilities your schools had, apparently, so I never had to consider where the money came from. Remember - not American. Don't see American school sports on TV, didn't go to an American school.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk


I understand, I'm just stating the state of collegiate athletics over here. I don't like it, but it is the reality.

Does Canada have archery programs in their primary school system? like high school or colleges? Where does Canada get their archery talents like Crispin?


----------



## nakedape

Boomer2094 said:


> Does Canada have archery programs in their primary school system? like high school or colleges? Where does Canada get their archery talents like Crispin?


Don't forget about the fairer sex...


----------



## Stash

Ontario Federation of Secondary Schools Athletic Association includes an annual archery competition. Crispin won in 2001-02-03-04. JD Burns was on our Olympic team in 2008.

Several other Canadian Olympians and national team members were OFSAA champions in previous years, including Rob Rusnov, (2000, 2004) who won in 1993, and our current Olympic coach Shawn Riggs who won in 1996. There were a couple of girls from this program as well who made a national team, but no Olympians.









If you scroll through the results you see all sorts of interesting names, including Chris Perkins in the compound division in 2007-08-09-10


However, any coaching was done privately or only at the school level - there was no “program”.


----------



## nopsled

Boomer2094 said:


> Does Canada have archery programs in their primary school system? like high school or colleges? Where does Canada get their archery talents like Crispin?


I think there is, it's called NASP (In School Program (NASP) - Archery Ontario | Provincial Sport Governing body for Archery)


----------



## Z3R0

We're starting to veer off on a course similar to another recent thread:









What other nation's OR programs most closely...


I think for reference, it's valuable to have a solid understanding of where the U.S. "fits" in the broader scheme of nations who field Olympic archers. I don't know the answer to this, but perhaps Vittorio or someone else could shed some light on it. I'm wondering which countries we can look...




www.archerytalk.com





Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## nopsled

Z3R0 said:


> We're starting to veer off on a course similar to another recent thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What other nation's OR programs most closely...
> 
> 
> I think for reference, it's valuable to have a solid understanding of where the U.S. "fits" in the broader scheme of nations who field Olympic archers. I don't know the answer to this, but perhaps Vittorio or someone else could shed some light on it. I'm wondering which countries we can look...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.archerytalk.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk


So going back to this thread’s topic… if Lee goes, could he come to Canada?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Stash

Sure. Border’s open for tourists.


----------



## chang

tassie_devil said:


> ....
> I’m not sure when he came to Oz, so can’t comment on how formative he was for Barnes and Cuddihy.
> .....


Glad to hear Barnes made it back to Tokyo this time. considered he returned to archery only for a year.


----------



## limbwalker

chang said:


> Glad to hear Barnes made it back to Tokyo this time. considered he returned to archery only for a year.


Tim and Barnzy are awesome dudes. I was so proud of David for picking it back up. He has so much gas still left in the tank.


----------



## Hobby Shooter

The question as to whether Lee will/should stay or go has certainly generated a lot of discussion. Looking at results, he should probably go. He has been the US Coach for the 2008 Olympics and no medals were won, in the 2012 Olympics the US won a team silver. In 2016 the US won a team silver and an individual bronze. In this years Olympics no medals were won. It would appear that his record is getting worse instead of better, after over 12 years, I would expect to see more improvement.

A reservation/concern I have about Lee’s coaching is that he is teaching a system. As has been mentioned on this thread, his, or any system, works for some of the people, some of the time. By the nature of a system, it automatically excludes anyone who doesn’t fit. It therefore, excludes, potentially, the best archers because they don’t fit the system. 
Lee’s concept of “my way or the highway” is destructive for archers who don’t “fit” his system. That suggests a closed mind to me and isn’t conducive to being a good coach. It appears that he sees his system as being the best and only way to coach archers, if he isn’t open to different ideas or suggestions, or the possibility that there may be other more effective styles for some archers, he is failing his archers, and the US Archery program.

Another concern I have about Lee is the lack of attention he gives to the mental side of archery. Most of us who have been shooting for a few years, know that at the Olympic level of archery, the mental side is a huge side of the sport. Yet this is something that Lee tends to overlook and doesn’t seem to feel it is important. I have talked with a number of folks who are familiar with Lee who say the same thing. If that is so, Lee is missing out on a vital part of archery. Technique and skill get you so far, but without the mental training and fortitude, it doesn’t get you to the medal podium. Overlooking such a vital part of archery is something no good coach should be doing. Another reason for Lee to go.

Nor does he take advantage of the talent pool he has available to him. As Rick pointed out, there is a tremendous amount of talent from our past archers who are ignored. Why do you suppose Italy uses their past champions as coaches? They understand the boost in confidence and morale that gives their current archers and the wealth of knowledge the past champions have, what a missed opportunity for the US. Guys like Darrel and Rick have probably forgotten more archery than many of us will ever know, but is their knowledge utilized, or even sought out? My guess is not, what a loss. Speaking strictly for myself, if I was on the shooting line for the Olympics and turned to look at my spotter and saw someone like Rick or Darrel, or Jay back there, that would be a huge confidence booster as I would know that they understand what I am experiencing, what a confidence boost that would be for me, to be able to ask them questions.

When I look at all the factors, to me, it’s time to give someone else a chance to work with the RA program and see what someone else can do to improve the program. If what you are doing isn’t working, it’s time for a change. 

Sorry for the long winded response, but it’s from looking at the entire thread at one time.


----------



## chang

Hobby Shooter said:


> ... someone like Rick or Darrel, or Jay .......












found this in JW's FB


----------



## Theisgroup

[


limbwalker said:


> The final ingredient is a love for shooting. I've known a few highly ranked archers in the U.S. who had all three things above, but never fell in love with shooting and you could just tell they were just never going to put it all together, really through no fault of their own. Typically, these are the RA's and USAT members that quit shooting when they quit training for the Olympics. They either never had the love of shooting, or they lost it.


I was never at the level of Rick or John, but what stopped me in my tracks was, after the 92 trials and finishing school and moving for work, I never found a place to shoot archery. The sport is not supported by our local or state government. I guess I’m speaking of outdoor ranges. Indoor facilities, I think it’s just about not being profitable for the sq footage. It’s nice if you have the facilities, but very few communities do. It was just by happenstance(a FB post from a friend that tried archery for fun) that I recently found a place and have started shooting again. Of course the cost of equipment has also skyrocketed since the early ‘90s.

but in topic, I find it hard to has started back up on shooting archery. All the coaches know is NTS and sometimes they don’t even know why. Also since I learn back in the day of linear and Dick Tone, most of the coaches don’t even know how to help me unless I want to convert to NTS


----------



## carlosii

Theisgroup said:


> [
> 
> 
> I was never at the level of Rick or John, but what stopped me in my tracks was, after the 92 trials and finishing school and moving for work, I never found a place to shoot archery. The sport is not supported by our local or state government. I guess I’m speaking of outdoor ranges. Indoor facilities, I think it’s just about not being profitable for the sq footage. It’s nice if you have the facilities, but very few communities do. It was just by happenstance(a FB post from a friend that tried archery for fun) that I recently found a place and have started shooting again. Of course the cost of equipment has also skyrocketed since the early ‘90s.
> 
> but in topic, I find it hard to has started back up on shooting archery. All the coaches know is NTS and sometimes they don’t even know why. Also since I learn back in the day of linear and Dick Tone, most of the coaches don’t even know how to help me unless I want to convert to NTS


A little off topic but as far as a place to shoot, I remember when I was a little tad, back in the late 40's, a local photographer was an archer. He lived very near the high school football field and had permission to use the field to practice. Good luck trying to get that kind of a deal today.


----------



## limbwalker

Theisgroup said:


> [
> 
> 
> I was never at the level of Rick or John, but what stopped me in my tracks was, after the 92 trials and finishing school and moving for work, I never found a place to shoot archery. The sport is not supported by our local or state government. I guess I’m speaking of outdoor ranges. Indoor facilities, I think it’s just about not being profitable for the sq footage. It’s nice if you have the facilities, but very few communities do. It was just by happenstance(a FB post from a friend that tried archery for fun) that I recently found a place and have started shooting again. Of course the cost of equipment has also skyrocketed since the early ‘90s.
> 
> but in topic, I find it hard to has started back up on shooting archery. All the coaches know is NTS and sometimes they don’t even know why. Also since I learn back in the day of linear and Dick Tone, most of the coaches don’t even know how to help me unless I want to convert to NTS


Sorry to hear that. There are still coaches out there who will teach the method you want to learn. You just have to ask around a bit. I am NTS certified L4 but I only teach NTS to those who ask for it. Otherwise I teach linear because I think it's easier for most recreational archers to learn and maintain. I know there are plenty of other coaches - even NTS certified ones - who will do the same.

As for places to shoot - that can be tough. It's always nice to have a place to go, but the expression "where there's a will there's a way" comes to mind. When my wife and I were looking for houses, she would go inside with the realtor while I paced off the property and looked for safe shooting lanes/directions. Eventually our realtor asked my wife what I was doing and she explained that I had to have a place to shoot or we wouldn't be interested. LOL  I spent about 10 years shooting mostly 30 and 50 meters in my yard in our neighborhood in town. We bought the spare lot next to the house just so I could get 50m safely. 

When I was training for the USAT team (and eventually the Olympics) I was shooting in front of our house on a neighbor's property where an old train track had been pulled up. She owned the right of way and kept it mowed and I asked her one day if she would allow me to put a bale up there. She said sure. Best range I ever had. I never even had to mow it. She just enjoyed sitting on her porch and watching me shoot. She would always tell me when I got to the bale (which was in front of her porch) if I had shot a group that measured up to her standards. LOL


----------



## chang

Theisgroup said:


> [
> 
> 
> ....... Also since I learn back in the day of linear and Dick Tone, ......


There are seminars/courses conducted by Lancaster with Dick Tone and Jay Barrs:




__





Lancaster Archery Academy







www.lancasterarcheryacademy.com





and Vic Wunderle is still active: 




__





Vic Wunderle Meet Me


vic wunderle



www.vicwunderle.com





and my friends in Singapore mentioned that John Williams was still coaching..


----------



## lcaillo

Jake Kaminski is a believer in NTS but does not try to change you if you are not. Judi Adam’s is trained in it as well but takes a similar approach. I have worked with both of them and my form is not even close to NTS. Both do as any good coach should and takes you where you are and work toward whatever your goals are. 

IMNSHO, Jake is the best form and equipment coach in the USA right now and Judi is the best mental/form coach right now. Judi easily is the best on the mental game. 

I am sure there are many others that are great coaches that don’t try to move you to NTS. I can think of a dozen right off. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. Ken

Too bad we can't have both Jake and Judi coaching the women's team.


----------



## limbwalker

I'd be surprised if Jake wanted to coach in the national system. Maybe he would, but I don't see it happening. 

I also think the women's coach needs to have a world class resume of working with women to get our ladies to where they deserve to be. Honestly, I think it's only fair if we spend the next 20 years focusing on our women's program. The men have never had much trouble fielding competitive teams regardless of who the national head coach was. 

We just spent the last 17 years focused on the men. I don't see why it would be any different to spend the next 17 focused on the women.


----------



## Draven Olary

On his behalf, he started to teach his wife. Who's capable to teach his wife without making her to say "You know, I had enough of this archery! " will handle any other woman quite well.


----------



## lcaillo

Draven Olary said:


> On his behalf, he started to teach his wife. Who's capable to teach his wife without making her to say "You know, I had enough of this archery! " will handle any other woman quite well.


I am sure he will tell you that he learned much from her as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Draven Olary

Absolutely! She nailed the teres minor and major when he was talking about Lan2 in one video.


----------



## ItsJim

limbwalker said:


> Him with that bow... So much to love.


OK - months late, but isn't the riser Brady's using in that photo a SKY TR-7?


----------



## limbwalker

ItsJim said:


> OK - months late, but isn't the riser Brady's using in that photo a SKY TR-7?


Indeed it is.


----------



## MooseisLoose

limbwalker said:


> I'd be surprised if Jake wanted to coach in the national system. Maybe he would, but I don't see it happening.


I think if Lee doesn't get his contract renewed he might consider it.

I mean he is basically a full-time coach right now. Except he's doing it on youtube and does private lessons for $$$.


----------



## limbwalker

MooseisLoose said:


> I think if Lee doesn't get his contract renewed he might consider it.
> 
> I mean he is basically a full-time coach right now. Except he's doing it on youtube and does private lessons for $$$.


Enormous difference between private coaching and what Lee does, which is anything but private. Not everyone is cut out for the public stage and scrutiny, exposure and liability that comes with it.


----------



## MooseisLoose

limbwalker said:


> Enormous difference between private coaching and what Lee does, which is anything but private. Not everyone is cut out for the public stage and scrutiny, exposure and liability that comes with it.


I'd venture to guess that a multi time Olympic medalist probably doesn't have much of an issue with the public stage. I frankly think he'd make an excellent coach. If you watch his videos (which are also public) you'll see that he explains complex concepts very well.


----------



## kv-fam4

carlosii said:


> A little off topic but as far as a place to shoot, I remember when I was a little tad, back in the late 40's, a local photographer was an archer. He lived very near the high school football field and had permission to use the field to practice. Good luck trying to get that kind of a deal today.


I was given permission at my local University to shoot at the university farm this week. Thank god lol


----------



## limbwalker

MooseisLoose said:


> I'd venture to guess that a multi time Olympic medalist probably doesn't have much of an issue with the public stage. I frankly think he'd make an excellent coach. If you watch his videos (which are also public) you'll see that he explains complex concepts very well.


LOL you clearly don't understand what being an Olympic archer entails, but that's okay.

Anyway, my point stands. Anyone who has never been a public figure really has no idea what it's like until they are one. 

I'll give Lee props for one thing - he doesn't shy away from attention and has done his best to do things "his way" regardless of the criticism (some my own and plenty of others) and that's not an easy thing for most people to do.


----------



## "TheBlindArcher"

MooseisLoose said:


> I think if Lee doesn't get his contract renewed he might consider it.
> 
> I mean he is basically a full-time coach right now. Except he's doing it on youtube and does private lessons for $$$.



I don't follow Jake, or for that matter "sighted" archery for that matter, too closely, but I haven't come across anything publicly where Jake has gotten over/forgiven his falling out with USA Archery that caused him to put down the bow for several years in the first place; and whether it's simply the fun/challenge of something different or still the sour taste of said falling out, it doesn't seem like his "first choice" is Olympic recurve, at least within his own competition desires. Just observation based again on the limited amount I dig into the behind the scenes politics; my uneducated guess would be that the "culture" within USAA admin would have to change...


----------



## MooseisLoose

limbwalker said:


> LOL you clearly don't understand what being an Olympic archer entails, but that's okay.
> 
> Anyway, my point stands. Anyone who has never been a public figure really has no idea what it's like until they are one.
> 
> I'll give Lee props for one thing - he doesn't shy away from attention and has done his best to do things "his way" regardless of the criticism (some my own and plenty of others) and that's not an easy thing for most people to do.


It's interesting how some people have a ton of success in something and stay humble and grounded, like Kaminsky, and others taste a little success and immediately lord it over everyone as much as they can. I'm fairly new to these forums but when I used to lurk here before I made an account you always struck me as the latter category, no offense.

I made a comment that a highly successful Olympic archer (orders of magnitude more successful and more well-known than you ever were, if we're being honest) is probably okay with being in public and being scrutinized, *which is further proven by him having a public Youtube channel where he regularly interacts with people*. And all you could say in response was that self-important garbage.

It's pretty disappointing, your reply. I guess I expected a bit more maturity.


----------



## nickle

i liked you better when you were lurking.


----------



## MrPillow

Who are the viable 'next in line' candidates, should Lee depart from USA Archery?


----------



## limbwalker

MooseisLoose said:


> It's interesting how some people have a ton of success in something and stay humble and grounded, like Kaminsky, and others taste a little success and immediately lord it over everyone as much as they can. I'm fairly new to these forums but when I used to lurk here before I made an account you always struck me as the latter category, no offense.
> 
> I made a comment that a highly successful Olympic archer (orders of magnitude more successful and more well-known than you ever were, if we're being honest) is probably okay with being in public and being scrutinized, *which is further proven by him having a public Youtube channel where he regularly interacts with people*. And all you could say in response was that self-important garbage.
> 
> It's pretty disappointing, your reply. I guess I expected a bit more maturity.


Oh, I see. Someone disagrees with you so you attack them personally. Is that a display of maturity?

You missed my point entirely. I could explain it to you, but you've already made up your mind that you know what you need to know (you don't).

If you think creating content from a private home is in any way equal to being the public figurehead that is the national head coach, you are simply delusional. You also don't have an understanding of what I was doing before you ever heard of Jake, or what I do for a living. But you're certainly free to act as if you do. "no offense" of course. LOL

The National Head Coach position is equal to or even more complex than the CEO position of USArchery. I would expect that anyone who could handle that position would already have experience running a business, managing a budget, employing a staff of professionals, hiring and supervising people, creating annual work plans for that staff, holding people accountable, firing people if necessary and dealing with the requisite HR issues that come along with that, developing relationships with sponsors and non-profit organizations, managing training facilities, managing residents, making decisions on stipends and salaries, not to mention setting up and running national and international-level events and that doesn't even begin to describe all the things that come along with dealing with World Archery...

The list goes on and on. Again. Few people have that skill set. Very few.

Anyone wondering why I rarely frequent AT anymore, your answer is above.


----------



## limbwalker

MrPillow said:


> Who are the viable 'next in line' candidates, should Lee depart from USA Archery?


I've been out of the loop long enough now (by design) that I couldn't even wonder. National head coach jobs for a governing body are thankless. It takes a certain type of person to fill them and be remotely successful. There are few people with that skill set. Being able to teach archery at the world class level is only the tip of the iceberg. A lot of people can teach at that level. Not many are prepared to be a national head coach. Fewer still are prepared to deal with the politics and constant criticism. It's a job where you can never please everyone, no matter what you do. Ask Lloyd Brown.


----------



## lcaillo

One could argue that Lloyd had more success than anyone at the job. I suspect filling the position would amount to finding someone who was willing to do it as much as who is qualified, whatever that means. I have seen no indication that there is any idea of what they should be looking for, so maybe it is best to not make a change.


----------



## Cuthbert

Wow! Doesn't that make you feel so warm all over John? All the hours, all the miles, all the love you have given this sport. 24,900posts on AT (not the only forum you contribute to either). I guess everyone is entitled to an opinion. I just want to say thank you for what you've freely given over the years.

Paul


----------



## limbwalker

Cuthbert said:


> Wow! Doesn't that make you feel so warm all over John? All the hours, all the miles, all the love you have given this sport. 24,900posts on AT (not the only forum you contribute to either). I guess everyone is entitled to an opinion. I just want to say thank you for what you've freely given over the years.
> 
> Paul


Yea, I'm feeling the love. LOL

Just came in from teaching a teenage barebow shooter and saw this. 

What's funny, or sad, or whatever, is so many people have zero idea of anything I was doing before they ever heard of their current heroes. And I don't mean for me. I mean for the sport, for USArchery, for barebow, for Lee himself and particularly the youth archers. But I'm sure those casting stones have done way more than I have so it's easy for them to criticize. Yea, I'm pretty sure that's what it is. LOL

All that because I had the audacity to tell someone who has no idea what they are talking about, the same. Shame on me.

Again, there is a reason you see so few well known archers posting on this forum anymore. I miss the old Sagittarius Blackboard.


----------



## FerrumVeritas

Alright, since I think it’s worth finding out:

For those in the know, what does the national head coach actually do? What are the duties as part of the job description and day-to-day grind?

How much of having a national training system is Lee’s initiative and how much of it is USA Archery wanting that and Lee providing it?


----------



## limbwalker

FerrumVeritas said:


> Alright, since I think it’s worth finding out:
> 
> For those in the know, what does the national head coach actually do? What are the duties as part of the job description and day-to-day grind?
> 
> How much of having a national training system is Lee’s initiative and how much of it is USA Archery wanting that and Lee providing it?


There are folks here who know some of that answer, but nobody here knows all of it. 

As for duties, see my post above. Not all inclusive by any means however. I left out coaching seminars, conferences and other appearances. Oh, and dealing with helicopter and snowplow archery parents of course. Like the POTUS, anyone who actually wants the job should have their head examined.


----------



## limbwalker

lcaillo said:


> One could argue that Lloyd had more success than anyone at the job. I suspect filling the position would amount to finding someone who was willing to do it as much as who is qualified, whatever that means. I have seen no indication that there is any idea of what they should be looking for, so maybe it is best to not make a change.


Nobody doing the looking is as qualified as anyone who can actually do the job. So there is that.


----------



## lees

limbwalker said:


> There are folks here who know some of that answer, but nobody here knows all of it.
> 
> As for duties, see my post above. Not all inclusive by any means however. I left out coaching seminars, conferences and other appearances. Oh, and dealing with helicopter and snowplow archery parents of course. Like the POTUS, anyone who actually wants the job should have their head examined.


Heh. I remember when I was at TAMU, one time someone in the class asked Frank (Thomas) if he was going to teach archery to his kids. He said "Noooo, my kid is only gonna to have a baseball bat in his hand when he grows up".... I kind of got the impression he was falling out of love with the political/academic side of archery from that... But maybe I was just hearing things... . He's still in the dept. but he may be an Emeritus or something by now and the assistant profs are doing the actual coaching now? Dunno.

But that's always been my impression of coaching archery too, that you kind of had to have some kinda chemical imbalance or something if you really wanted to keep doing it more and more...

As for Jake Kaminsky and whether he would want Kisik Lee's job, my guess is he's a rational human being and would rather shoot bows and arrows instead of do whatever that job involves. Which sounds to me like a whole lot of not shooting a bow and arrow. I'm not familiar with the break between him and professional shooting, but it sounds like they wanted him to swallow more BS than he wanted to swallow. And he would have rather just shot bows & arrows instead. But that's strictly my perspective from the outside looking in.

I will say I don't envy anyone who tries to coach archery as even a half time occupation, much less full time.

That's not counting the level of charlatan-ism I've observed, much of it through my own personal suffering, in a lot of coaching. I guess that's a whole 'nother thread, but I can't count the number of times guys have tried to teach me to keep trying to perfect command-shooting at a bale 5 yards away for the next 12 months of my life back when I was learning about my target panic. After those rounds of Chinese Water Torture, I just vowed to never go back to anyone with "Level..."-something after their name. And I never have. I've had to DIY most of those problems on my own, and I really wish I didn't have to have done that. That's why I finally had to give up recurve too - I still don't know with certainty if my problems there are an intractable physical limitation or not. I think so, but I don't know if there's a non-DIY way to find out for sure. But that's a whole 'nother thread too.

lee.


----------



## Hikari

I would say the qualities of the head coach for an Olympic team are reflected in the people doing the hiring rather than the archers doing the shooting...


----------



## lcaillo

Exactly. Coach Lee provided just what they asked for. An elitist (as opposed to elite) system that would be applied to all archers without the coaches needing to learn anything else nor think for themselves. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Draven Olary

I don’t agree with that Icaillo. Coach Lee provided a system for elites, not for the masses. He provided a system with a Eastern way of thinking, similar with Martial Arts: hundreds joining the dojo, tens get the black belt and one or two are 4th Dan. The system is self-sufficient if it is learnt right - nothing taught is unnecessary, but all pieces must be taught with the whole in mind. He is coming from a country where just the best can become Olympians. There the training is somehow eliminatory - just few (compared with the pool) are elites. If I recall my discussion with limbwalker a couple of years ago, his personal interest was to get one or two archers capable to hold their ground against Koreans. He created these two: Brady and Jake. The mistake was to make this system “National” without having Coaches who knew what they train and without demonstrating they can shoot using the system. You can’t ask someone to implement a system and results in same time - this is what Coach Lee has to deal with from what it is said here. Somewhere something is very wrong in the way the pieces of the puzzle are placed to create an image.


----------



## limbwalker

Lee arrived here in late '05/early '06. It's now 2022. 16 years later, we should know what we have and whether we are happy with it. Exactly ONE NFL head coach out of 32 teams has been in place longer than Lee has been heading the US archery program. 

Food for thought.


----------



## FerrumVeritas

Draven Olary said:


> He created these two: Brady and Jake.


I think Jack qualifies now. 
I'd also call Mackenzie successful, but I'm not sure how much credit Lee deserves for her.


----------



## chang

Draven Olary said:


> Coach Lee provided a system for elites, not for the masses. He provided a system with a Eastern way of thinking, similar with Martial Arts: hundreds joining the dojo, tens get the black belt and one or two are 4th Dan. .....


 I found Lee's system and technique are both quite different to what Kim Hyung Tak and Park Kim Rae etc described, not even the system Kim Hyung Tak established in Taiwan. There may be many Eastern ways. He might even have tried to invent a new system. while keeping the Korean to the Koreans. I had this feeling ever since he coached the Australians.


----------



## Draven Olary

Different, yes. But same knowledge used


----------



## lees

Draven Olary said:


> I don’t agree with that Icaillo. Coach Lee provided a system for elites, not for the masses. He provided a system with a Eastern way of thinking, similar with Martial Arts: hundreds joining the dojo, tens get the black belt and one or two are 4th Dan. The system is self-sufficient if it is learnt right - nothing taught is unnecessary, but all pieces must be taught with the whole in mind. He is coming from a country where just the best can become Olympians. There the training is somehow eliminatory - just few (compared with the pool) are elites. If I recall my discussion with limbwalker a couple of years ago, his personal interest was to get one or two archers capable to hold their ground against Koreans. He created these two: Brady and Jake. The mistake was to make this system “National” without having Coaches who knew what they train and without demonstrating they can shoot using the system. You can’t ask someone to implement a system and results in same time - this is what Coach Lee has to deal with from what it is said here. Somewhere something is very wrong in the way the pieces of the puzzle are placed to create an image.


Two problems here, which are not new, as I see it.


Turns archery into an exclusive sport. Very exclusive. Too exclusive. Way too damn exclusive. Way way too &&&damn... (get the drift?)
Archery is supposed to fun. Exclusive clubs with impenetrable, proprietary membership and physical requirements and methods, etc. are, in general, not fun.

To me, this is so obvious that it need not even be mentioned or discussed, but apparently it does. To me anyway, this is more or less the end of the story on increasing participation in archery. Full stop, and nothing more even need be said.

And, strange but true: this is also how the compound has virtually displaced olympic recurve as the top bow in target archery in the microscopic time frame of only about 40 years. It only took one generation to figure out that the compound:

is not an exclusive sport (or at least it wasnt for about 40 years), but because it's so accommodating physically and it wasn't laden with a gigantic crust of pedagogical dogma, it was very inclusive and inviting to new and amateur shooters. You don't have to go to Korea and train with coach Kim just to get an arrow out of it and into a bale.
the compound bow was funner than the olympic recurve. Because it allows more people to shoot at stuff and actually hit it most of the time - which is the "enjoy" part of archery - it is the funner bow for a much huger audience.

I don't know any other way to put it less bluntly without diluting the truth of the matter.

That's not to diminish exclusive and difficult disciplines (like martial arts or other elite sports) that require exceptional abilities - those have their place too. But they also, by design, have to live with vastly reduced participation compared to their easier and funner counterpart activities.

So to me there are competing goals here that don't seem to be aware of each other: on the one hand, keeping archery demanding with a good, reliable pedagogical basis, but on the other hand, increasing participation and keeping it fun.

I've observed this tussle for most of my adult life in archery, but I still see this same division. And the twain can't seem to figure out that each one is in the same room with the other one.

You can't have both: it can't be fun and an exclusive, physically wrenching, posh club that requires the shooter to be independently wealthy in both time and money at the same time. You just can't get there from here. So you have to pick your poison and go from there.


lee.


----------



## tooold

chang said:


> I found Lee's system and technique are both quite different to what Kim Hyung Tak and Park Kim Rae etc described, not even the system Kim Hyung Tak established in Taiwan. There may be many Eastern ways. He might even have tried to invent a new system. while keeping the Korean to the Koreans. I had this feeling ever since he coached the Australians.


Many years ago, I attended a training session with coach Lee in Canberra, while he was coach of the Australian team. The method he taught was the Korean method (after all, that was presumably why he was employed as the Australian coach). The method he seems to be teaching in the US appears to be his own invention, derived from the method used in shooting compound bows. 

In my opinion, Bradey Ellison achieved greatness, not because of Lee's system, but despite his system. Lee is doing US archery a great disservice.


----------



## Draven Olary

tooold said:


> In my opinion, Bradey Ellison achieved greatness, not because of Lee's system, but despite his system. Lee is doing US archery a great disservice.


Since you are not inside Brady's head your opinion is just that. I can argue that US is doing Lee a great disservice too - if you don't like what you get, fire the Coach instead keeping and talking about him on his back


----------



## Rick McKinney

tooold said:


> Many years ago, I attended a training session with coach Lee in Canberra, while he was coach of the Australian team. The method he taught was the Korean method (after all, that was presumably why he was employed as the Australian coach). The method he seems to be teaching in the US appears to be his own invention, derived from the method used in shooting compound bows.
> 
> In my opinion, Bradey Ellison achieved greatness, not because of Lee's system, but despite his system. Lee is doing US archery a great disservice.


This


----------



## Rick McKinney

How to have a successful looking program:
1. First fire all existing coaches that resist or even question your new approach.
2. Tell everyone that since you have run a successful program, this new program will be even better.
3. Have just one really good archer who believes in you.
4. Get the most powerful industry leaders to support you.

Wallah! You have a great program! and a very high paying job for nearly 20 years! So what if the results are not there. Take Brady out of the equation and how many medals would there be? Nobody has medaled individually except Brady. The team medals would go away without Brady. I agree with Tooold. This is truly the tail wagging the dog.


----------



## chang

tooold said:


> ,,,,The method he taught was the Korean method (after all, that was presumably why he was employed as the Australian coach). ...
> ....


I also assumed that until I watched a recording of his early seminar from Australia and reading the first Total Archery. or He might have a very different Korean method than other Koreans then.


----------



## lees

BTW, this is probably the main reason people's eyes glaze over at the addictively repeated advice "find a good coach", "spend that money on coaching/lessons instead" here on AT. And not just here, but out "in the wild" too.

Kind of reminds me of the old joke among gyroplane pilots: "They told me to go find a CFI to teach me how to fly before I climbed into this thing, but they're all dead".

So it seems to be with coaching too. Especially new shooters get endlessly "passed around" from place to place, each one saying "go over there and get some coaching". Even if you tell them "I just came from there; they told me to come over here". Everyone keeps telling shooters to go get some coaching, all the while knowing that their prospects of being better off afterwards than simply DIY'ing everything themselves is practically 0%.

This is much worse on a bow like the olympic bow that's far far harder (IMO, effectively impossible) to teach yourself how to shoot than the typical compound bow.

So if you ever wondered why everybody seems to DIY and never go and get good coaching.... well, now you know... 

lee.


----------



## Draven Olary

Rick McKinney said:


> How to have a successful looking program:
> 1. First fire all existing coaches that resist or even question your new approach.
> 2. Tell everyone that since you have run a successful program, this new program will be even better.
> 3. Have just one really good archer who believes in you.
> 4. Get the most powerful industry leaders to support you.
> 
> Wallah! You have a great program! and a very high paying job for nearly 20 years! So what if the results are not there. Take Brady out of the equation and how many medals would there be? Nobody has medaled individually except Brady. The team medals would go away without Brady. I agree with Tooold. This is truly the tail wagging the dog.


If all these are true, why US Archery kept him for so long? Just wondering, because in Real Life, if someone is not doing what he was supposed to do, he is fired. Was Coach Lee used as a patch on a gangrene?


----------



## limbwalker

FerrumVeritas said:


> I think Jack qualifies now.
> I'd also call Mackenzie successful, but I'm not sure how much credit Lee deserves for her.


Been saying for a dozen years, it's a method proven useful only by strong young men. Cuddihy, Barnes, Ellison, Kaminsky, Williams...and (briefly) a few others. But one could argue that they were strong enough and stayed with it long enough to overcome the method too (as Rick and Tooold elude to above).

I was around (as was Rick and many others) when Lee's method was being sold to us American coaches. Lee proclaimed his method was better under pressure and would eliminate target panic. He even had figures and statistics to "prove" that.

(remember those claims Rick?)

I can unequivocally say neither of those claims have proven to be true.

And his complete and utter failure with half our US team and the Australian team before ours (the women) has been well documented by now.

If I were grading his performance objectively on a scale of 1-100 I'd give him somewhere between a 30 and 40 based purely on results. Some would argue less considering the sheer number of young archers he's had at his disposal over the past 20+ years. Some would argue more.

I'm not suggesting he's a bad coach (in the right situation) or a bad person. Please don't misunderstand me. But I do think he was a square peg for a round hole. And that's not necessarily his fault.

The phrase "a solution in search of a problem" comes to mind whenever I think of Lee.


----------



## limbwalker

lees said:


> BTW, this is probably the main reason people's eyes glaze over at the addictively repeated advice "find a good coach", "spend that money on coaching/lessons instead" here on AT. And not just here, but out "in the wild" too.
> 
> Kind of reminds me of the old joke among gyroplane pilots: "They told me to go find a CFI to teach me how to fly before I climbed into this thing, but they're all dead".
> 
> So it seems to be with coaching too. Especially new shooters get endlessly "passed around" from place to place, each one saying "go over there and get some coaching". Even if you tell them "I just came from there; they told me to come over here". Everyone keeps telling shooters to go get some coaching, all the while knowing that their prospects of being better off afterwards than simply DIY'ing everything themselves is practically 0%.
> 
> This is much worse on a bow like the olympic bow that's far far harder (IMO, effectively impossible) to teach yourself how to shoot than the typical compound bow.
> 
> So if you ever wondered why everybody seems to DIY and never go and get good coaching.... well, now you know...
> 
> lee.


Ironically, some of my best shooting (maybe my best) with the Olympic bow was before I ever received ANY coaching at all. Sometimes ignorance really is bliss.


----------



## limbwalker

Draven Olary said:


> If all these are true, why US Archery kept him for so long? Just wondering, because in Real Life, if someone is not doing what he was supposed to do, he is fired. Was Coach Lee used as a patch on a gangrene?


Because it's really, really hard for some people to admit they made the wrong choice. Especially hard after that "sold" that choice to so many others. That's why.


----------



## limbwalker

Rick McKinney said:


> How to have a successful looking program:
> 1. First fire all existing coaches that resist or even question your new approach.
> 2. Tell everyone that since you have run a successful program, this new program will be even better.
> 3. Have just one really good archer who believes in you.
> 4. Get the most powerful industry leaders to support you.
> 
> Wallah! You have a great program! and a very high paying job for nearly 20 years! So what if the results are not there. Take Brady out of the equation and how many medals would there be? Nobody has medaled individually except Brady. The team medals would go away without Brady. I agree with Tooold. This is truly the tail wagging the dog.


Can't disagree with that assessment. The relationship is very much like another "Brady" and a well-known coach. We got to see how that played out.


----------



## Rick McKinney

Draven Olary said:


> If all these are true, why US Archery kept him for so long? Just wondering, because in Real Life, if someone is not doing what he was supposed to do, he is fired. Was Coach Lee used as a patch on a gangrene?


When the most powerful industry leader says that Lee is the man, he's the man! It has been explained time and again, and they have refused to listen. Also, Brady wants him. Period. End of story. The USOPC, the industry leader (who sponsors Brady), and the Board have felt it is worth the gamble, so they continue to have Lee and hope for a better result. They are getting better results but it is more by Brady's experience than Lee's magical efforts. Don't forget that when Lee was in Australia he was practicing what he learned from Korea, not this voodoo science that he introduced in the US.


----------



## Draven Olary

That I know - he produced the system that in his mind was the best way of solving the bio-mechanics and aiming traps. Thank you for the answers, limbwalker and Rick McKinney


----------



## limbwalker

Rick McKinney said:


> Don't forget that when Lee was in Australia *he was practicing what he learned from Korea*, not this voodoo science that he introduced in the US.


Which was learned from America, and the ones they studied were still actively coaching archery in the U.S.

You can't make this stuff up.

The corporate giant needed someone they could buy, plain and simple. Tone, McKinney, Pace and others weren't for sale.

If you need evidence of that, just look at how Lee and his RA's were pushing sponsor's products so hard so early in his arrival here. It was all a promotional scheme from the very beginning. 

Connect the dots people.


----------



## limbwalker

Draven Olary said:


> That I know - he produced the system that in his mind was the best way of solving the bio-mechanics and aiming issues. Thank you for the answers, limbwalker and Rick McKinney


I still think that he believes his system is the best (no pun intended). I'll give him that.


----------



## Draven Olary

limbwalker said:


> I still think that he believes his system is the best (no pun intended). I'll give him that.


The Korean system is talking about the aiming having the starting point on the blue while the archer is bringing the bow and arrow in a downward movement and settles in at full draw - this is how Coach Kim explains it. Coach Lee's system avoids aiming until the archer is at full draw. In theory he is right, but theory can't be applied to individuals, especially when the language and cultural barrier is there.
You've seen how easy to understand was the NTS explained by Jake for compound shooters? Take the same words and explain it to a Recurve shooter.


----------



## lees

limbwalker said:


> Ironically, some of my best shooting (maybe my best) with the Olympic bow was before I ever received ANY coaching at all. Sometimes ignorance really is bliss.


I too have some similar skeletons in my closet. One of the more scandalous ones being that I DIY'ed my way out of target panic completely on my own. And after more than 20 years of treatment for it by (would-be) coaches that only made it worse and worse. I learned what it was (actually) caused by and what to do to fix it one day by accident on a 5 minute long Youtube video. 2 months later I was TP free (tho still had lots of other problems).

Now if only I could figure out finger shooting....

lee.


----------



## limbwalker

lees said:


> I too have some similar skeletons in my closet. One of the more scandalous ones being that I DIY'ed my way out of target panic completely on my own. And after more than 20 years of treatment for it by (would-be) coaches that only made it worse and worse. I learned what it was (actually) caused by and what to do to fix it one day by accident on a 5 minute long Youtube video. 2 months later I was TP free (tho still had lots of other problems).
> 
> Now if only I could figure out finger shooting....
> 
> lee.


I had two Olympic-class coaches (Larry Skinner and Frank Thomas) tell me in '04 "Don't change a thing and don't listen to anyone who tells you to." They both had my best interest at heart and one had his reputation on the line as well. They knew coaches and that coaches have to coach, and sooner or later, someone was going to come along and tell me I was doing it "all wrong." LOL That someone did come along, and it was at the Olympics just days before the team competition. I just smiled and thought of what Larry and Frank told me.


----------



## lees

limbwalker said:


> I had two Olympic-class coaches (Larry Skinner and Frank Thomas) tell me in '04 "Don't change a thing and don't listen to anyone who tells you to." They both had my best interest at heart and one had his reputation on the line as well. They knew coaches and that coaches have to coach, and sooner or later, someone was going to come along and tell me I was doing it "all wrong." LOL That someone did come along, and it was at the Olympics just days before the team competition. I just smiled and thought of what Larry and Frank told me.


Heh. I get the opposite: everyone tells me I'm doing it wrong, and nobody has ever said "don't change a thing...." to me about my shooting. Can't blame em, if you saw me shoot... But, at the same time, being well liked, respected and popular among my peers and other humans generally isn't a dilemma I've ever had to deal with either. So I mostly don't listen to people telling me off either way.

The lone exception...... apart from the couple of videos I learned about target panic from, I do admit to consuming Jake Kaminsky's Youtube channel lately, and pretty much every video he makes about shooting. There's a lot of solid gold in there and in fact, I made a change in my form on compound last year based on one of his suggestions (I tried being a "pusher" instead of my life-long status as a "puller", to try to treat a chronic dip-bang problem, and it worked. It made a large improvement in my groups almost immediately). I also learned about the grip sear technique for externally timing the shot on his channel. So Jake Kaminsky has become one of those "when he speaks I listen" guys for me...

lee.


----------



## limbwalker

lees said:


> Heh. I get the opposite: everyone tells me I'm doing it wrong, and nobody has ever said "don't change a thing...." to me about my shooting. Can't blame em, if you saw me shoot... But, at the same time, being well liked, respected and popular among my peers and other humans generally isn't a dilemma I've ever had to deal with either. So I mostly don't listen to people telling me off either way.
> 
> The lone exception...... apart from the couple of videos I learned about target panic from, I do admit to consuming Jake Kaminsky's Youtube channel lately, and pretty much every video he makes about shooting. There's a lot of solid gold in there and in fact, I made a change in my form on compound last year based on one of his suggestions (I tried being a "pusher" instead of my life-long status as a "puller", to try to treat a chronic dip-bang problem, and it worked. It made a large improvement in my groups almost immediately). I also learned about the grip sear technique for externally timing the shot on his channel. So Jake Kaminsky has become one of those "when he speaks I listen" guys for me...
> 
> lee.


Who said I was well liked? They knew nothing about me other than I had beaten both Vic and Butch and everyone else (save Mark Williams and Glenn Meyers) in matchplay at the trials, and they now had no choice but to deal with the outsider. 

And there is nothing wrong with consuming copious amounts of Kaminski's videos. The man knows what of what he speaks. And why wouldn't he? He proved he can make it work!


----------



## lees

limbwalker said:


> Who said I was well liked? They knew nothing about me other than I had beaten both Vic and Butch and everyone else (save Mark Williams and Glenn Meyers) in matchplay at the trials, and they now had no choice but to deal with the outsider.


When I was at TAMU, I was probably more the "comic relief" (if anyone remembers me at all). I had a horrific shoulder injury at the time so I really wasn't able to shoot. They eventually ran me off towards the end of the semester because I was just physically unable to contribute anything.

I later sold my GM TD4, limbs, case and all to buy 16mb (yes megabytes, in those days) of memory for my homemade computer. That bow was a classic - Frank Thomas got it for me directly from Ann Hoyt for a discount because it was a blem (he had a pipeline directly to Hoyt to get gear for discounts). But it had a beautiful red/yellow sunburst finish on it.

That's going to be one of my death bed regrets I'm going to report to the orderly at my bed in the hospice or rest home or wherever I'll be right before I kick off. I never should have sold that bow and I'd probably still have it.


> And there is nothing wrong with consuming copious amounts of Kaminski's videos. The man knows what of what he speaks. And why wouldn't he? He proved he can make it work!


I may take another whack at finger shooting with all the ideas he keeps on dropping. I've tried almost everything he's suggested and, while I still can't replicate a shot on a finger bow, maybe if I just keep at it something will finally come together. Maybe I'm just giving up too soon. It's only been 30 years...

As for the topic, I got a kick out of Rick McKinney's idea above, where you fire everybody and then do your very best every day to make sure you accomplish absolutely nothing.

Sounds like the typical software company in Austin or Silicon Valley. It sure works for them - the guy gets richer than a Russian oligarch putting half of his community out on the street, standing in the unemployment line. So maybe he's on to something there... 

lee.


----------



## Jim C

limbwalker said:


> I had two Olympic-class coaches (Larry Skinner and Frank Thomas) tell me in '04 "Don't change a thing and don't listen to anyone who tells you to." They both had my best interest at heart and one had his reputation on the line as well. They knew coaches and that coaches have to coach, and sooner or later, someone was going to come along and tell me I was doing it "all wrong." LOL That someone did come along, and it was at the Olympics just days before the team competition. I just smiled and thought of what Larry and Frank told me.


I recall Terry Wunderle saying the exact same thing to you as well in Mason, Ohio right after you made the team, joining Butch and Terry's son Vic.


----------



## limbwalker

Jim C said:


> I recall Terry Wunderle saying the exact same thing to you as well in Mason, Ohio right after you made the team, joining Butch and Terry's son Vic.


Yea, and Terry even added "including me!" LOL At least he had a sense of humor about it.


----------



## lksseven

MooseisLoose said:


> I'd venture to guess that a multi time Olympic medalist probably doesn't have much of an issue with the public stage. I frankly think he'd make an excellent coach. If you watch his videos (which are also public) you'll see that he explains complex concepts very well.


He does have a good gift for explanation of his method. Kudos for that. He also has a tendency to snipe/throw shade on methods (very successful results) that differ from his preferred methods. Maybe some time and maturity will resolve most of that.


----------



## Draven Olary

Iksseven, maturity has nothing to do with this. If someone would have trained with different high ranked Coaches will know that each of them has an idea about what works and will politely disregard the other’s style. It’s human nature, and from their perspective is better to teach what they know that works than trying to understand what works for other “style”. It happens in any type of activity, not just archery.


----------



## Vittorio

Draven Olary said:


> Iksseven, maturity has nothing to do with this. If someone would have trained with different high ranked Coaches will know that each of them has an idea about what works and will politely disregard the other’s style. It’s human nature, and from their perspective is better to teach what they know that works than trying to understand what works for other “style”. It happens in any type of activity, not just archery.


30 years ago Mario Codispoti, one of the greatest coaches ever, told me " I can't experiment, they expect I give results and this can only come from a system I perfectly know". He was coaching Turkey at that time, after France and Italy, and getting them out from the shades to the archery power they had begun to be.
Teaching new archers, you can do whatever you want and think to be right, but coaching archers already formed from medium to top level is an art that needs pieces of knowledge that are not for all.
I wrote an article years ago about this for the Italian magazine Arcieri, maybe soon or later I will re-edit and translate it ... it had to be part of THA2...


----------



## lksseven

Draven Olary said:


> Iksseven, maturity has nothing to do with this. If someone would have trained with different high ranked Coaches will know that each of them has an idea about what works and will politely disregard the other’s style. It’s human nature, and from their perspective is better to teach what they know that works than trying to understand what works for other “style”. It happens in any type of activity, not just archery.


I'm sorry, my earlier comment was obtuse. I was speaking of Jake, not Coach Lee (Jake's tendency to cast shade unprompted on the Korean method, the way many will emit a mildly snarky quip about an ex-spouse).


----------



## lcaillo

I think DO is right. Many, if not most, coaches know what they know and are likely to minimize the importance of other methods. For me, the most important thing for a coach to do is to see where an individual is and provide salient and meaningful direction. Jake did so for me without trying to fit me into some arbitrary mold for technique. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Draven Olary

Jake is in a strange position. He is the first english-native speaker who was capable to train and understand the subtle things of a system - and subtle things are 35% told and 65% discovered by your own. And he is sharing them with this depth knowledge in background. His comments are still falling under the same rule above IMO. He is human, and older he gets, more things will acknowledge about his own system and will just stay polite regarding the other “ways”.


----------



## midnightwarrior

‘When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber.” Sir Winston Churchill


----------



## Draven Olary

Vittorio said:


> I wrote an article years ago about this for the Italian magazine Arcieri, maybe soon or later I will re-edit and translate it ... it had to be part of THA2...


Vittorio, I would like to read that article. Care to share it or a link toward it? Thanks


----------

