# Total Archery - Inside The Archer



## sunburn (Jan 29, 2013)

Money well spent. 
Very well done !


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

Indeed! Though some of the information has been updated in: http://www.humankinetics.com/archeryandshootingsports


----------



## sunburn (Jan 29, 2013)

kshet26 said:


> Indeed! Though some of the information has been updated in: http://www.humankinetics.com/archeryandshootingsports


Something about the glossy finished product that sits better in my mind


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Inside the Archer is really well laid out for a self published book. Tyler is a talented guy. And getting the book marketed as a sequel to Total Archery (which it kind of isn't since the authors (ahem, I mean co-authors) are different) rather than a different book was smart, too. With the publication of the NTS book _Archery_ by Human Kinetics and edited by "USA Archery" archers finally have some variety of information available on NTS/KSL Shot Cycle II.

Now, if they can just post a couple of quick exemplars on YouTube that show the *model*, the idealized form that everything is based off of and customized from, then I think we'd have some more tools we need.


----------



## sunburn (Jan 29, 2013)

Not exactly what your after however ... might be the best "model " for the system


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> Now, if they can just post a couple of quick exemplars on YouTube that show the *model*, the idealized form that everything is based off of and customized from, then I think we'd have some more tools we need.


Yeah, but then everyone will know!

TAO


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TheAncientOne said:


> Yeah, but then everyone will know!
> 
> TAO


True, true, can't have them foreigners reverse engineering our system, especially the Koreans--oh, wait :-O


----------



## Georgemay (May 27, 2008)

Warbow said:


> True, true, can't have them foreigners reverse engineering our system, especially the Koreans--oh, wait :-O


While NTS has a lot of Korean influence they are significantly different. Korean is 'push-pull' style while core of NTS is 'holding'.
GM


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Well then I'm there! I can hold within a mm of the clicker fall for at least 20 seconds. Sometimes even more!


----------



## sunburn (Jan 29, 2013)

limbwalker said:


> Well then I'm there! I can hold within a mm of the clicker fall for at least 20 seconds. Sometimes even more!


Which side is the question ?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Georgemay said:


> While NTS has a lot of Korean influence they are significantly different. Korean is 'push-pull' style while core of NTS is 'holding'.
> GM


I'm not sure if "expansion" isn't push/pull :dontknow:


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> I'm not sure if "expansion" isn't push/pull :dontknow:


Since expansion is bilateral it is by definintion push-pull, it not as pronounced as the Korean style though. 

TAO


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I love it when I see the string move across an archer's chest guard after I've been told it doesn't move across their chest guard...


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> I love it when I see the string move across an archer's chest guard after I've been told it doesn't move across their chest guard...


Obviously an optical illusion. 

TAO


----------



## sunburn (Jan 29, 2013)

TheAncientOne said:


> Since expansion is bilateral it is by definintion push-pull, it not as pronounced as the Korean style though.
> 
> TAO


I have to disagree on this one. One can expand the back half of ones house , without adding any thing to the front. 
My front half is expanded completely when I come to full draw. I will go as far to say locked, not hyper extended but locked into place by the clockwise " screwing action " of my elbow , I have no where to " push" . My release is triggered from the back of the house with the front being a solid Unite . 
If I apply push pull to a home , it becomes more like an explosion than an expansion. The front and rear doors will explode away from the house. Explosions are very hard to control or repeat.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

sunburn said:


> I have to disagree on this one. One can expand the back half of ones house , without adding any thing to the front.
> My front half is expanded completely when I come to full draw. I will go as far to say locked, not hyper extended but locked into place by the clockwise " screwing action " of my elbow , I have no where to " push" . My release is triggered from the back of the house with the front being a solid Unite .
> If I apply push pull to a home , it becomes more like an explosion than an expansion. The front and rear doors will explode away from the house. Explosions are very hard to control or repeat.


If done properly expansion involves the whole chest not just the draw side. If your back muscles are used correctly your bow arm will move to the left slightly as your draw arm elbow moves down and back (for right handes archers). NTS doesn't call this pushing they call it "reaching for the target". (sounds like pushing to me)

TAO


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Expansion can effect each archer differently....and it will be based on what the archer is also concentrating while they are expanding.

When expansion is implemented while an archer is basically holding anchor isometrically...the expansion will effect both the bow shoulder and drawing shoulder nearly equally, if not equally...but if an archer is also increasing back tension at the same time they are expanding...it will feel like the draw shoulder is effected more. This is one of the reasons why there are different perspectives on this.

Ray :shade:


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Expansion can effect each archer differently....and it will be based on what the archer is also concentrating while they are expanding. This is one of the reasons why there are different perspectives on this.
> 
> Ray :shade:


Agreed!

TAO


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

The movement through the clicker seems to have gained some mystical properties. I think most of us, myself included, have over thought the movement. Semantics have also confused the issue. Even the expert books have made this movement more mysterious than need be, by advocating a magical 'internal movement'.

A balanced push/pull......expansion has been advocated by almost all. Using big muscles versus small muscles has been almost universally accepted. So now we are devolving into parsing words. The action is pretty straight forward and I think we do our pupils a disservice by over analyzing, over thinking, this movement.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

midwayarcherywi said:


> The action is pretty straight forward and I think we do our pupils a disservice by over analyzing, over thinking, this movement.


I find that conversations of this sort help me to develop a simpler way of explaining things to my students. I've tried to strip out all of the NTS dogma and only introduced what each individual can assimilate. We certainly don't get into the detail that we do here.

TAO


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

midwayarcherywi said:


> The movement through the clicker seems to have gained some mystical properties.


I remember the days when the clicker told us that we were at our anchor point and nothing more.

TAO


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TheAncientOne said:


> I find that conversations of this sort help me to develop a simpler way of explaining things to my students. I've tried to strip out all of the NTS dogma and only introduced what each individual can assimilate. We certainly don't get into the detail that we do here.
> 
> TAO


Now there's a book I'd buy 

I never really got the "internal" expansion. How are you going to get the *external* clicker to trigger if you are moving internally. Ditto the "you must never stop because of 'inertia' explanation." :dontknow:

I teach mostly beginners so I get to skip almost all of the NTS. We still teach a simplified version of the overall form to beginners (angular drawing) so they won't have to change form if they stick with the program, but I don't have to get into expansion, "barrel of the gun," "LAN 2", etc.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> Now there's a book I'd buy


So that's at least one sale.

TAO


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> I never really got the "internal" expansion. How are you going to get the *external* clicker to trigger if you are moving internally. Ditto the "you must never stop because of 'inertia' explanation." :dontknow:


I had a lively conversation with Coach Lee about that one!

TAO


----------



## rick11743 (Sep 20, 2010)

I was able to borrow the Inside the Archer book. It's a very well done and worthwhile book, but there are aspects of it that I did not like. For one, the only stance provided is the open stance. Where, in Rick Mckinney's book, Rick explains that the archer can chose from the traditional square stance to varying degrees of open, and that each has its plus & minus.


----------



## Georgemay (May 27, 2008)

Apparently no one really read the book or didn't quite grasp aspect of NTS expansion. There is no magic in it. It can be done the way it is described.
There is a simple exercise to show the principle. The string will not move along the chest, no bow hand pushing involved, yet you will brake the clicker.
Understanding angular properties of NTS will help a lot.


----------



## agillator (Sep 11, 2011)

Georgemay said:


> ...There is a simple exercise to show the principle. ...


Care to elaborate?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

agillator said:


> Care to elaborate?


Indeed. The only way for an arrow to pull through the clicker is for the distance between the bow hand and the draw hand to increase. If the string isn't moving across the chest then:

A) the bow hand is pushing
B) friction is keeping the bow string from moving at the chest (or dragging the chest guard with it) while the string is moving at the arrow nock, 
C) The motion of the string across the chest is hard to see but is actually happening nonetheless.


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

TheAncientOne said:


> I remember the days when the clicker told us that we were at our anchor point and nothing more.
> 
> TAO


Just to nitpick, I've always believed the function of the clicker to serve two different yet related purposes. 
One is exactly what you said, you are at your anchor point allowing it to serve as a draw check. You have gotten the arrow the the appropriate distance. Woo hoo.

The other function is that of a form check. If your expansion and the rest of your shot isn't going off as expected and you find you are using different muscles to get the clicker to go off (pulling with the fingers, the shoulder, something different than your normal shot) then feeling this difference in your shot allows the clicker to serve as a form check. Time to evaluate WHY the clicker isn't going off as expected.

For instance, when an archer is tired, and their bow shoulder is creeping up or perhaps rolled back, they can draw differently and still get through the clicker, pulling REALLY hard (which usually means differently), however obviously with a poor shot.

I don't know that I have much of a point, just that the clicker has always served the function of more than just a draw check, it also serves as a form check to an archer who is aware of their body and shot cycle (this is regardless of style shot).

*shrug*

I'm probably not saying anything you don't know, just wanted to point out that the clicker has always served as more than just a draw check


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> Indeed. The only way for an arrow to pull through the clicker is for the distance between the bow hand and the draw hand to increase. If the string isn't moving across the chest then:
> 
> A) the bow hand is pushing
> B) friction is keeping the bow string from moving at the chest (or dragging the chest guard with it) while the string is moving at the arrow nock,
> C) The motion of the string across the chest is hard to see but is actually happening nonetheless.


If this is a multiple choice question I choose (C).

TAO


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

spangler said:


> I'm probably not saying anything you don't know, just wanted to point out that the clicker has always served as more than just a draw check


You forgot source of seemingly endless frustration to the archer who is just beginning their relationship with the clicker. :wink:


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TheAncientOne said:


> If this is a multiple choice question I choose (C).
> 
> TAO


Me, too. Yeah, don't know why people would be surprised they can't easily see the mm level creep of a bow string across someone's chest without a fixed, hard reference point like a clicker. Perhaps I should create a bow with a nice metal mm graduated ruler sticking out the back, across an archers chest so we can all watch string creep across it? :dontknow:


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> Me, too. Yeah, don't know why people would be surprised they can't easily see the mm level creep of a bow string across someone's chest without a fixed, hard reference point like a clicker. Perhaps I should create a bow with a nice metal mm graduated ruler sticking out the back, across an archers chest so we can all watch string creep across it? :dontknow:


Either that or a metric ruler tattoo on your chest.

TAO


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TheAncientOne said:


> Either that or a metric ruler tattoo on your chest.
> 
> TAO


"Honey, why do you have a metric ruler tatooed on your chest?" "It's for archery" "?"


----------



## Georgemay (May 27, 2008)

agillator said:


> Care to elaborate?


PM me with email address I will send pictures and explanation.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Georgemay said:


> PM me with email address I will send pictures and explanation.


Georgemay, you brought it up in the thread not in a PM so it makes sense to post it to the thread. If there is something we are all missing it would be great if you could enlighten everybody. NTS isn't supposed to be some secret system but, rather, a national standard. I think people are open to evidence. I know I am.


----------



## Moebow (Jul 8, 2010)

I hesitate to dip an oar in this high powered water BUT I think there is a D. option.

D. The bow shoulder/arm/ wrist is PUSHED by the string side.

I spent a lot of time with one of my L4 instructors on this very issue. The bow arm gets pushed by the string side, hence, the sting does not move on the chest, the bow gets PUSHED forward by continuing movement of the string side of the back. This is NOT pushing consciously with the bow side at all. It is a reaction on the bow side to motion on the string side. I find this easy to demonstrate but hard to explain. And I admit, I'm not sure I do it when shooting but DO like to think I am.

Arne


----------



## Georgemay (May 27, 2008)

Warbow said:


> Georgemay, you brought it up in the thread not in a PM so it makes sense to post it to the thread. If there is something we are all missing it would be great if you could enlighten everybody. NTS isn't supposed to be some secret system but, rather, a national standard. I think people are open to evidence. I know I am.


There is not much of a secret here. All is explained on page 155 of TA. But I have to admit that you need to read between the lines. As you said NTS is national standard but.. we are on international forum... What should I do?:wink:


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Georgemay said:


> There is not much of a secret here. All is explained on page 155 of TA. But I have to admit that you need to read between the lines. As you said NTS is national standard but.. we are on international forum... What should I do?:wink:


I'll look up the reference in TA -- Which is an **Australian** book :tongue:


----------



## Georgemay (May 27, 2008)

Warbow said:


> I'll look up the reference in TA -- Which is an **Australian** book :tongue:


Sorry, I meant 'Total Archery -Inside the Archer'.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Georgemay said:


> Sorry, I meant 'Total Archery -Inside the Archer'.


Ah, thanks.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Georgemay said:


> There is not much of a secret here. All is explained on page 155 of TA. But I have to admit that you need to read between the lines. As you said NTS is national standard but.. we are on international forum... What should I do?:wink:


I'm pretty sure that they can buy this book overseas George, so I don't think that its an issue.

TAO


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Moebow said:


> I hesitate to dip an oar in this high powered water BUT I think there is a D. option.
> 
> D. The bow shoulder/arm/ wrist is PUSHED by the string side.
> 
> ...


Arnie, if you are talking about bow arm compression I get that aspect of it. My point is that since expansion is bilateral you are pushing the bow arm forward by the same rate as the string is being pulled back at this point. It is a small amount to be sure but it is there. You cannot expand from just one side (as suggested earlier) anymore than you can inflate just one lung. From an anatomical perspective it is impossible to do. 

Even the NTS goes back and forth whether the movement is perceptable or imperceptable.

TAO


----------



## Moebow (Jul 8, 2010)

I understand what you are saying BUT... At that point, the shoulder /elbow is moving perpendicular to the arrow line -- think bottom dead center of a crank shaft of a motor. At BDC the crank is moving perpendicular to the bore of the cylinder and continued movement starts the motion back towards the top. This is the "push" we get to move the bow hand/shoulder forward and the clicker forward and off the arrow point. Since the motion is essentially perpendicular to the arrow line, the string does not move nor does the string hand.

Just my understanding of it.

Arne


----------



## Georgemay (May 27, 2008)

Moebow said:


> I understand what you are saying BUT... At that point, the shoulder /elbow is moving perpendicular to the arrow line -- think bottom dead center of a crank shaft of a motor. At BDC the crank is moving perpendicular to the bore of the cylinder and continued movement starts the motion back towards the top. This is the "push" we get to move the bow hand/shoulder forward and the clicker forward and off the arrow point. Since the motion is essentially perpendicular to the arrow line, the string does not move nor does the string hand.
> 
> Just my understanding of it.
> 
> Arne


Thanks Arne for clarifying it, I wouldn't do it better. The only thing I would add that angular Expansion sets the direction for Release and Follow-Trough.
Thats why NTS coaches are looking for string movement along the chest. If string moves, then it clearly indicates linear expansion versus angular.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Moebow said:


> This is the "push" we get to move the bow hand/shoulder forward and the clicker forward and off the arrow point. Since the motion is essentially perpendicular to the arrow line, the string does not move nor does the string hand.
> 
> Arne


This goes back to what Warbow and I were saying earlier. It is a push-pull system, angular push-pull, but push pull all the same. It's just not as pronounced as a linear system. If done properly the push-pull is balanced and the string shouldn't move with relationship to your body. At this point we only need 1mm of motion so the expansion is virtually invisible.

We are down to semantics here folks.

Arne, I like your crankshaft analogy.

TAO


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

TheAncientOne said:


> This goes back to what Warbow and I were saying earlier. It is a push-pull system, angular push-pull, but push pull all the same. It's just not as pronounced as a linear system. If done properly the push-pull is balanced and the string shouldn't move with relationship to your body. At this point we only need 1mm of motion so the expansion is virtually invisible.
> 
> We are down to semantics here folks.
> 
> ...


What everybody is forgetting is that the only angular motion performed is by the elbow. The movement of the arrow is by definition linear. The expansion of the bow is by definition linear. The arrow moves through the clicker because the "line" between the nock point and the clicker lengthens. 

TAO


----------



## Georgemay (May 27, 2008)

TheAncientOne said:


> This goes back to what Warbow and I were saying earlier. It is a push-pull system, angular push-pull, but push pull all the same.
> 
> TAO


I would disagree on that one

And why no one is mentioning chest expansion?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

All the Regional High Performance coaches were once told that expansion occurred as a result of an increase in blood pressure when the archer held their breath. 

And no, I'm not making that up.

It's been interesting to see the dialogue morph., to say the least...


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

I've heard that 'blood pressure' comment. Lulz. As for the chest expansion, Inside the Archer says that expansion isn't from the chest. Though I've heard expansion described as a feeling of the 'chest opening/rounding' which I take to mean that the scapulae are nearing the spine which would account for the description.


----------



## Georgemay (May 27, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> All the Regional High Performance coaches were once told that expansion occurred as a result of an increase in blood pressure when the archer held their breath.
> 
> ...


Maybe it does? I don't know, do you?. And we are trying to talk about the book here. Where did you find that in the TAItA? 
But I am refering to something else. If you contract back mucles by rotating LAN2 around your spine as pivot point and at the same time relax chest, will the chest expand a little?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

My point is that the instruction is constantly changing, so don't get too hung up on the flavor of the day. The next book will make what you learn today obsolete. This is the problem I have with how USArchery has "handled" coaching technique since 2006. If I were to tell a group of coaches today that expansion was the result of an increase in blood pressure when an archer holds their breath, I would be laughed out of the room. But that is precisely what we were taught in 2007, by the same coach who is writing your book. So, in the interest of full disclosure, people should know this.


----------



## Georgemay (May 27, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> My point is that the instruction is constantly changing, so don't get too hung up on the flavor of the day. The next book will make what you learn today obsolete. This is the problem I have with how USArchery has "handled" coaching technique since 2006. If I were to tell a group of coaches today that expansion was the result of an increase in blood pressure when an archer holds their breath, I would be laughed out of the room. But that is precisely what we were taught in 2007, by the same coach who is writing your book. So, in the interest of full disclosure, people should know this.


Actually improving whatever we do is a good thing don't you agree? We do not want to be stuck with technique developed and used for instance 500 years ago?? NTS is evolving and I bet that you changed thing or two within past few years haha . Publishing book takes time and NTS has yearly symposiums to keep everyone up to date and every coach teaching the same thing. Not like in the past, each coach has it's own way, and poor kid while progressing and changing coaches has to re-learn everything.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Seriously? We hired a national head coach because we thought they had already developed a track record of success and could teach that system here in the U.S. (they did after all write a book about it, right?) Then we get a constantly moving target for the past 7 years? If a system works that well, it should not have to change every year or two. If not, then maybe we didn't need to hire someone just so we could have them experiment on our nation's best archers while they try to figure out 1) what to call their system, 2) the terms to use, and 3) when they actually have an answer.

The kool-aid is strong, let me tell you...

And so long as everyone is willing to be in awe of the emporer's new clothes, all the books will continue to be sold and nothing will change. 

Constantly "improving" instruction...? Yea right. Give me a break. Many of us know what that really means... I know a fishing expedition when I see one.

From where I sit, after seven years and millions of dollars, we have a program that works for not quite 25% of our U.S. Team. How long would that work in the business world? 

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Georgemay said:


> Actually improving whatever we do is a good thing don't you agree? We do not want to be stuck with technique developed and used for instance 500 years ago?? NTS is evolving and I bet that you changed thing or two within past few years haha . Publishing book takes time and NTS has yearly symposiums to keep everyone up to date and every coach teaching the same thing. Not like in the past, each coach has it's own way, and poor kid while progressing and changing coaches has to re-learn everything.


I'm not sure the NTS is evolving so much as it is changing arbitrarily over time. If there is a 500 year old technique that works well, then maybe we shouldn't change it.

The NTS is sold to us as being scientific. Science is how we separate what is true from what merely seems to be true. If NTS is changing based on the best available science, showing conclusively that a new technique is better all around than, say, a 500 year old technique or a 10 year old technique, then, yes, changing the system can be a good thing. The problem seems to be that the US head coach can't tell the difference between sound science and pseudo-science. Both can be very convincing, but the former requires a commitment to follow where the sound and tested evidence leads, even if it contradicts your current beliefs.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Georgemay said:


> Actually improving whatever we do is a good thing don't you agree? We do not want to be stuck with technique developed and used for instance 500 years ago?? NTS is evolving and I bet that you changed thing or two within past few years haha . Publishing book takes time and NTS has yearly symposiums to keep everyone up to date and every coach teaching the same thing. Not like in the past, each coach has it's own way, and poor kid while progressing and changing coaches has to re-learn everything.


The more things change, the more they stay the same. Dave Keaggy used this angular movement and wrote a book about it in the1960s. US Archer reprinted it a year or so ago. When I get home I'll see if I can post a reprint.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

It's really, really hard for some people to admit they made a bad decision. Usually the heavier the investment, the tougher it is to admit.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

midwayarcherywi said:


> The more things change, the more they stay the same. Dave Keaggy used this angular movement and wrote a book about it in the1960s. US Archer reprinted it a year or so ago. When I get home I'll see if I can post a reprint.


The great thing about sport is that there is a lifespan of an athlete. This is what allows techniques to be "reinvented" every so often, and why people buy into it. Because although it's nothing new, it's new to them, and that's good enough.

I think Richard Carella just didn't have a shiny enough cover on his instruction booklet that accompanied his formaster. It wasn't thick enough either...


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> It's really, really hard for some people to admit they made a bad decision. Usually the heavier the investment, the tougher it is to admit.


There's even a lovely book about it: 

Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts

It's about the science of cognitive dissonance, which is where where our brain automatically makes up excuses when evidence contradicts a strongly held belief.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Disconnect this book from the OTC and see what kind of legs it has... 

Why can't people realize the influence that being associated with the OTC has? It's as if people act like that's where the gods of sport gather to write sport scripture... 

Same reason so many people believe what celebrities say about politics I guess... (even though there are better actors on Broadway, and even our local community theatre).

What a platform for marketing it has become.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Disconnect this book from the OTC and see what kind of legs it has...


Indeed, when Tyler put together a prospectus to borrow tens of thousands of dollars for the first printing of IA he mentioned a number of reasons why loaning him the money was a sound investment, one of which was that KiSik Lee's influence would insure that IA would be a required book for the OTC/RA program (I don't recall his exact wording).

From what I gather, it is really Tyler's project rather than Coach Lee's, but the degree to which the NTS has issues is on Lee, not Tyler.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Warbow said:


> Indeed, when Tyler put together a prospectus to borrow tens of thousands of dollars for the first printing of IA he mentioned a number of reasons why loaning him the money was a sound investment, one of which was that KiSik Lee's influence would insure that IA would be a required book for the OTC/RA program (I don't recall his exact wording).
> 
> From what I gather, it is really Tyler's project rather than Coach Lee's, but the degree to which the NTS has issues is on Lee, not Tyler.


Well said.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

You know, the more I think about this, the more it bothers me. Why would a private individual need to borrow money to write a book that explains the technique that's being taught at the OTC? Doesn't the membership of USArchery and the primary sponsors of the OTC, including the USOC, own that IP? Shouldn't they be the ones producing an "official" version of that instruction, or contracting for the official version to be published to ensure the quality of the content?

I think I remember hearing that Lee reserved the right to own the IP of any developments that came from his instruction at the OTC. Since that's a facility owned in part by the membership of USArchery and the USOC - both non-profits - how is it then that someone can come in there, experiment with our athletes, then profit from those experiments?

I can understand Tyler's desire to get good information out there, and certainly he should be compensated for that effort. But as an employee of USArchery and the USOC, the coaches who work there should be working on that information as part of their job. And that IP should belong to all of us.

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> You know, the more I think about this, the more it bothers me. Why would a private individual need to borrow money to write a book that explains the technique that's being taught at the OTC? Doesn't the membership of USArchery and the primary sponsors of the OTC, including the USOC, own that IP? Shouldn't they be the ones producing an "official" version of that instruction, or contracting for the official version to be published to ensure the quality of the content?


Yes, that bugged me at the time. Tyler and Lee split the profits of the book. None of that money goes to USA Archery AFIK. Tyler put a lot of work into the book and made it happen, and deserves to be compensated, but he was also given training and opportunities by USA Archery which, perhaps, should also be accounted for. :dontknow:

From what I understand the new book isn't by USA Archery, either. It is by Human Kinetics and is their project, one brought to USA Archery not the other way around--but that is just what I gather from the fringes, I don't have any inside information on that. I don't know how much USA Archery gets for its involvement as "editor" nor how much the individual authors got.



limbwalker said:


> I think I remember hearing that Lee reserved the right to own the IP of any developments that came from his instruction at the OTC. Since that's a facility owned in part by the membership of USArchery and the USOC - both non-profits - how is it then that someone can come in there, experiment with our athletes, then profit from those experiments?
> 
> I can understand Tyler's desire to get good information out there, and certainly he should be compensated for that effort. But as an employee of USArchery and the USOC, the coaches who work there should be working on that information as part of their job. And that IP should belong to all of us.
> 
> John


I respect Tyler's efforts as well. It is a very well done self-published book. He's a talented guy and a canny business man.

USA Archery has historically liked to farm out stuff so they don't have to grow and take on financial liability. For a long time USA Archery didn't have any staff, they farmed out the answering of letters and keeping track of memberships to the offices of a sporting goods trade association. More recently they farmed out JOAD and the grass roots coaching to NADA so they didn't have to grow their own organization, but have since brought those back into the org.

Letting Tyler create a book with coach Lee meant that USA Archery didn't have to do anything or invest any money. On the other hand they didn't get any money or any input either. However, the Tyler/Lee book seems to have completely blindsided the Don Rabska / Easton Foundation project _BEST Beginnings in Archery_, a professionally produced instructional DVD and pamphlet created in cooperation with USA Archery and coach Lee, with the DVDs then donated to USA Archery to sell to raise money for USA Archery. _BEST Beginnings_ was essentially DOA because of the moving target that is BEST/KSL Shot Cycle II/NTS meant that the DVD was doomed to be outdated by the time it was finished. It seems that only a project with Lee as a profit participant can escape that fate...

I think the new book _Archery_ goes a long way in helping get the NTS system documented in an officially endorsed way at a more reasonable price point than the $60 _Inside the Archer_ (which costs around $5 per copy to have printed in China). However, I'm still not seeing any official instructional information on the USA website. It seems to me that a national standard, especially a constantly changing one, should be clearly described on their website not just in books published by other people (TA, IA, Archery) or other people's websites (KSL International).


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I don't have any inside information on that. I don't know how much USA Archery gets for its involvement as "editor" nor how much the individual authors got.


And that's just it. USArchery is a NON-PROFIT that should be fully transparent to the membership. There should be no questions as to the plans for the organization, terms of contracts for the employees, etc.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> And that's just it. USArchery is a NON-PROFIT that should be fully transparent to the membership. There should be no questions as to the plans for the organization, terms of contracts for the employees, etc.


Speaking of the transparency they should have, I wonder what the JOAD Comittee decided behind closed doors in Vegas to do about Barebow in JOAD? :dontknow:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Still waiting. I unfortunately couldn't make that meeting in Vegas. Heard nothing but "they're working on it" for over a year now. I already have kids that are wondering *** (okay, my term, not theirs) about the JOAD outdoor compound achievement pins and I have no idea what to tell them. You'd think we were waiting for them to isolate DNA or something...


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Still waiting. I unfortunately couldn't make that meeting in Vegas. Heard nothing but "they're working on it" for over a year now. I already have kids that are wondering *** (okay, my term, not theirs) about the JOAD outdoor compound achievement pins and I have no idea what to tell them. You'd think we were waiting for them to isolate DNA or something...


That can't be it. I've seen CSI Las Vegas. DNA testing is instant. You just pop in a sample and a printer spits out instant results. Toast takes longer. :tongue:


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> All the Regional High Performance coaches were once told that expansion occurred as a result of an increase in blood pressure when the archer held their breath.


I heard that one directly from Coach Lee. That was his explanation for the 1 - 3 second holding time.

TAO


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Georgemay said:


> And why no one is mentioning chest expansion?


Mentioned earlier under expansion is bilateral. 

TAO


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> My point is that the instruction is constantly changing, so don't get too hung up on the flavor of the day.


It is my understanding that most of the current changes are driven by the atheletes.

TAO


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TheAncientOne said:


> I heard that one directly from Coach Lee. That was his explanation for the 1 - 3 second holding time.
> 
> TAO


:mg:

These things are testable yet the claims seem to be made based on assertion rather than any actual scientific confirmation. I find this kind of disturbing. Reminds me of Freud, who just sat in his arm chair and asserted things based on a couple of clinical cases of his. Yet his claims were regarded as science by many for years(and still are by some). It set back the science of psychology for decades. I worry that NTS under Lee may actually set back the US Archery program with these kinds of pseudo scientific claims, which persist to this day. Even the new book _Archery_, which is vetted by USA Archery, contains the claim that looking too far to the side of your "eye openings" decreases "neurological strength". 

It isn't enough to excise this stuff, rather, the method by which it gets into the US program has to change. This blood pressure nonsense just re-enforces that Lee either can't, won't or just has a hard time telling pseudo science from actual science. Doesn't mean he doesn't have a lot of good stuff to teach, but the US program needs to be based on confirmed facts not the assertions of one person disseminated by the USA Archery machine without fact checking. 

/science rant.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Doesn't mean he doesn't have a lot of good stuff to teach, but the US program needs to be based on confirmed facts not the assertions of one person disseminated by the USA Archery machine without fact checking.


Again, agreed...


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Warbow said:


> :mg:
> 
> These things are testable yet the claims seem to be made based on assertion rather than any actual scientific confirmation. I find this kind of disturbing. Reminds me of Freud, who just sat in his arm chair and asserted things based on a couple of clinical cases of his. Yet his claims were regarded as science by many for years(and still are by some). It set back the science of psychology for decades. I worry that NTS under Lee may actually set back the US Archery program with these kinds of pseudo scientific claims, which persist to this day. Even the new book _Archery_, which is vetted by USA Archery, contains the claim that looking too far to the side of your "eye openings" decreases "neurological strength".
> 
> ...


You guys crack me up. Only took a minute to learn that Coach Lee is correct about blood pressure, you know, by "fact checking": Here is one explanation (emphasis added): http://lowerbloodpressure.resperate.com/index.php/holding-your-breath-and-bp

"A: Keep in mind that nothing in medicine, or life for that matter, is absolute. You can breathe sympathetically or autonomically. Usually you are not aware of breathing, this is breathing through the autonomic system of your body. *When you focus your consciousness on breathing, such as when you are holding your breath *so no one will be alerted to your presence, *you are breathing with your sympathetic nervous system. Sympathetic breathing is associated with an increase in blood pressure.* It is possible that you are so used to holding your breath; you do it without thinking, using your autonomic system. Since you seem worried, I recommend you discuss this further with your doctor."

Haters gonna hate
Whiners gonna whine
Sour grapes will always be bitter.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> You guys crack me up. Only took a minute to learn that Coach Lee is correct about blood pressure, you know, by "fact checking": Here is one explanation (emphasis added): http://lowerbloodpressure.resperate.com/index.php/holding-your-breath-and-bp
> 
> "A: Keep in mind that nothing in medicine, or life for that matter, is absolute. You can breathe sympathetically or autonomically. Usually you are not aware of breathing, this is breathing through the autonomic system of your body. *When you focus your consciousness on breathing, such as when you are holding your breath *so no one will be alerted to your presence, *you are breathing with your sympathetic nervous system. Sympathetic breathing is associated with an increase in blood pressure.* It is possible that you are so used to holding your breath; you do it without thinking, using your autonomic system. Since you seem worried, I recommend you discuss this further with your doctor."
> 
> ...


The claim wasn't merely that blood pressure can increase when you stop breathing, but rather that it causes expansion and clicker release based on a 1-3 second hold. 

Haters gonna hate
Whiners gonna whine
Sour grapes will always be bitter.

Back at you.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> You guys crack me up


Yup, and kool-aid drinkers are easily identified by their bright red lips too. 

Never said the blood pressure idea wasn't valid. If I did, please feel free to go back and quote me. 

My point in bringing it up was that it is no longer an explanation that is used. So why the change then?


----------



## sunburn (Jan 29, 2013)

TheAncientOne said:


> What everybody is forgetting is that the only angular motion performed is by the elbow. The movement of the arrow is by definition linear. The expansion of the bow is by definition linear. The arrow moves through the clicker because the "line" between the nock point and the clicker lengthens.
> 
> TAO


The angular motion is seen in the chest as well. The angular movement can be replicated by placing your back against the wall and rolling your bow shoulder into the wall , pushing your chest away from the wall. This is the "correct " feeling when drawing based on the NTS descriptions.
The expansion of the bow can just as well be angular as it is linear , the "line " lengthens due to the increasing angle of the string. The movement of the arrow is linear.
Im sitting next to Arne on this one , there is no " physical forward "expansion of the bow shoulder , a reaction yes , an expansion , no


..."You cannot expand from just one side (as suggested earlier) anymore than you can inflate just one lung. From an anatomical perspective it is impossible to do. ...
Sure you can , lock your arm acquire bone to bone alignment and lean against the wall ,breath deep , it is very possible not have any forward motion in your bow shoulder and arm , why the expansion is happening in the back of the house . An easy way to visually see this is drop a plum bob to a pin point on your shoulder and preform the above 

That said , NTS is about laying down a way of teaching. A single way of teaching archery , a right and a wrong if you will. Funny thing is we have 20 different coaches here who can agree on simple definitions and movements laid out in the system ! Something might be broken ?


----------



## sunburn (Jan 29, 2013)

Doesn't mean he doesn't have a lot of good stuff to teach said:


> Again, agreed...



Kind of like talking religion with a scientist , or science with a Christian ..oh wait a minute.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

sunburn said:


> Sure you can , lock your arm acquire bone to bone alignment and lean against the wall ,breath deep , it is very possible not have any forward motion in your bow shoulder and arm , why the expansion is happening in the back of the house .


But we are not leaning against the wall, we are free standing. Just as expansion is bilateral so is compression, the string arm is just as compressed as the bow arm so any increased expansion is transmitted equally through the system as is any compression.



> A single way of teaching archery , a right and a wrong if you will


Just as there are many forms of martial arts there is no single way of teaching archery, no right or wrong way. We are not denegrating the system, we are trying to find a way to demonstrate the concepts in a simple way to our students.



> Funny thing is we have 20 different coaches here who can agree on simple definitions and movements laid out in the system


One of the strengths of the system - it talks about movements not muscles.



> Haters gonna hate
> Whiners gonna whine
> Sour grapes will always be bitter.


Something that I would expect from one of my 8 year old JOAD students. Agree or disagree with what I'm saying, but don't call names. I thought that we were all adults having an adult conversation. 

TAO


----------



## sunburn (Jan 29, 2013)

" Funny thing is we have 20 different coaches here who can agree on simple definitions and movements laid out in the system" 
Ironically enough , this should have read " Funny thing is we have 20 different coaches here who can not agree on simple definitions and movements laid out in the system"


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

sunburn said:


> Kind of like talking religion with a scientist , or science with a Christian ..oh wait a minute.


Please take your condescension elsewhere.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Warbow said:


> The claim wasn't merely that blood pressure can increase when you stop breathing, but rather that it causes expansion and clicker release based on a 1-3 second hold.
> 
> Haters gonna hate
> Whiners gonna whine
> ...


You have been riding the "pseudo-science" carpet for years now, yet we have "evidence" that NTS is based on valid, scientific principles. 



limbwalker said:


> Yup, and kool-aid drinkers are easily identified by their bright red lips too.
> 
> Never said the blood pressure idea wasn't valid. If I did, please feel free to go back and quote me.
> 
> My point in bringing it up was that it is no longer an explanation that is used. So why the change then?


I took this to say you don't think its valid: (emphasis added)



limbwalker said:


> All the Regional High Performance coaches were once told that expansion occurred as a result of an increase in blood pressure when the archer held their breath.
> 
> *And no, I'm not making that up.*
> 
> It's been interesting to see the dialogue morph., to say the least...


Ok, the dialogue has changed, we can all agree on that. Some principles are difficult to express. I don't have a problem with that.


----------



## sunburn (Jan 29, 2013)

Arcus said:


> Please take your condescension elsewhere.


Was not trying to be condescending , It was more a satyrical comment on Lee teaching Christian beliefs along side the science of archery. As you might know , science and religion rarely share the same classroom.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> As you might know , science and religion rarely share the same classroom.


Yea, that will happen when the Pope has a science degree...

Oh wait...


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Seattlepop said:


> You guys crack me up. Only took a minute to learn that Coach Lee is correct about blood pressure, you know, by "fact checking": Here is one explanation (emphasis added): http://lowerbloodpressure.resperate.com/index.php/holding-your-breath-and-bp


No one here is disputing the fact that holding your breath raises your blood pressure. Drinking coffee, arguing with your wife and getting audited by the IRS can all do that. I want to see the study that shows that raised blood pressure can help you through the clicker. If that's the case, I'm going to knock back a few espressos chased by a couple of Red Bulls and pick a fight with my wife before I step up to the line. Saying that raised blood pressure can help expansion is conjecture until someone has done a study and has the numbers to prove it. This is the point of most of what is said in this thread. Show me the proof. Give me something that I can bring back to my students and point to. 

I teach a stripped down version of NTS to my JOAD students. If they continue and become serious about competing they will get taught the more esoteric topics as well.

I spent 4 days in December in Chula Vista working with Coach Lee and his staff. He was very forthcoming about the mistakes in his books and he answered all of my questions. He also grudingly admitted that there were different ways to approach NTS. I will pass on what I feel is right for my students and take a pass on what I don't think is germaine. That's the best you can hope for from any training system.

TAO


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Dave Keaggy Method. 


Dave Keaggy by 






midwayarcherywi said:


> The more things change, the more they stay the same. Dave Keaggy used this angular movement and wrote a book about it in the1960s. US Archer reprinted it a year or so ago. When I get home I'll see if I can post a reprint.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

I realize the text may be very hard to read, but even Keaggy acknowledges this idea of 'breaking the shot' in an angular movement, which is to say, not in the line of force, has been a hallmark of good shooting for hundreds of years. He gleaned insight from Robert Elmer. Yup, past NAA president and NAA champion. Indeed, the more things change the more they stay the same.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Same principles + new words = books that sell.

It's not a complicated formula to understand.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

A really interesting point is in times gone by, pre clicker, 'breaking the shot' successfully was even more critical. The clicker allowed more shooters to be consistent. The top shooters of the pre clicker era had to have superb body awareness. Shooting at distance required extraordinary shot timing and consistency.

Fast forward to now. Breaking the shot with a clicker has become very different. I rarely see any archers use continuous motion to actuate the clicker. There is a Canadian archer who does do this very well and her shot is effortless. The current method is to teach an archer to get very slow through the clicker, but what it really translates into is a stop and go effort. The current verbiage surrounding movement through the clicker could be MUCH simpler and it may translate into better shooting.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> The current verbiage surrounding movement through the clicker could be MUCH simpler and it may translate into better shooting.


Agreed. "Get to HOLDING" is NOT an advancement in coaching. In fact, it is a step backwards IMO. This is where our NTS needs to be fact checked, or at least, grammar checked.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Gabe,

So, I blew this Keaggy page up and read the text and studied the diagrams. It resonates with me.

So, then, isn't the trick for each archer to find that 'personal draw length' that is just an iota away from 'top dead center' (to use Arne's analogy), so that any incremental force applied (whether pulling, or pushing, or expanding, or thinking about Cheryl Ladd) will result in the line of force being moved linearly just an iota to top dead center (that iota of movement thus breaking the clicker and triggering relaxing the fingers/release of the string) before the direction of force arc begins to pull the string/nock offline ?

Difficult to word picture what I see in my head.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Cheryl Ladd. Man Larry, you're dating yourself. LOL!  

I think you are onto it though. Every archer must find their own best personal draw length where they are in a strong, but relaxed position and have just enough room to move to break the clicker.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

John,

I'll say it again - Cheryl Ladd, baby! Living in the past ain't always a bad thing ...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I was always more of a Morgan Fairchild kinda guy, but I guess that's a bit off-topic, eh? LOL!


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

"... I guess that's a bit off-topic, eh? "

How so? We're still talking about 10's, aren't we?


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Larry, I think you have it right except Farrah Fawcett helps you expand more. There were not too many teenage boys of my era who did not think so.


farrah fawcett03 by http://www.flickr.com/people/[email protected]/


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

+1 !!!!!!!!!


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

lksseven said:


> Gabe,
> 
> So, I blew this Keaggy page up and read the text and studied the diagrams. It resonates with me.
> 
> ...


Good analogy! Maybe my problem is that in my head I also envision the dwell time that happens before and after top dead center, where the length and geometry of the connecting rod is a factor in determining how much rotation can be had in crank without any movement toward or away from that last bit of travel  The dead zones where the connecting rod moves but the piston doesn't. "B" in the diagram.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Sanford,

Gabe's last entry was kind enough to engage me on a level that I could grasp :mg: . But ... that dot getting smaller in your rear view mirror is me trying to keep up with your diagram - I can't even figure out what is the orientation of the piston and the crank. Could you explain again - and this time dumb it down so a marketing major graduate can understand it? :embara: (or at least throw in a pic of Jaclyn Smith!)

Thanks!
Larry


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

iksseven, it was a kind of play on the "top dead center" theme, but does have some notional use. The connection point of the two depicted connecting rod lengths in the blue square, where they meet, is at the clicker, say. The blue circle is the crank pin, or let's say the rotation point at the rear. From the vertical line depicted, where the connection rod is connecting the circle and square, the amount of rotation to where the line, or connection rod, is at "L" position resulted in zero movement of the point in the blue square, or clicker position. That's a dead spot in rotation to linear movement, though, it was more a play on the top dead center notion than any real archery application. Could be I think, though.

Actually, I have seen it explained more from the other way around in archery. If the center of the blue square is notionally our center of expansion, or represents our expansion, any small movement there geometrically translates to greater movement in rotation at the circle, rotation point, hence, it takes very little expansion to create a lot of movement. I don't know. Seems plausible from the geometry involved.

My pic library is kinda small, but will look


----------



## Moebow (Jul 8, 2010)

Actually, I said "bottom dead center" but the idea is the same. At BDC OR TDC the crank shaft is moving perpendicular ( for all intents and purposes) to the piston's bore line and in archery, the string shoulder/string elbow is also moving perpendicular to the arrow line. As the shoulder/elbow passes BDC, it starts a very small movement back forward which becomes the push by the string side on the bow side. This is where the "ratio of movement" comes in.

Arne


----------



## sunburn (Jan 29, 2013)

The whole piston Analogy , is from the book at hand actually.
Irony ?


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

Sanford said:


> Good analogy! Maybe my problem is that in my head I also envision the dwell time that happens before and after top dead center, where the length and geometry of the connecting rod is a factor in determining how much rotation can be had in crank without any movement toward or away from that last bit of travel  The dead zones where the connecting rod moves but the piston doesn't. "B" in the diagram.


While using the piston crank shaft motion as analogy, In this model, I believe there is one importance factor need to be considered, the linear motion of the piston is because it is constrained by the cylinder wall.

what is the equivalent of the cylinder in the push/pull/expansion etc model ?


----------



## Moebow (Jul 8, 2010)

chang,

To my way of thinking it is the bow hand/arrow shelf. That "part" stays essentially on target kind of like the cylinder.

Arne


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

chang said:


> what is the equivalent of the cylinder in the push/pull/expansion etc model ?


As Morebow stated, basically, the arrow shaft is fixed at the clicker and rest no matter the direction of movement of the nock end. Maybe we need a Chilton's Manual for archery


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Sanford said:


> As Morebow stated, basically, the arrow shaft is fixed at the clicker and rest no matter the direction of movement of the nock end. Maybe we need a Chilton's Manual for archery


We already have one. It's called "The Simple Art of Winning" by Rick McKinney. Easy enough for this ******* to follow with success.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> Easy enough for this ******* to follow with success.


I can relate to that


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

Moebow said:


> chang,
> 
> To my way of thinking it is the bow hand/arrow shelf. That "part" stays essentially on target kind of like the cylinder.
> 
> Arne


Cylinders are fixed to the rather strong rigid engine block. and the linear motion is related to the engine block. as long as the cylinder is rigid and fixed, the piston will only move in one axis. regardless whether the crank motion is angular. 

Please beware, as long as the crank shaft is not inline with the motion of the piston, the piston is in fact push/pull in an angle by the crank shaft, so while the cylinder stop the piston move in other direction, the cylinder also sustain sideway stress. 

It will be very simple, If the bow is fixed on a pole or wall, and the bow is totally torsion rigid, so no matter which direction you pull, the arrow is always drawn in one direction, then the arrow will always hit the same spot. 

The problem here is our human body is less rigid, If the draw arm/shoulder act as the crank shaft, it will draw the arrow away from the intended direction, The body is not rigid to naturally compensate, it is rather an delibrate action or correction.

To me the cylinder (form by our body) does even had a rigid shape. and it is more like floating on target instead of fixing on it.


----------

