# KSL Shot Cycle/BEST Philosophy



## gig'em 99 (Feb 1, 2008)

The very long thread about BEST and injuries has lead me to a slighltly different path that I thought could possibly lead to an interesting discussion, although maybe a short one - we will see.

Let me start by stating that I've never attended an HP seminar, but am fortunate to be able to converse with several who have. So when I state this, allow me to qualify that this is not first hand.

I've heard that in past HP seminars that Coach Lee has presented photos of Rick McKinney and Darrell Pace and basically asked why we archers in the US ever moved away from this form... Maybe that implies that it should have been implemented as a national approach to archery, I'm not sure. So with that said, I'd love it if someone would confirm or deny that statement for the sake of this new thread. 

And if that is really something that Coach Lee believes, is the techique being developed now a significant departure from the way Mr. McKinney and Mr. Pace shot? Certainly the gross motor control vs. fine motor control aspect seems very different.

So that is the first part of this post, here is the second...and I think that it is important for me to say that I think for the sake of this discussion, the first half of this could be discussed independently of this next part or if it is accurate enough, it leads quite nicely into the rest that I'll type now.

To compound these questions a bit more, I've also heard on more than one occassion, that the most important part of the BEST method is THAT you arrive at proper holding position, not necessarily how. If this is also true, and I believe it to be from my conversations with HP coaches, it would seem that the form is far more flexible than many understand. This would also lead me to think that certain drawing steps or suggestions could certainly be modified as necessary to accommodate the different body types, and quite nicely explains why several of the RAs and former students of Coach Lee that have videos on youtube look different throughout the portions of the shot sequence. 

I've stated in previous posts this very thing, that the archers I see shooting under Coach Lee don't all look the same, until they get to the holding or transfer/holding or anchor, whatever you want to call it. At that point there are considerable similarities. Far more similarities than differnces in my opinion. Mostly inclusive of the lines through their upper bodies, their draw arm alignment in each axis, their hooks, posture, etc. Certainly their releases are almost identical.

I hope that I've qualified my questions and statements enough above, I'm not impying anything accusatory. My only motivation here is to have a meaningful discussion on different form elements and gain more understanding on the technique.

Gig'em


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

*One View from a JDT Coach*

I had promised myself I wouldn't post in this thread or especially the injury one but decided maybe it was time to offer a view point from my experience. I was hesitant to say anything because I was beaten up before by one of the regular contributors to the injury thread when he accused me of being a weak lamb that would blindly follow Coach Lee anywhere, including off a cliff. If I get beaten up again, so be it.

My name is Terry Laney and I have been involved with the JDT program since its start. First as a coach of an archer that was an original member, then as a JDT coach for the past 2.5 years.

This may take a couple of posts and be a bit long.

First I want to respond to some questions or statements, that have been asked or made in this thread and others, about BEST.

1. "It is the Korean method of shooting the bow." Not true. Coach Lee is always telling people when asked or in his seminars that BEST is NOT the technique that is used by Korea. It has elements that are the same but the overall process is different.

2. "BEST method keeps changing, has changed, or is still evolving." Depends upon what you mean by change. If, by change, you mean anything no matter how small, then yes BEST has changed. If you mean the overall shot process then NO, BEST has not changed.

If you mean anything, then this is what has changed: In the book TA and on the KSL website there is a step called Mindset. This step has two components: the mental part and the physical (or pre-raise) part. BEST has changed in that we have split this step into two steps. One is still called Mindset and continues to be the mental preparation for the shot. The second part is now called the Set position. This is where all the physical activity takes place before the bow is raised to Setup. 

When I keep reading the statement that BEST keeps changing, I keep hoping the person making the claim would say what the change is. So far, in all the claims I have read or been able to find, i still don't know what these changes are because all the claims, except one, never seem to include a description of what the change is. I would love to know what they are so it can be discussed to determine if it is a change or not. As an example: about a year or so ago, a change statement was spread around a few forums where the people making it said BEST has changed and is now using a long predraw where you draw to below you anchor point befoe raising the bow. Suddenly, archers all over the US were changing their shot to include this method. I new it wasn't a change because it wasn't being taught to the JDT but I asked Coach Lee anyway. He laughed and said it wasn't a change. That method was being done by Jake Kaminski because he was still having problems with a pre-existing shoulder and back issue that was preventing him from training effectively. The long predraw was developed to help him keep training. Since that time, the problem has gotten much better and he no longer uses the long predraw. 

I have looked at notes and video of early JDT camps, photos and video of the archer I was coaching when at home, photos and video of JDT members and RA's in 2006, 2007, 2008. and 2009, video from a 2007 seminar, info and experience from a Nov 2008 seminar, 2009 CCC class, and numerous JDT camps. The same baseline process was being taught or described in all of them.

What do I mean by "baseline process". Coach Lee teaches a method that has a number of steps in it. If you asked him to show you the BEST method or KSL Shot Cycle, he will do it only one way. That one way is our "baseline" from which we start all teaching. 

It seems that anytime someone sees or hears about something that appears to be different, they equate that to a BEST change. I could be wrong but that is my observation. In every case that I have seen, these aren't changes in the process. These are options or variations that are being offered to archers to help them accomplish something they otherwise couldn't do or when it was difficult for them to do it. The baseline hasn't changed but we are simply showing an archer another way to get to the next step.

3. "BEST method is being forced one way or is cookie cutter". This is one of the biggest incorrect statements being offered up. BEST is not cookie cutter. Yes, we do start with the baseline process because that is the ideal approach. In an ideal world, all archers doing BEST would be doing the entire baseline process. In the real world, we all know that no two archers are alike. As such, we have to monitor what they can and can't do and tailor BEST to fit them. We don't buy a size 12 shoe and expect every person to fit them. We don't stuff tissue in the end for short footed people or cut the ends off for long footed people. We get them the shoe that fits them. With BEST, we look at what the archer can and can't do and tailor the process to fit them. That is why you won't see two RA's or two JDT members doing the exact same thing. BEST is custom fitted to each archer. It takes time to do this because you usually don't know in advance what the archer can and can't do. Many times early archers can do the baseline with a stretch band but can't with a light weight bow or their bow so an evaluation needs to be done to see if the problem is draw weight or something else.

When we find archers that can't pronate their bow arm, we use something else. If they have stability problems with the bow arm, we use something else. If they can't rotate their torso to get in the pre-raise position, we use something else. If they have other issues or limits, we use something else to get them to the most important part of the shot...HOLDING. Holding is the point at which the shot has to be stable and solid because beyond this point is where the most important parts of the shot lie. It is during this phase where most archers success of failure resides (10 or no 10). That is why you will see many archers get to holding in many different ways but once they get their, they all are pretty close to being the same from holding to the end of the follow through. In general, we don't care how you get to holding, so long as you get there. Are their features of holding that are also important? Yes. We also want good alignment and good back tension. The baseline process gets you there, other methods can get you there but they will have to be developed. Some development takes a bit longer than others.

4. Did Coach Lee ever question why the US ever moved away from the shot process that Mr. McKinney, Mr. Pace, and other similar archers were using during their major competitive days? Yes. That doesn't mean things couldn't be improved upon but the basic shot process they were using was far supperior to what many US archers are using now with the classic "T" shot and variations of it. 

5. "BEST is overly complicated or hard to teach." It is if you don't know it or try to teach it with your only source material being the book or someone else that doesn't know it. I understand part of the problem is knowing who knows it. The system is working to resolve this. That is part of the basis for the new coaching system that is currently being developed and implemented. What is hard is to teach it to someone that has habits that are hard to overcome or when the intended message being sent and the message being received after it has been processed turn out to be different. I have asked kids and adults to tell me what I just said and what it means. They can tell me exactly what I want to hear but the reality of watching them execute it clearly shows that an apple to me isn't an apple to them. This just means it's going to take a bit longer because I now have to learn how they process information. 

6. Fine or gross motor movement. I read Mr. McKinney's statement that using fine muscle movement is much better for accuracy than using large or gross muscle movement. I will have to admit that I'm not quite sure what he means. Is he talking about using as few muscles as possible or is he talking about using only the small muscles rather than the larger muscles? I will simply offer this. With BEST, we used to teach it by focusing on muscle activation. We would tell the archer the specific muscles or muscle groups that should be used and where they should feel it. Doing this resulted in some frustrating problems. Archers kept asking questions like: how should they feel, what percentage of activation should they use, how should the load move from one set of muscles to the next as the draw progresses, and many other similar questions. It became obvious this teaching approach wasn't going to work for most shooters. Coach Lee, while working with the RA's, developed an alternative way to teach it. Rather than focus on muscle activation and intensity, he said focus on movement. Initially it was on bone movement. In most cases that approach is still applicable. We have since then modified the teaching a bit more when we focus on the draw, loading, transfer, holding, expansion and follow through steps. To keep it as simple as possible, Coach Lee uses an imaginary spot called Lan2 which is located on the back of the upper draw arm near the rear deltoid/tricep muscles. In simple terms, when we talk about all these steps, we tell the archer to focus on moving that spot and let the brain figure out what muscles to use to make it happen. We then watch for how the arm and scapula move to determine if they are doing the movement correctly. We adjust as needed. The brain naturally will only use what it needs to use unless we tell it to use more or something different. That is why we make sure the archer is using as much of the lower back muscles as possible to draw the bow and not the arm, shoulder, and upper back muscles as many do with the typical "T" shot process. 

Can an archer use large muscles and still perform an accurate and controlled shot? Of course they can. Remember, with BEST, aiming doesn't start until after you start the holding process which is when you want maximum control and stability. Also remember the amount of movement from holding to release is extremely small (about 1 to 3 mm when the archer has good clicker control). With time an archer can easily learn to control this amount of movement with larger muscles. If you don't believe it, just look at video of the RA's, and many of the JDT archers and you can see it is possible to learn with time. There is more to this than just a brief statement but this is the basic idea. There are additional reasons why we want to use larger muscles where possible.

My next post will talk about some typical injuries and causes that I have seen (unless I get stomped into the ground before then). I won't post them in the other thread because that one has already experienced a meltdown.

Keep in mind, the above is my view and I will be more than happy to expand on any of them if need be. 

Until then, rest.

Terry


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Great Post!

There is so much in there I'm going to have to come back and re-read it


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

x2. Excellent post. Especially the variations allowed getting to the hold phase. I must say, going through the CC course just a week ago, my first observation was that teaching the cycle was going to be a work in progress. I'm hopeful!


----------



## rpdjr45 (Jul 28, 2007)

Yeah, now we're getting somewhere. ;-)


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

This isn't the second post yet. Just a short followup of the first one. 

When you hear the name BEST, you need to remember there are or were two versions of BEST. The first one is what was developed by a group of archers and coaches in the US befofe Coach Lee arrived. I don't know the particular details of who or all the what but I do know that it has some elements that are very different than what is being taught by Coach Lee. When Coach Lee got here, he looked at the process and decided it had too many elements that were different than his shot cycle so he replaced the process rather than modify it but kept the name. It was thought that a full replacement would be ok since it had not been rolled out to the massess as the full NAA sanctioned method even though some coaches were teaching it and saying it was BEST. We now know it would have been better to change the name but, at the time, the name described what the KSL process was so it remained.

Terry


----------



## gig'em 99 (Feb 1, 2008)

This is exactly the direction I was hoping this thread would go. Although I'm surprised about how many views it got prior to a response.

So thank you Terry for being brave. I truly believe that this is the very type of dialogue that is necessary in order to better understand the direction of US archery.


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

gig'em 99 said:


> This is exactly the direction I was hoping this thread would go. Although I'm surprised about how many views it got prior to a response.


More people viewing and listening to someone who knows what they are talking about is exactly what this board needs in my opinion.

-Andrew


----------



## jhinaz (Mar 1, 2003)

bownut-tl. said:


> 2. "BEST method keeps changing, has changed, or is still evolving."
> 
> When I keep reading the statement that BEST keeps changing, I keep hoping the person making the claim would say what the change is. So far, in all the claims I have read or been able to find, i still don't know what these changes are because all the claims, except one, never seem to include a description of what the change is. I would love to know what they are so it can be discussed to determine if it is a change or not.


Terry,
This may or may not be what you're referring to, but I could find no mention of the "bent wrist position" nor the "draw hand positioned laterally away from the body during Set" in Total Archery. I'm not certain but I believe these actions were incorporated by Coach Lee a couple of years ago (after the introduction of BEST). Some may view these as "changes" while others may view these as "options or variations". Your comments would be appreciated. - John


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

jhinaz,

That is the problem with the book. Many many many people thought the book was the total description of the KSL Shot Cycle / BEST. It isn't. Much of the process is an overview with some of it more detailed than others. If you ever get to read the new book that is coming out, you will see what I mean. All the material in the second book is what was actually being taught as BEST. It has A LOT more detail. Coach Lee has been teaching bent wrist and the arm away from the body since the start. I know it was being taught to the first group of JDT archers. 

If, when we talk change, we mean the difference between the content in the book, and the totality of what is being taught, then yes. There are lots of changes. However, as I said earlier, if you asked coach Lee to show you BEST from day one, it is what is being taught now. What seems like changes to some is siimply Coach Lee providing more detailed information about how to execute a specific step or part of a step.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

*Next Post*

This post is more devoted to bow and draw shoulder issues I have seen in archers, both kids and adults.

First I want to respond to the issue about "BEST reduces injuries". BEST reduces injuries may be what many are saying but I decided to look at the video of a Coach Lee seminar. I found a section where he was talking about injuries. What he said was "if you use proper biomechanics, injuries should be reduced". Now I would challenge anyone (maybe I shouldn't ask for this since someone probably will) to tell me that if you use your body in a way that is within it's pain free range of motion, utilizes muscles that are more efficient and better able to handle loads, and where possible, allows the body to do what is natural for it to do, that that isn't a good way to shoot a bow. I would simiply ask the person to show or tell me why it isn't. 

If some insist on having the data or proof before they use it, they can simply wait until it is available and not teach the method to others. I will listen to my body and it will tell me if it doesn't like something. Does properly implemented BEST have chronic affects? Don't know but I am willing to find out in parallel with using the method because my research on top of Coach Lee's description of the process and why specific steps are done, has been good enough to convince me it is safe to implement. Others may differ and that is ok. 

Issues:

Bow Shoulder - 

When working with kids at a JDT camp, we rarely saw bow shoulder issues. I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that it was very rare. When it did happen, it was from one of two causes. In some it was from both.

The first cause is from the desire to get the crease in the bow arm vertical. I have found three types of archers: those than can do it, those that can't, and those that will make it happen even if it kills them. the first is not an issue if done correctly. The last two can be big problems. They typically do it by rolling the bow shoulder toward the bow string in an attempt to get the arm to roll over making the crease vertical. Doing this places the arm and shoulder girdle in an anatomically weak position that is asking for trouble. This is not a BEST method technique and has never been taught to us by Coach Lee. When Coach Lee sees this being used, he always stops he archer and corrects it and tells them they will hurt themselves as they go up in poundage. DO NOT DO THIS!

The second cause is from the desire to keep the bow shoulder down and still be able to raise the bow. We tell them to simply set the shoulder down by imagining they are trying to pull the scapula down but not way down. Observations will tell us if they are overdoing it and it is always started with just an air bow or stretch band (usually red tubing). When they raise the bow they are almost doing an isometric exercise where they are pulling really hard to keep the shoulder down yet still must overcome this effort to raise the bow. Once we are able to get them to relax and not try so hard, the problem usually corrects itself. 

I want to teach one thing that is important to know and will actually help with relaxing the bow shoulder. Many archers, when they rotate their torso to get the initial alignment will also pull the bow arm to the left (RH archer) to get the arm more inline with the shoulders then raise the bow. This is not the correct way. What should be happening is the bow arm is extended but is actually positioned slightly to the right side of the archer. This helps relax the shoulder and reduces the strain that can be induced when the arm is being raised. As the bow is raised up, the bow hand follows an arcing path until the sight pin is at 12 o'clock to the target. Again, the archer is observed to make sure the arm isn't positioned to far to the right of the body.


Draw shoulder - 

The dominant injury we have seen is Impingement Syndrome. It has been caused by two problems. Both are from the following incorrect techniques (remember, I am talking about BEST technique):

1. Hi drawing. I have watched a lot of archers draw the bow with the upper arm angled upward at a steep angle (much greater than 10 or 20 degrees from flat or parallel to the ground). When this happens the gap between the humerous, and the bottom of the accromium can be greatly reduced and cause the ligament that passes through this gap to be pinched between the two bones....thus pain. We don't teach a high draw. We tell the archers their elbow needs to stay at shoulder height or just slightly higher at Setup. When we are standing in front of the kids, we tell them to not show us their arm pit. That gets the elbow down. Now the draw hand can still be higher but the elbow has to stay down at Setup.

2. We also tell the archer to set the draw shoulder down and back. Now, what does that mean and how do you do it? Down and back means setting the draw scapula down and back by pulling the upper arm and shoulder toward the back. This movement places the ball of the upper arm in a different position causing most of the ligament that normally could be pinched, to be out of the way yet still in a position to help stabilize the arm. The gap remains open and the arm is free to rotate because the ball has been rotated toward the back side of the accromium.

What we find archers actually doing is either not setting the shoulder or, if set, they unset it as they come up to setup. What we see is the draw shoulder rising and the arm moves up and away from the body taking the upper arm with it. When this happens, the gap that is needed is gone and pinching can happen. As soon as we get them to set the shoulder and keep it set, the problem goes away. To stop the arm from taking the arcing path as it comes up to setup, I tell the kids to imagine their draw fingers are wrapped around a thin stiff vertical pole and all it can do is slide straight up the pole. I will take them to a pole and make them do it. Once they feel the path, they are able to do it with the bands then light weight bow. Again they are observed to make sure it is correct.

One problem we have seen is when the archer tries too hard to keep the shoulder down. Just as keeping the bow shoulder down isn't an isometric exercise, keeping the draw shoulder down isn't one either. Or they are trying to learn the method at way to high a bow poundage. For many males and some females, the thought of being seen with a stretch band of light weight bow is insulting to their ego. 

Another problems is "I know what the method is, I read the book and got info on the web. If it hurts it's just because it is different and the pain will go away soon. Remember...no pain...no gain..." This won't work.

There is more about setting the shoulders so please don't think that what I posted is everything. This is just to give you an idea of what is happening. 



JDT injuries - 

Just as John Magera won't mention names or identifying info, I won't either but I will give you a number of examples of what I have seen and tell you what we have to deal with as JDT coaches. I can only speak about the camps I have attended or info I received from earlier camps.

In the beginning camps the archers weren't asked if they had any issues we needed to know about but we did tell them to tell us if they have any pain during training to tell the coaches so something could be done. I don't know how many times a kid would come to me complaining about pain and I asked them when did it start and they said they had it before they showed up to camp or it happened yesterday or this morning. Now we have to deal with it. Because of concern of them coming to with issues, I started asking the kids during the first team meeting if they have any injuries, pain or issues we need to know about before they get started with the training. We also tell them, if they feel ANY discomfort, to immediately tell us about it so we can look into it and do something about it if needed. 

On numerous occasions, even after the request for info, the kids still wouldn't always tell us. Many times it was a candidate attending his or her first camp and they wouldn't say anything because they were afraid they wouldn't make the team. After I told them not telling us would keep them off the team, they started speaking up. I have taken kids to sports med after collapsing in "pain". They were given a full battery of tests and the conclusion was....no injury, no pain, just afraid they won't make the team. When I asked the kid if that were true as we headed back down to the range, the answer was yes. 

When the original JDT members showed up to camp, they wanted to know when they could shoot their bows. Coach Lee was told they will shoot them anyway so we should give them a schedule. Coach put one together that spelled out the training progression that was to be used to go from stretch bands to shooting their bows. It would have taken them a few months to get to there bows. Coach Lee also said they had to start light and gradually work up to heavier poundage's. It would take months before they were there. Well, most had reached their normal poundage before the month was out. Needless to say, when they showed up at the next camp, most looked nothing like how they left the previous camp. The heavier poundage changed their form so drastically that most were back to what they used to do and some had pain issues. Coach Lee had to start over with most of them. 

Many times a kid would leave with form "A" and come back to camp with for "@". We would ask them who taught them this method and they would say...their home coach.....their dad.....no one they made it themselves. Worse yet is if we asked them if they were doing BEST method and they would say yes. We would ask them if they are doing specific steps and they would say no, no, no, yes, no, no. Obviously they weren't. 

We keep telling the kids that our goal and highest priority is their health. We don't want them leaving or coming back with pain. Having said that, folks need to understand that this is a team effort. It is not just the coaches. The kids and their home coaches are a part of this and we must all work together for the betterment and safety of each kid but the kid has to tell us if something hurts. 

The last thing I will mention is a cause that only a doctor can determine. A malformed accromium can easily cause problems. I had them on both shoulders. If the accromium is curved or hooked downward instead of flat, this can greatly reduce the gap that is needed and even a small inflammation from overuse can lead to severe pain from pinching. This can only be found from x-rays, cat-scans or MRIs. We would have no way of knowing his unless the archer told us this condition existed. In some of these cases, no change in form would help. I had to have surgery on both shoulders to open the gap. Now I am pain free. 

Note: BEST did not uncover this problem with me. I discovered it when I started shooting compound with a thumb release (fingers or a caliper release caused no problems). I thank compound shooting for uncovering it. 

I know this may sound like I am putting the blame on the kids and that is not my intent. I am simply trying to inform you that there were a number of issues that contributed to injuries. Many of which were out of our control. Others can only be addressed by the kids or parents that have info that I don't have. I may have a response, depending upon who and what the issue but that is for another day...maybe. 

After I read this when it is posted I may add or clarify if needed.

Terry Laney


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Gig Em,

I put my forhead onto my monitor to pass the info to the lurkers. I guess not all got my response. 

Terry


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Terry,
Sliding the draw hand up a thin pole visualization. Are you looking for a forearm above the bicep? Is this akin to what Rick McKinney is talking about in " The Simple Art of Winning"? Is this move designed to improve line? Are you worried about a draw elbow that may be too low while the draw hand moves to anchor?
Lots of questions. I wish I would have thought of them when Steve was teaching us.
Thanks,
Gabe


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Gabe,

Baseline BEST-

A number of things are happening at the same time for different reasons. When we tell the kdis to get into the Setup position, we want the draw hand to be between mouth to nose level with the draw elbow around shoulder height, no lower, or just a bit higher (maybe 1 inch or so). So yes, the forearm will be above the elbow because it is angled from a low elbow to a high draw hand. If have to look at the book to see what it says. As for improving the line, no. The low elbow is done to maximize the gap between the humerous and acromium to prevent an impingement. The draw hand height is done to get the scapula lower during the draw. We used to teach drawing down 2 to 3 inches below the anchor point to loading. This works so long as you don't let the scapula and shoulder rise as you come up to anchor. To minimize the chances, we offered an option where you start higher with the draw and come down to only 1/2 to 1 inch below anchor. the total scapula travel is the same but the distance you come up is greatly reduced so the chances the scapula and shoulder will rise as anchor is achieved is lessened. Too low a draw elbow is a problem depending upon how you do it. If you keep the same angled arm position and draw to loading where the draw elbow stays really low, that is a big problem. What happens is as you draw down, the forearm pivots down to where it is nearly flat when you get to loading. 

There are two lines we look at on the draw side. The vertical and lateral elbow position relative to the arrow line. The above is used mainly for shoulder and scapula positioning. There are other things that are done as well to take care of the alignment.

Terry


----------



## ButchD (Nov 11, 2006)

*Very Helpfull*

Gig-em: thank you for getting this started.
bownut-tl. As an aspiring student of the BEST system, I thank you for your clear presentation. Let me echo Spangler's comment: we're listening.


----------



## mantra (Feb 7, 2007)

bownut...thank you verry much for your explantion!!!


----------



## gig'em 99 (Feb 1, 2008)

Terry,

You have done a very good job describing this in written form. This is not an easy task! I know professional writers that wouldn't be able to take this information and put it in writing so that anyone could understand. But I will say this as well, if you are "listening" to this thread, and haven't read Total Archery, or spent time with a certified BEST coach...it still may be very confusing. I recommend anyone that has questions about this to ask, as we don't often have a JDT coach so willing to share this information. 

The reasoning behind why we're teaching what we're teaching in this method is most important. We all should be skeptical. Blind following of something certainly can cause many problems. So ask when you don't know.

So back to one of my first comments in this thread...I was comparing Rick McKinney's form to the form that our BEST method is trying to achieve... I still say that if Mr. McKinney was demonstrating his technique to Coach Lee, that Coach Lee probably wouldn't want to change much, if anything! Although there isn't a lot of video available of Mr. McKinney shooting, I've been lucky enough to see him shoot in person, and we've all seen plenty of pictures. Now, Rick's feet position may be a bit wider or a bit too open to the target to comply is baseline BEST, but when he is at his holding position, he's in line! (slightly behind the line too) Up, down, left and right so to speak. It looks good. And I'm not sure, I've never asked...but I don't know that Rick has ever had any significant injuries caused by his archery form...I bet not.

The second part regarding gross and fine motor control...As I understand it, gross motor is utilizing larger muscles and possibly fewer muscles, and fine motor would be utilizing smaller muscles, and possibly more muscles - all of this to execute the shot sequence. But, I'll say this - If we were able to monitor every muscle in the arms, shoulders and back throughout the shot sequence, most of us would probably see that all of the muscles are being activated to a certain degree. Both small and large. Now, the intent of one as a suggested technique may be to utilize the larger vs the smaller more than the other. But in the end they're all still being utilized. Those electric pulses are still going to the muscles. And I'd put money on the fact that your individual physiology will play a larger roll in how those muscles are activated than the particular form suggests! All the while, still being able to achieve a biomechanically efficient shot execution based on your physique.

And this is where all of my studies of the various forms has taken me....that the elite archers forms have a dimes worth of difference between them. Yes, some activate entirely different muscles to execute the shot, the pushers vs. pullers, etc. But at holding, if they're doing it right, I bet it doesn't hurt! And you're going to have a very hard time convincing me that shooting without pain is biomechanically inefficient. Now, I'll concede levels of efficiency can be gained or lost with these different forms, and therein lies the "dimes worth of difference".

Once again, thanks to everyone participating in this discussion!

Gig'em


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

There is a lot that Coach Lee liked about the previous years shooters and still likes. Some of the changes to that process were done because of issues archers had then and are still having now. BEST tries to fix or mitigate some of those issues. 

When we look at archers today, many can't get in line without anchoring well back on the side of the face, many don't use back tension, some have draw wrist issues, some have body control issues, and the list goes on and on. BEST is an attempt to correct as many of these as possible and still have a shot process that flows where one step seamlessly flows into the next and each steip helps setup the next so there is no wasted energy or effort.

As Gig Em said, if you have questions, ask and you will get an answer. If I don't know it, I will ask Coach Lee or one of the RA's for an answer.

Terry


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

*1000 Arrow Challenge*

One question I forgot to answer was one Warbow had in another thread. He wanted to know what the purpose for the 1000 arrow challenge was.

It is not a physical torture test, although it may feel that way. It is not a challenge just to see if you can shoot a 1000 arrows. It's main purpose is a psychological test to see if the archer has the mental strength, focus, and determination to shoot for the amount of time it takes to do it. 

The archers normally start with their normal bows and after shooting for awhile, if it becomes too difficult to shoot that poundage, they are allowed to lower the poundage to what ever they need to continue. Again the goal is not a physical one. It is to push the mind. That is why the test is done well into the training year to make sure each archer has shown the physical capability to shoot longer. The shots are all blank bail and up close. To speed the arrow count up, they will often shoot as many arrows as they can fit in their quiver. 

They do get rest breaks and people from Sports Med are on hand to monitor them and provide assistance if needed. It is physically demanding. 

Terry


----------



## sundevilarchery (May 27, 2005)

Terry... Excellent posts.


----------



## gig'em 99 (Feb 1, 2008)

I'm sure there are a lot more questions out there that people would like to ask.

I'd also like to ask that some other JDT coaches or RAs chime in as well, so that we can keep poor Terry from getting carpal tunnel syndrome! :wink:

Now there is something that I want to ask about, and I hope this isn't too touchy of a subject, but on the injuries thread, there was a statement posted that certainly raised an eyebrow. I'm not going to name names, as its still up anyway, but basically the statement said that we should " watch a properly excuted shot cycle _to see what we are teaching the archers now_" {emphasis added}

That statement certainly can be understood to mean that the method was not being taught properly, or it could just mean simply that its being taught differently.

Either way, the instructors and coaches out here that aren't regularly exposed and updated, very well may be teaching it the "old way". So do we risk injuring our students? I think with some commons sense...no we don't, but the perception still remains that the BEST method changes. 

Terry has done a very good job so far discussing several of the changes that have been made in the coaching techniques, even if the base form has not changed. But the fact that the coaching techniques have changed, in my opinion, explains very well why the perception that the form has been changing persists. If the coaches have changed their approach to get the archer to the correct base line, this can easily be construed as a form change! 

I think that there is a great place to post updates. One that is to a degree, seemingly out dated. That is on Coach Lee's web site. Another place could be to post coaching technique changes to the US Archery website. But I think the best way to alert the coaches and instructors would be to either have an e-newsletter, that went out through NADA to the certified instructors and coaches, or via regularly updated videos posted to youtube, etc. There are tons of ways to distribute up-to-date information that don't cost a lot of money at all.

Ultimately, if the goal is to have a unified system, designed to strengthen our archers, our kids and us, more needs to be done to ensure that we all understand it. Instead, it seems like the information that the JDT coaches and the RAs get, is top secret. US Archery will not get around a bad perception without some thought to the PR side of this. Perception is everything.

I mean, could you imagine if the information that Terry has already posted in this thread, had been publicized that eloquently one year ago? Two years ago??? I don't think you'd have 100% buy-in. That isn't realistic, but I bet there would be a lot more.

I'm glad that there's a new book coming. I've ordered it already, as I've committed to reading everything I can get my hands on regarding archery and form. I would only hope that all coaches and instructors do the same thing too. Reading the books doesn't mean you have to adopt it. It still adds to the overall education. And not to hi-jack my own thread, but does anyone know approximately when this month, the new book on BEST is going to come out???


----------



## Teucer (Aug 19, 2007)

*Video Please*

For pure ease of understanding, a video of BEST vs McKinney system would help us understand the differences you are all talking about. Seeing is believing. I'm not trying to cause a competition of systems, but the honest fact is these posts about BEST vs any other system is driving us all mad. Let's SEE the facts, the systems, then WE can make an educated decision about each, right now it's all my way is better than your way. Lot's of potatoes not enough meat. So who's going to rise to the challenge, without holding back because they want to sell a book instead. :darkbeer:


----------



## mantra (Feb 7, 2007)

bownut-tl. said:


> When we look at archers today, many can't get in line without anchoring well back on the side of the face...


That´s a good point, cause I think I´m one of them?!

I have to anchor verry far on the side and back to get my forearm in line with the arrow.
I´ve tried to get in line with a more forward and only slight side anchor but it didn´t work out.

Sadly I have no (and never had) access to a coach so till now nobody was able to help me with this one.
In fact I don´t realy know if my anchor is to far off but most of the people which saw me shooting, said something bad about my anchor.

When I try to anchor more in forward and more to center of the chin, I have the feeling of loosing my backtension so I´m now back to my side anchor because it feels better.

Do you have an suggestions what I can do or can you tell me if a side anchor is realy that bad as everyone says?


----------



## jwalgast (Aug 7, 2005)

Terry,

Your posts are brilliant!! Keep going!! I think you're clearing up a lot of misconceptions.

John


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Teucer,

I understand your frustration. I would only say this. What would a video comparison do for the viewer? It will show the differences and similarities but then what? How is one to use this to objectively make a decision about one method or the other. Unfortunately, seeing isn't always believing unless you can see the shot from multiple angles and can tell what is happening internally. 

Coach Lee has neveer said his technique is supperior to someone elses. What he has said is he believes, because of the benefits you get from it, a shot based on biomechanics is supperior to one that is not. A 10 is a 10 no matter what shot is used. The question then becomes how consistent can you be and will the shot stand up under pressure?

I really don't know what you are looking for. You want more meat but of what? If you can be a bit more specific, maybe something can be done for you.

Terry


----------



## st8arrow (Apr 25, 2005)

+1

I'm with you John.

Terry....your posts have helped clear up a lot of misconceptions I have had.

Thank You


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

*Ok, Here is another one.*

My stomach is begging me to feed it so I will clarify things if this is a bit disjointed later today. I also want to apologize for any spelling or grammatical errors since I know that is important to many readers. Kids, cover your eyes.

Mantra,

This may take a while to explain. Again this is with Baseline BEST. I say this because if you looked at Brady Ellison and some of the other RAs and JDT members, you would see some doing something completely different yet still be able to get in line.

This is what we teach:

First we need to get some things clear. This is described for a RH archer and for the purposes of this explanation, imagine the rotational pivot point is the center of the head/spine. Also picture this as if you are above an archers head and looking down. 

If you get into an open stance and rotate your upper torso toward the target to establish an initial alignment (it doesn't have to be 100%), you will notice your draw side shoulder and arm will rotate clockwise to the left. Position your draw arm so the upper arm is angled forward and is in light contact with your chest or pec muscle. Now, while keeping the upper arm contact, move your draw hand laterally away from your body until the draw hand is just outside the draw elbow by about 3 or 4 inches. Your bowarm should be extended and positioned slightly to the right side of your body with the bottom bow limb placed between your legs. In this position, the arrow will point toward the right side of the target line.

Now comes the part that is initially hard for some to do. Imagine your fingers are wrapped around a vertical pole and you are raising your entire arm straight up but don't let the draw elbow get any higher than shoulder height to 1 or 2 inches above. Allow the hand to continue to rise until the draw fingers are about nose level. You will see that your forearm is angled up from your draw elbow to your hand. Also, make sure you maintain the same lateral hand to elbow relationship (draw hand is outside the draw elbow. At the same time the draw arm is coming up, the bowarm has to come up. From above, the movement of the bow hand is right to left. Looking from ground level behind the elbow, the draw hand follows an arcing path as it comes up and over to above the target. 

If you had a bow in your hand and hooked the string, you will notice the arrow line would pass to the right side of your draw elbow. At this point your are in line or beyond in line with the elbow. The trick is to maintain that throughout the draw. One important thing to know is at Setup, the arrow isn't supposed to be pointing at the target. At setup, the arrow will be pointing toward the left side of the target. You may feel a slight rotation of the grip in your hand but your pressure point won't change. As you get better at doing this, the bow hand issue will go away. 

Now you have to draw the bow. This is where angular drawing is important. If you draw the bow and let your body rotate while keeping the draw hand to elbow relationship, you will see that when you reach loading, you are already in line or beyond in line. Although the arrow is pointing toward the left side of the target at Setup, as you draw, the arrow will pivot on the rest and be pointing at the target when you get to loading. At loading you just have to come up to anchor. 

Here are two simple tools you can use to help with the draw part:

The first I call the pole dance. Do this with a stretch band. Get into the Setup position, and position your body near a vertical pole or edge of a door or wall. Now position yourself so the pole is about 3 or 4 inches away from the back of your upper arm and about 2 or 3 inches past the elbow but no further than mid arm. Slowly draw the band while trying to get the elbow to clear the pole as you come to loading. If you draw with angular motion, the elbow will arc in front of the pole and will miss it. If you do any linear drawing with the arm, the back of the arm or elbow will hit the pole. Once you can easily get it to clear the pole, the goal is to move slightly closer and still be able to do it. When you get good at it you should be able to do it with about 2 inches of clearance at the start. Also, once you can get it to clear, you need to speed the draw up until it is at your normal draw speed. 

The second tool is the stick dance. Get yourself a small diameter dowel rod or straight stick or something that is rigid and about 4 feet long. Tape it on the inside of a bow around the arrow rest location and have the rod extend back toward you when holding the bow. In the Set position (as described above), your draw elbow will be inside the rod. As you come up to setup, the elbow must stay inside the rod. As you draw, your elbow must stay inside the rod all the way to loading. 

With BEST method, the leading causes for not getting in line are:

1. Not keeping the draw hand to elbow relationship from Set to Setup. What we typically see is the draw elbow moving outside the draw hand as the arm is raised. This is caused by the archer unsetting the draw shoulder. If you read the post I did on injuries of the draw shoulder. Read the part about setting the shoulder and scapula. The unsetting is what is done and it can lead to pinching. 

2. Reverting back to a previous style where the draw hand is placed close to the face and inline with the target before drawing. The only way you can do this is to move the draw hand laterally toward the face causing a loss of predraw alignment. 

3. Letting the draw hand dive in toward the face before the rest of the arm gets to loading. During angular drawing, the entire arm has to be moved as one unit. Think of the hand as coming along for the ride instead of driving the car to loading. For the time being, focus on moving the elbow to its loading position instead of the hand getting to its loading position. The end position will be the same. 


I know!!! All of this sounds too complicated. If I could stand in front of you and show you, you would see that it is very simple to do. It is all in the initial position and just maintaining it during the process. Every style has a pre-raise position. If you described it in detail it would be just as complicated unless the archer didn't care how they positioned their body prior to raising the bow. Will it feel different? Most likely until it becomes your shot. 

Keep in mind the important thing is to make sure the bow and draw shoulders are set and positioned correctly and this is done with no pain. 

Terry


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

*Transfer*

Transfer (this is just a brief description)

I have often heard folks talking about the difficulty in doing Transfer.

From the book, Transfer is basically a shifting of the load from the hands and arms to the back. It isn't a 100% shift. At loading, the ratio of effort should be around 80% back and 20% hands and arms. The goal is to get the load to shift to 90 to 95% back and 10% to 5% hands and arms. The step that does this load shifting is Transfer.

Even though Transfer is an internal activity or load shifting, an observer can see the shift happen. What the archer should focus on is lessening the front half load bearing while at the same time, continuing to move Lan2 in an angular direction. Do not focus on increasing the tension in the back. Think only of moving Lan2. 

The arm movement is where we see the biggest problems. Some archers will try to get more back tension so they will pull the draw elbow down and back as they tighten the back...this is not correct. Some archers will move the arm up and back...this is not correct if the movement is excessive. Some will do a lateral movement but the movement can be as much as 2 inches or more...this is not correct. The movement needs to be an increase in the lateral direction only or with a very slight upward and backward movement. The total lateral distance is very small. Usually less than 1 inch. The upward movement, if done with the lateral, is also very small. Less than 1 inch.

Keep in mind that to get Transfer to work properly and to limit the amount of movement, you need to be in line or beyond in line once you reach Loading. Transfer is not supposed to be used to get you in line. It may take you from in line to beyond in line but it should not be the means by which you go from outside of line to in line. 

Terry


----------



## LooMoo (Jan 30, 2007)

Woohoo!! Go Coach Terry!!!!!


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Here is a short test I want you to try just to get an idea of why head position is important. 

Get a friend to stand in front of you. Bring your arms up and extend them to the side like a "T" formation with the palms down. While looking straight ahead, have your friend push down on both hands at the same time and you resist having them pusshed down. Try to remember the amount of effort it took to do that. Now. Lower your arms and relax a bit. Ok, get in the "T" position again, and look straight ahead. Without turning your head to the side, move your eyes so you are looking out of the corner of your eye socket. When you get there, have your friend push down and you resist again. Let me know what happend. It should be very interesting and should tell you one reason why head positon is very important.

Remember the friend is trying to push the arms down but not with a quick sudden load. Just push down for about 5 seconds and increase the load until the arms start to move down. Don't hurt yourself so gradually reduce the pushing when finished. You don't want to go from a lot to nothing too suddenly. 

Terry


----------



## mantra (Feb 7, 2007)

Terry, I´ve to thank you verry much!!! I think i´ve learned a few things which i didn´t get during the reading of TA?!

As english is not my native language I´ve to reread your statements again and find out if I understand exactly what you mean?!

But so far I´ve to say that you have done (and for sure will do in future) a verry good job wit you explanations! Even me, not a native english speaker, seems to understand what you wanna say! 
TA didn´t do that job at all!!!


----------



## strcpy (Dec 13, 2003)

Since I've been on of the "detractor's" in the injury thread (especially later in it) I'll add my two cents:

Reading his ideas has been on of the best things to happen to my ability at archery and ability to pass that knowledge on - there are a number of concepts there that he explained easily enough that I can get my 6, 7, and 8 year old archers to understand and do properly. In that thread my argument (and let me be clear on this) was with the way it was presented by people who were *not* part of the staff and a general lack of studies to back some claims up (which has been pretty much accepted by most of his staff and from what I have read by him also, though they obviously believe that it will reduce injuries most recognize the difference between belief, dogma, and real studies). I was rather shocked at Mr Faulks statements but still have had nothing but good responses from other official coaching staff. I have immensely enjoyed reading Lee's book and website and learned a great deal - even on my old fashioned T method . My experience is much more similar to bownut's posts here, especially on the Sagittarius forums (though they get few posts).

Anyway I *really* like a great deal of Lee's explanations on the shot cycle. I personally changed my breathing cycle and changed some minor form issues to better take advantage of core muscles and how stable they are. Then there are too many small things to list - for me the breathing and core muscles were the big "ah ha!" moments. I also like the explanations of the mental game but they are similar to every other coaching philosophy on the planet (though he does a well above average job of integrating them into an archery specific outlook).

Really everything outside of the "transfer/loading" stage has been 100% great info and, frankly, IMO is the larger portion of what he preaches (though you will have to talk to people who actually know him for that one) - only there have I had issues in doing what I have read and I understand I'm not the only one. Even there I note things being described in "transfer/loading" that is applicable to the T stance and has helped me. I also think the part about Bownut saying it would be better if he were there is applicable here too, but that is another thread and I bet most of us (even those that were true detractors) would quite enjoy the experience.


----------



## Teucer (Aug 19, 2007)

*Terry*

Having coached several Hockey clinics in the past, using video as a tool for learning is a great asset to coaching. 
Terry, you are taking a great deal of time of laying out the system, and I really appreciate it but you cannot discount what a video or collection of, can really do for the explanations. Imagine someone whom has not had a hands on coaching session of BEST/KSL reading these posts, very hard for them to picture it.
Also there are claims of this system being the prefered system, well show us why. Again, you can't do better than video. 
Seeing is believing, and it works wonders in coaching.
Trying to teach someone how to do things right is sometimes easier showing what not to do.
When you just lay it out on paper it becomes subject to interpretation, video can back it up.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Teucer,

I agree video can help a lot. I use video all the time to show movement or positioning so it can have a huge benefit. My only issue is when someone wants video to see something where the activity is internal and the external movement could have been done different ways. For example: If I asked someone to do transfer and you saw the draw arm move in the correct direction, did they do it correctly? It depends upon which muscle group made that movement happen and you can't see that part. If you saw an overhead view of Brady shooting, would the viewer be able to tell why he does what he does when the reason is internal. Video with text is what is needed.

The claims about BEST being the prefered system applies when working with Coach Lee. He will tell you there are many systems that work for many people. His is one of many. He will tell you that a system that benefits from biomechanics, in his oppinion, is better than one that doesn't. Since he has complete faith or belief in his method, I would expect him to push his method. I'm sorry but it is not up to us to show you why it is prefered. We can tell you what the process is, we can tell you why certain actions are done and what the benefits are and we can give you an overall view of the method and its benefits but, beyond that, it is up to the user to determine if it is prefered. I honestly don't know what you need to see or hear to determine if something is prefered. 

If you want to see a video of the shot, I have plenty on my computer. I don't know how that will tell you if it is prefered or not. Maybe I am missing something in your statement, if so, please let me know. 

Terry


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Strcpy,

I could probably write a multi page post that explains the reasons for everthing that is done in BEST. Even the little things. There is a reason for all that you see and there are variations and options that are also ok to do. Will I do that....nope. Too much typing and too time consuming but I will try to answer or respond to any question that is asked.

Some folks simply want more info or proof than what is available. Having said that, can you point me in the direction of where I can find the studies you've seen or read about the other techniques that are being done, especially the "T" approach? I'd love to read them and show them to coach Lee so he will have an idea of what the archery community is looking for.

Thanks,

Terry


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Terry,
As it regards lan2. I have tried to make the clicker go using this focus. Even while the clicker is hanging on the point, I have a problem with that visualization to execute the shot. I've spent the entire cycle moving the weight to the large muscles.....and keep it there. Then to shift from that focus, to a point just below the draw elbow, seems to destroy the feel of big muscle control. Can you elaborate?
Thanks,
Gabe


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Gabe,

Too often people have been going by the feel of the shot when they do BEST. They want to feel the muscles in the back contract. That is why we moved away from this approach. As long as the bigger muscles in the back are being used, don't worry about the feel. Focus on movement. When you walk, do you focus on how the muscles "feel" in your legs to determine if you are getting where you want to go or do you simply trust your brain will do the right thing and you just go? In BEST, we want you to take the same approach. Initially in the draw, you will feel the back start to take the load, after that, it is more of a trust in the brain to continue to do the right thing. We tell the kids that once they reach the point where they can't feel the back but they KNOW the back is working correctly, they have reached the next level of control. Not feeling the back isn't a bad thing. It means you are now learning to direct your conscious attention where it should be. Once you reach holding and start the expansion step, your focus has to stay on moving Lan2 and nothing else.

Terry


----------



## ButchD (Nov 11, 2006)

*Clicker*

bownut-tl.
At what point, developmentally, does the introduction of the clicker come? I'm a late starter, and timing during expansion is an issue. 
Also, how critical is the "dropped hand" portion of the follow through? My plate is full, for now, and I've aready spit my gum out. Thanks, Butch


----------



## strcpy (Dec 13, 2003)

bownut-tl. said:


> Strcpy,
> 
> I could probably write a multi page post that explains the reasons for everthing that is done in BEST. Even the little things. There is a reason for all that you see and there are variations and options that are also ok to do. Will I do that....nope. Too much typing and too time consuming but I will try to answer or respond to any question that is asked.
> 
> ...


*sigh* I', going to try one last time here - I agree that there is none out there, I am not making any claims past the same anecdotal evidence, and I agree with *both* side with respect to what is said. That is a large portion of us without the aid of a coach trained to your level suffer injuries and those that are privileged to get coaching from ones at your level do not. I do not see anything wrong with that statement - is *any* of that in dispute here?

I will also make it clear that I do understand Lee doesn't say many of the things I am arguing against, you will note that *nowhere* do I claim otherwise and have said the above *several* times - apparently it doesn't do any good though. Nor have I particularly seen you say that type of thing either, indeed as I said I have not seen *any* of the official coaches say otherwise. 

If any "side" wishes to make the claim that theirs reduces injury I expect to see something more than anecdotal evidence before I'm willing to wholly buy that argument. I do not see anything wrong with that - and that includes the T method. For some that is an individual making the claim and that individual really needs to give some evidence. For others it is a program and that program really needs too. For still others they are not staking out that claim but giving personal believes and that is just fine without a study. 

I agree with the statement JDT dad said about opinion and fact, I also agree with you that there is no fact on on the the T method. As such my main point in the whole other thread was simply that. 

Ultimately as long as it stays "opinion" then I'll not argue, though I will feel free to give my own experiences too. I'm sure that if Mr Lee wants to do a study on it he can find someone qualified to design such a thing. I can not tell you what the "archery community" wants to see to convince them - however "nothing" isn't going to cut it any more than the "nothing" on the side of the other methods does for you. There are plenty of books that describe in minutiae what is going on and why on *both* side too, yet that doesn't do anything but cause more arguments - yet with respect to an actual study on relative injury rates it says nothing and, when used as the evidence, causes each side to do nothing but argue. 

Also, for someone complaining about getting jumped on whenever he posts - given that what I wrote was positive you may want to rethink jumping on me to provide "proof" for something I do not even believe in, have never claimed to believe in (indeed, gone out of my way to say I do not), and didn't even bring up here. At this point (two posts from official coaches now along with JDT "others") I'm slowly coming under the impression that you are either with you or against you - I can't even be supportive of it now - Oh well, maybe I'll just start being a true non-supporter.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Strcpy

1. I never said I was jumped on whenever I posted.
2. I didn't jump on you. I simply asked for info and as to the rest of your post, I will simply say.......nothing.

Terry


----------



## LoveMyHoyt (Nov 29, 2008)

*T method/position*

There has been some mention of T method - or as I learned it - T position. This is what level 1 and 2 instructors were told to teach before BEST came along. I still use it when I have a large group of kids and a short amount of time to get them shooting. You just can't teach BEST in 40 minutes! About the only injury they're going to get in that amount of time is a slapped arm. I try to take steps to make sure that doesn't happen as I don't want that to be what kids remember about their archery experience (and never want to do it again).


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Strcpy

1. I never said I was jumped on whenever I posted.
2. I didn't jump on you. I simply asked for info and as to the rest of your post, I will simply say.......nothing.

Terry


----------



## gig'em 99 (Feb 1, 2008)

*T-Form*

I want to remind everyone that the intent of this thread is to discuss differences and specifics in forms and techniques - not to rehash the BEST injury thread.

Regarding T-Form specifically, it is still what the BEST system is utilizing to introduce archers and early level instructors to the sport. We're teaching 1-2-3 alignment drills and 1-2-3 release drills that are all T-Form. T-Form being not much more than straigt lines vertically through the archer's spine and horizontal lines across the back/shoulders...and "invisible T" if you will.

I'll debate for hours with anyone who tries to tell me that any modern day major form out there, does not have this basic structure at its heart. At the beginning, stand straight up, put your arms straight out to the side, and bend at the elbow with your draw arm...this is where it all begins. And it has for years. This hasn't changed.

The current instructor certification programs, both level 1 and level 2 all discuss this in sufficient detail. And the current level 1 and level 2 programs are all approved and apart of US Archery's program to move toward a standard (BEST method being the standard that they've adopted).

The one thing that has been most surprising about bownut-tl's (Terry's) explanations, is just how flexible Coach Lee's system is. This, I would imagine, would be one of the biggest eye openers for many out there. Too many people don't understand this. The exact same thing can be said about the archery principles presented in "The Simple Art of Winning".  And although I'm not quite as familiar with European archers, I've seen subtle differences in many who are trying to employ "The Heretic Archer" style approach as well (not all Europeans of course). The bottom line is, having a coach that knows the form, and knows how to fit it to an individual.

I'm still hoping that someone knowledgeable about another method will come on and discuss specifics about their style. Two very prominent AT members that could really add to this discussion are Vittorio and Rick. Vittorio has posted in the past about form, and form evaluation, so I think many people would like to hear some of the specific differences between BEST and the method described in “The Heretic Archer.” I realize that we can read the book, but as Terry has demonstrated here, there are details that the books just can’t explain. Drills that he book can’t explain, etc. More than just Push vs. Pull.

Rick, I know that you said you were done posting on the injury thread, and I can’t blame you. You’re very busy anyway. But specific thoughts about the classic styles and details would be a wonderful addition to this thread. This isn’t about who’s method is better. This is about differences in the methods and the reasoning behind it. That is my intent. We all stand to benefit from this approach. Just like we all stand to lose out, if we resort to nonsensical arguing, often completely misplaced because we’ve forgotten that this is a written forum. If we don’t try to read emotion into what everyone else typed, and remove our own emotions from this – this could really turn into something special and informative.

One more thing, and I’ll get off my soap box – What happened in the injury thread is exactly why so many of the best archers in the country and the world refuse to post here. They have nothing to gain. We should remember this. The only way we’ll ever hear from these folks, and have the pleasure of learning from ages of different experiences, is to remember and appreciate that they don’t have to post here. They don’t have to share. But most of us really appreciate when you all do. Even if we do so quietly.

Gig’em


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Sorry for the double post. Been trying to use an iPhone and the small screen and keyboard is driving me nuts. 

If I have offended anyone in my posts so far, I apologize. It was never my intent. I believe in BEST but feel no need to defend it to others. I am more than happy to discuss it and let the discussion dictate it's own path. 

Terry


----------



## gig'em 99 (Feb 1, 2008)

bownut-tl. said:


> Sorry for the double post. Been trying to use an iPhone and the small screen and keyboard is driving me nuts.
> 
> If I have offended anyone in my posts so far, I apologize. It was never my intent. I believe in BEST but feel no need to defend it to others. I am more than happy to discuss it and let the discussion dictate it's own path.
> 
> Terry



Terry, IMO you have been a breath of fresh air!

Thanks again for contributing.

Gig'em


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

bownut-tl. said:


> Transfer (this is just a brief description)
> 
> I have often heard folks talking about the difficulty in doing Transfer.
> 
> ...


I have a few questions reguarding this particular piece of the technique.

1. What or where, rather specifically, in the anatomy of a human is Lan2?

2. How is load transfered from the hands and arms to the back? To my way of thinking there is only one load to be held by the fingers, arms, shoulders and back. Where specifically in the anatomy does the tension go to and from?

Just curious. As you well know I was taught this technique by coach lee in 2006 personally and have had a rather difficult time with it as I don't believe it to be biomechanically accurate nor efficient.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

c3hammer said:


> 1. What or where, rather specifically, in the anatomy of a human is Lan2?


I had been wondering the same thing, but I knew that Terry had explained it. Thanks for motivating me to look it back up at last! In Terry's first post, he describes lan2 as:


bownut-tl. said:


> Coach Lee uses an imaginary spot called Lan2 which is located on the back of the upper draw arm near the rear deltoid/tricep muscles. In simple terms, when we talk about all these steps, we tell the archer to focus on moving that spot and let the brain figure out what muscles to use to make it happen.


I can't intelligently answer #2, so I'll leave that one to someone else. 

EDIT: Thanks guys for a good thread with a lot of good information!


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

Thanks mulcade I missed that in the first post.

Cheers,
pete


----------



## Georgemay (May 27, 2008)

c3hammer said:


> 1. What or where, rather specifically, in the anatomy of a human is Lan2?
> 
> 2. How is load transfered from the hands and arms to the back? To my way of thinking there is only one load to be held by the fingers, arms, shoulders and back. Where specifically in the anatomy does the tension go to and from?


First I have thank Terry for his involvement in this discussion.
Second I have to admit that I am Level NONE, not even a coach. 
I learned archery in Europe back in 70's/80's. The main objective was to not to interfere with the action of the bow. That's why we had to learn to relax wrist, forearm and and arm of the string hand. We had to relax them as much as possible employing back muscles to take over the load. 
Lan2 to my understanding was cleverly invented by coach Lee to turn away focus from arm while expanding to prevent triggering biceps and forearm from stiffening. Focusing on lan2 means thinking about muscles in the back beyond the line.
As you can see there is similarity between an old European technique and BEST. I found BEST as more evolved and more descriptive than old system.

On KSL website there is description where Lan2 is located:
The Evolution of B.E.S.T. by Robert deBondt
http://www.kslinternationalarchery.com/NewsLetters/BEST_Part3.pdf

George


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Pete and others,

A couple have tried to answer the Lan2 location. I wil expand on it a bit. 

The specific location and size of Lan2 can vary from archer to archer. For some, when they ask me where it is I can point using the tip of my index finger on the middle of the rear deotoid muscle or just to the right a bit. For some, that won't work. So I move it a bit further to the right where it is on the same plane as a above but right between the rear deltoid and triceps muscles. Some still can't picture the spot with my index finger touching them so I use two or thrree fingers. For some that still doesn't work so I use the palm of my hand to touch the region and they finally say ok. 

The important thing people need to understand is Lan2 isn't an anotomical part of the body. Meaning, I don't stick my finger into the muscles and hunt for a bump or hole and anything else. The concept behind it is like this: Lay a hand flat on a table with the palm down. Take a Sharpie or piece of tape or whatever one wants to use and place a spot on the top index finger knuckle. Now raise that spot approximately 1 foot above the table then move it to the left or right about one foot then back. When you did this, did you thinnk about the muscles you had to activate to make it happen or did you just focus on the spot and move it by letting the brain choose the muscles. That is what using Lan2 is all about. 

I will try to answer your second question a lttle later this evening. 

I understand you and others don't agree with BEST and as I have said before, that's ok. Do what works for you and teach what you believe. As long as you enjoy what you are doing, it is still good.

Terry


----------



## Canjapan2003 (Jun 3, 2006)

Terry, 
We haven't been in touch for quite a while now and you probably think I fell off the face of the earth again but actually I kind of gave up trying to learn BEST without a coach by my side. This post and the soon to arrive at my door book are renewing my interest in learning. Do you or anyone on your team know of any coaches teaching the method in Japan? I'll be home to Vancouver for 4 weeks this summer as well so if there are any coaches near there that you could recommend I'd be interested to hear how to contact them. 

Thank you for being so generous with your time . And thank you to all the people out there who are holding their tongues and letting Terry have his say. 

Keith Brown


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Keith,

Good to hear from you. It has been awhile. We really never got too deep into BEST because your questions were limited to just a couple of items. Glad to hear you are willing to give it anothere go. I believe you will be greatly satisfied with the new book. 

I will have to check to see what coaches may be available to assist you.

Terry


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

This is in response to question 2 (Post #46) that Pete had regarding Transfer. Although some may feel this is a copout, I can’t tell you how the load is transferred and where the tension goes to and from. However, I will explain why I can’t.

The draw side hand, arm, shoulder, and back is comprised of many muscles. Each archer, being unique, has different abilities and strengths. Some have very strong draw hand and forearm muscles; some may have very strong bicep and shoulder muscles; others may have a good back; and others can be any combination of the above. 

With BEST we tell archers the load sharing at Setup should be about 60% hands, arms, and shoulders and 40% back. Is this a hard number? No. It is just to give the archer an idea that the back has to be taking some of the load before the draw starts. I can’t tell you what muscles are involved because I don’t know which ones the archer is using at the start of the draw. Is it mostly hands because they have a death grip on the string or is it the bicep because they have 23 inch guns and can curl 150 lb dumbbells with their draw arm. Why the load-shift? If the archer keeps too much of the load in the arms, they will often end up using the push-pull technique of shooting and this method can lead to collapsing the shot or a forward release when tired or under pressure. The resulting lack of control or consistency can cause all types of problems with the shot as well as the archer’s mental confidence in what they are doing. Am I saying Push-Pull is no good? No. Am I saying a BEST shooter won’t collapse? No. What I am saying is if an archer can hold the shot with their back, they have a much better chance of not collapsing under certain situations. 

When we talk about load shifting, the archer simply has to learn to do this. I personally am unaware of a way to tell them specifically how to do it because they usually can’t tell me where the load is. I know you can use audible EMG sensors to hear muscle activation and relaxation, but I am talking about helping without these types of tools. I remember going to a well-known coach years ago for some lessons when I was visiting LA. He was teaching the classic way most US archers were using at the time. At anchor, he told me I needed to relax my bicep muscle because it was too tense. So I tried but couldn’t do it. He told me to focus on the muscle and relax it but don’t collapse the shot. Eventually, after a number of attempts, I was able to do it a few times. My hands didn’t tense up, my forearm didn’t get tighter, I didn’t feel any change in my shoulder so where did the load go? It didn’t just up and walk away. I learned later, by feeling, that the disappearing load actually found its way to my back. Now was that a Transfer movement? Yes and no.

Once an archer learns to relax the front half and let the back take up the slack, do they have to do anything more during Transfer? As far as load shifting no. They do still need to move the arm although the movement may be very very small (I say the arm because it is the easiest thing to watch). If the load ratio is what you want at loading, why do we want more arm movement? The reason is very simple. Part of the goal of Transfer is to finish the positioning of the upper body by continuing to move Lan2 angularly into the Holding position. Keep in mind it is not just an arm movement. The entire Shoulder girdle including the arms must continue to rotate as one unit. You also need to understand that, for BEST, the rotation point is in the front bow shoulder. Yea, I know that the arm socket is a potential pivot point and the spine, or center of the head can be a pivot point. For BEST we want you to think of the front shoulder having a spike running through it to the ground and everything from it rearward has to pivot about this point. It sounds weird but can be done. 

Although Transfer has a component that is load shifting, a better way to think of Transfer is not so much as a change in muscular effort or intensity, because doing so causes the archer to tighten up too much, but rather it should be thought more of as a change in direction. Look at it this way: when the draw started, we said it must be angular all the way to loading. Coming up to anchor, however, is not an angular movement but holding, expansion, and release to follow through are all angular movements. So how do we go from an upward movement to anchor and back to an angular movement to complete the rest of the shot? We use Transfer to do that. Now I didn’t say you relaxed your back to come up to anchor. The intensity in the back is still there just that the angular movement has temporarily stopped or slowed for a fraction of a second. 

When Transfer is done correctly, an outside observer should see no increase in string movement on the face, chest guard, or anything else. The movement is more internal than external although a small amount of arm or shoulder girdle movement may be seen. I tell JDT kids to imagine they have a nail in their jaw and their draw fingers are wrapped around the nail. As long as the head doesn’t move the hand and arm cannot move linearly rearward when they Transfer. Again, when Transfer is done, the focus still has to be on moving Lan2. When you get set to start Transfer, there joints at wrist, elbow, and shoulder will have a certain relationship or position that is unique to each archer. When doing transfer, this relationship should not change (the angles created by drawing lines from one joint to the next should be relatively constant).

One last thing I want to mention is this. Although I called the step Transfer, it is actually Transfer to Holding. It is not like you do Transfer then you do holding. Transfer is a lead in to doing Holding. One of the ways we describe Transfer is “stepping inside the bow”. It is a phrase that implies one is setting their body between the bow grip and string. Now you aren’t literally doing this but the feeling is the same. It may feel as if you are opening your chest. Your bow arm is moving slightly toward the target as the draw side continues to angularly move around. Don’t focus on the feeling just know that it is there. This gets you into the Holding position where you have total control over the shot and where you can now move into expansion and the rest of the shot. 

The last last thing I will say is this. Don’t expect to grab a stretch band and boom, your doing it. It takes time. You must do mirror work and use video so you can review it to see what is happening and adjust what you are doing as needed.

If this all sounds confusing or contradictory from something I said earlier, let me know and I will attempt to clarify.

Terry


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

One thing I would like to clarify is the percentages of load I have been talking about. Depending upon the archer, the loading can vary quite a bit in the begining. At Setup, I said the loading should be 60% hands and arms and 40% back. It can just as easily be 50/50 or 40/60. It just depends upon how well the archer is able to use the back and set the shot up. Whatever it is, it should be around 80% back and 20% hands and arms by the time you get to loading (it can be more in the back but the 80/20 should be a minimum goal). At the start of expansion, it should be 95% back and 5% hands and arms. 

Terry


----------



## LooMoo (Jan 30, 2007)

Wow Coach Terry....

I've cut and pasted everything you've talked about, and you've written 18 pages worth of good, really informational stuff about Best method! Thanks!

Canjapan: Stick in there, even if you end up with doing long distance coaching. Coach Terry lives 8 hours away from me, and it can work using video, skype, e-mail and teary eyed texts from the range "help! I suck today! *sniff sniff* . Just gotta hang in there, and get through the first several months, then things start getting easier.  You start getting really good at self coaching, too.


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

Thanks for the candid explanation Terry. This is a point in the best system that proves out to be most troublesome and difficult for most folks IMHO. I believe the reason for that is in the complexity of the getting there.

I don't believe the load on the fingers ever changes from the point full draw is reached to the moment before the clicker goes off. In order for a change in loading to take place in the fingers there must have been an equal and opposing force created in the back of the hand that is being relieved. I can't contract my finger muscles in my forearm more with out the fingers moving unless I have an equal and opposite contraction of the muscles in the back of the fore arm to keep the fingers in place.

This can be said for every muscle in the body as you move from your "loaded" point to your "holding" point. If a load is being changed from one point in the body to another and the position doesn't change, then there had to have been opposing forces that are being relieved.

In an earlier post you say you can see this transfer as a 1" movement or so. In the latest post you say it is an internal "thing" and it can't be seen. Could you clarify this? Maybe some image captures from video of where in the 2 or 3 seconds it takes to go from setup to the click you can see this.

I would be very interested to see video of this part of the process. Coaches are, or have been in the past said to be able to see this step in an archer. If this is true, can you show it to us here? If it is internal, then the game has changed significantly.

At that point it is now not an actual shift in tension. If it is internal and not visible, all that has been said above can much more easily be explained with one simple sentance. "Relax and let the body go dead" 

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

bownut-tl. said:


> ... For BEST we want you to think of the front shoulder having a spike running through it to the ground and everything from it rearward has to pivot about this point...


I don't believe you will ever hear coach lee concur with this statement. If so, his game has radically changed 

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Pete, 

At the last few JDT camps the pivot point I described is what was told to them. If you watch the RAs, that is what they use. At the seminars I attended, that is what was taught. It is also what the original group of JDT members were taught in 2006. It is also spelled out in the new book. This doesn't mean you weren't taught something different. I simply don't know. If I am wrong, I am sure one of the other coaches will let me know and I will correct it. 

Terry


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Coach Lee doesn't use the spike example. He just says pivot point.

Your other post will take more time to respond to and I don't want to try to do it on my phone so it will have to wait until later. 

Terry


----------



## gig'em 99 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Forces*

I didn't take Terry's posts to imply that the load in the fingers, for example, ever actually gets reduced or changed. The % loads Terry is describing is far more a "visual" interpretation than an actual one. Obviously your fingers have to carry the load of the string throughout the shot, so technically as tension is increased to get the arrow through the last millimeter of the clicker, the load carried by the fingers can only increase. But what is changing is the moment or torque on the draw shoulder. So when Pete states, "If load is being changed from one point in the body to another and the position doesn't change, then there had to have been opposing forces that are being relieved." BEST is attempting to get you behind the line via the angular rotation of the draw scapulae, which if done properly will reduce this torque because the force line is closer to the body. A forward of the line or even perfectly in-line draw elbow would create more torque on the draw shoulder, than an elbow that was behind the line. Although slight, the reduced torque or relief allows for different muscles to take on the load more by doing less work. How these muscles actually take on this load, will vary from physique to physique, but the intention of this technique is to have more load held by the lower trap, and less by the upper trap. I'm speaking generally here, as I look through Total Archery (there are still more muscles involved) So, what I am saying is that the load will increase until the point that the clicker goes off, and the release occurs. But the forces that act on the body, or that the body has to resist will change throughout the shot cyle in ways that either make the muscles work harder or less. The more muscles that we can get to work less...the better, right?

But Pete, I think your point is still well made. This is an extremely difficult concept to describe in written form. If there is a video on youtube (or somewhere else), where we could see that "Archer X" is transferring at 1:21 for example, it would be most helpful. I can say that on the BEST DVD that was released a while back, Coach Lee comments on an archer performing the technique without a shirt on, and says when the archer transfers. At that point, I could see something happening with the draw scapulae, but it is certainly difficult for me to put into words. But it looked to me like a different muscle engaged and started squeezing. This was noticable in the scapulae, but certainly nothing significant was happening at the archers face (anchor/string location).


----------



## gig'em 99 (Feb 1, 2008)

*tranfer holding*

This is a video of Tyler Benner which is on Youtube, so I hope its ok for me to put the link here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9ju...DE2D3297A&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=4

Watch the scapulae from 3 seconds to 4 seconds. Tyler appears to hit his anchor right at 3 seconds, then right after that you see the scapulae "engage" at 4 seconds to holding and then expansion through the clicker.

Terry, let me know if this is a good example or not, but this has been the visual that I go to when trying to understand this concept.

Or, Tyler, if you're lurking out there, we'd appreciate your thoughts on this as well!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Terry, I think you are doing an excellent job of explaining a VERY complicated thing. Or perhaps, it's a very simple thing that is very overexplained. I'm not sure which. 

All I know is there there is a whole lot of new terminology out there for archers to digest - 95% of which explains what most top archers are already doing. Probably not more than 5% that is truly new. 

And that is good. Sooner or later, someone needed to quantify all these steps and give them names. That seems to be what coach Lee has done, and if that helps some folks "get it" then all the better. 

We all learn differently. For many, this level of detail is EXACTLY what they need to "get it". For many others, this will only confuse them further. I think this is where some of the frustration and potentially injuries have come from - the unclear interpretation of a potentially confusing series of movements.

Personally, I think the method itself could be fairly simple if done right. It's the explanation of the method that has become so complex and multi-layered that leads to problems...

Like Pete, the "transfer to holding" phase is one that I never fully understood as a coach. I understand it as an archer, but as a coach, I have no useful tools to explain that to someone. Maybe through all this dialogue and description, we will eventually all agree on a "common archery language" to use for instruction. And over time, this language will be more accepted and understood. 

Thank you for trying. 

I think there are two ways someone could look at all your pages of explanation: 1) Finally, someone has made it easier to understand! , or 2) This is FAR too complicated for me to learn on my own. 

Guess it just depends on the individual trying to learn the method.

One point you made about the hinge at the bow shoulder, or "spike":


> It is also what the original group of JDT members were taught in 2006


I don't remember this. I don't recall whether you were there for the first camps, but I don't remember it being explained that way.

However, it matters little now whether it was or not. What matters now is where we go from here in continuing the explanation and understanding.

I look forward to a point where this method is not so controversial, is easier to understand, and is easier to teach. 

John.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> I think there are two ways someone could look at all your pages of explanation: 1) Finally, someone has made it easier to understand! , or 2) This is FAR too complicated for me to learn on my own.


For me, both of those are true simultaneously.


----------



## OldSchoolNEO (May 11, 2009)

Let me start off by saying I am very under-qualified as either a coach or an archer for my opinion to mean much, but here it goes.

I've been out of archery for many years and have recently started shooting again. This rekindled passion is what lead me to this very site. On this site was the first I had ever heard of BEST. After looking into BEST on the KSL site and looking at the pictures, vides and explanations I was left with a "well yeah" feeling, as if to say isn't that what we've always done. To boil it down into terms I understand...

Get in-line via bone structure
Execute with back tension
Have good follow through
Take the good with the bad, learn and move on to the next shot.

Two things that I've read in this thread that really hit home were...

Pivot on the bow shoulder … I loved the spike reference
LAN2

These two concepts were used to instruct me 20 years ago from one of my first coaches, who in fact he was not officially trained in any way but did implement a common sense approach to his method.

Archery is one of those funny things in life. You can get someone to shoot a bow and arrow with some proficiency in a matter of minutes. After that, they’ll spend their entire life learning how to do it better and in fact, they’ll never perfect it. I think that’s why we do it!

The way I see it, the coaching is all about the communication and archery is tough to communicate as it is so internal. Trying to come up with a systematic approach that an entire nation of archers and coaches can use to communicate on universal level is daunting at the least and horrific at best (no pun intended) 
I say kudos to anyone who tries and hats off to Terry for trying in this thread and to Gig’em for starting it in the first place.


----------



## Mr. Black Magic (Sep 13, 2007)

Warbow said:


> For me, both of those are true simultaneously.


Exactly. I am getting the same vibe I had when many moons ago we were tasked with the exercise of explaining the sensation of sight to a blind person

I think maybe whats needed here is one of those cold war era Russian Comic book things they used to explain weapons operation to foreign customers:wink:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I think maybe whats needed here is one of those cold war era Russian Comic book things they used to explain weapons operation to foreign customers


LOL!

Or the fellow who draws the warning graphics for farm implements... 

Those leave no doubt what's about to happen, regardless of the language.

John.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

*Geneeral Comments*

Sorry it took so long to respond to comments. For some reason, my computer at work will let me go to any archery forum except Archery Talk. Typing a long response is way to tedious on a phone so I have to wait til I get home.

I will try to respond to some of the comments.

John Magera and Pete commented about what Coach Lee was teaching early on with regard to the front shoulder being the pivot point. I was not a member of the JDT staff during the first few camps so I don’t have first hand knowledge of what was taught. I came to that conclusion based upon what the archer I coached would show me when she got home from camp. She didn’t go to camp using the front shoulder as a pivot point and I never taught it to her. If she came home doing it, I simply assumed it was taught at camp. I then extrapolated that data point to assume if it was taught to her, it was taught to all the members. If I am incorrect…my bad. I agree, I have never heard Coach Lee actually say “imagine a spike is through the shoulder”. It was simply a way to make it clear about how the movement is restricted

Gig’em 99 wanted to know if the Tyler Benner video on Youtube is a good example of Transfer. If folks can clearly see the movement, yes.

Is BEST or any form difficult to explain in words without pictures or sketches, yes. It requires the reader to visualize what is happening and it can often be like someone describing an elephant in words. I remember trying to describe a movement to someone once. I wrote the positioning in detail and they said they didn’t understand. I tried again, they didn’t understand. I tried a third time and they still didn’t understand. We met one weekend and I showed them what I had described 3 different ways and they said after seeing it for less than 10 seconds that they now understand. Visuals can always make things much easier to understand. Where visuals don’t help is when the action is internal. At JDT camps we often have to come up with multiple ways to explain the same thing because each archer processes information differently and we find that some simply don’t understand certain words we use. 

Transfer and Load Shifting:

Finger Loading – Ideally, the fingers are set with minimal tension and, as such no load reduction is needed. My example assumed excess tension was in the hands and a reduction was warranted. I decided to experiment with finger loading to see if I could notice a change in tension and monitor any finger/string movement in the hand. I did three tests (others may get different results):

1. The first test had the back of my hand rounded a bit and the hook was set with a lot more tension than I knew was needed to draw the bow. Once at anchor, I lowered the tension in the hand and the fingers and string moved.

2. The second test had the back of the hand flat but not vertical. Again, the hook was set with increased finger tension. As I lowered the tension, the fingers and string moved.

3. The third test used a BEST hook with increased tension. When the tension was lowered, the fingers and string did not move. This is because the fingers are extended in a manner that places them near or at the end of their range of motion as long as the hook remains to hold the string, there is no place for the fingers to go thus the string can’t move either. 

During each test, the tension in my forearm also decreased. Where did the load go? In some cases I could capture it in my bicep muscle so it would tighten a bit. If I didn’t let it go to the bicep or didn’t let it stay there, the only place it could go is to my shoulder or back. The goal is to learn to do this and have the load taken by the back. It simply takes time to do this.

Internal or External Movement – 

Two things are happening during transfer. One is the load shifting and additional movement of Lan2. The only way Lan2 will move is if the archer makes it happen. To make it happen, the archer has to use muscle to do it. We just don’t want the archer to concentrate on the extra contraction in the back to make it happen. That part of transfer is internal because that is where the muscles reside. The external movement is what happens as a result of Lan2 movement. If Lan2 moves, the shoulder girdle has to move. That movement can be seen externally. 

I know some things I might write might sound like gibberish. Sometimes I can’t believe I wrote something when I read it later. All I can promise is I will do my best. I know many people think BEST is really complicated. All I can say is it actually isn’t if you have someone to show you what is happening. Somehow, we just need to figure out a way to make that happen. 

Terry


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

I guess noone took the little test I had described in post 30. I was curious to hear what anyone discovered while doing it. Maybe the results are already know to all and I just didn't know it.

Terry


----------



## jhinaz (Mar 1, 2003)

bownut-tl. said:


> I guess noone took the little test I had described in post 30. I was curious to hear what anyone discovered while doing it. Maybe the results are already know to all and I just didn't know it.
> 
> Terry


Maybe the reason no one commented is because they had read it in Total Archery and tried it earlier......and obtained the expected results. That item from TA didn't require a lot of interpretation but you're doing a great job on explaining the more difficult items to understand of TA. - John


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

My mistake. I forgot it was in there. I'll have to go find it then hit my head against a wall.

Terry


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

*Hooking*

In one of my previous posts I talked about a BEST hook when doing a load shifting test on the draw hand. What is a BEST hook? If you look in Total Archery or the KSL web site, it shows you where the string should contact the fingers when hooking. What should the back of the hand look like? Is it round or flat or something else? Is it vertical or angled? Is their anything special one should do with the fingers or is it just grip it and rip it? Here are the answers:

The back of the hand is neither flat nor rounded. It actually takes on a concave look. How do you achieve this? First of all, it would help if you have some flexibility in the finger joints. Regularly stretching and working the joints can help accomplish this (It is a bit harder for us older folks with stiff fingers). Next, once the finger tab is placed on the string, the thumb and pinky finger are pulled back toward the palm of the hand (not into the palm but back in that direction). At the same time, the archer allows the fingers to stretch out in the opposite direction. When this happens, the hand takes on a concave appearance. This is the basic BEST hook. 

The hand should not be set vertical on the string or at anchor. It should be angled slightly with the bottom of the hand slightly further away than the top.

This last one may seem strange but it is actually an important step. The index finger should be curled as much as possible without creating too much tension in the hand. The way to tell if it isn’t curled enough is to have someone stand in front of you when at anchor and have him or her look at your anchor to see if they can see your fingernail on the index finger. The reason this step is important is it actually has an affect on how you maintain a connection with your back. I know this sounds weird so I will give you an example of what it can do. At one of the earlier JDT camps, an archer told me she couldn’t feel her back during the shot. I looked at her back and draw to see if I could find anything that might give me a hint as to what was happening. I placed my hand near the scapula to feel for any muscle contraction and things seemed fine. I then called Coach Lee over and told him about it. Rather than look at the back, he went to the front and looked at the anchor and said not enough index finger curl. Once the finger curl was increased, the she smiled and said she could finally feel her back. Later that week, the same thing happened with another archer. This time I knew what to look for and told him the same thing. He looked at me as if I were crazy but I said try it anyway. He did and smiled. He could now feel his back. Don’t ask me why, I just know it works. Being able to feel it isn’t that important but it is important that you not lose the connection between your draw hand/arm and your back. The index finger curl is what helps maintain that. 

Terry


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

gig'em 99 said:


> Vittorio has posted in the past about form, and form evaluation, so I think many people would like to hear some of the specific differences between BEST and the method described in “The Heretic Archer.” I realize that we can read the book, but as Terry has demonstrated here, there are details that the books just can’t explain. Drills that he book can’t explain, etc. More than just Push vs. Pull.


For sure, a book by itself will never describe all possible details of a specific shooting sequence (style) applied to a specific archer. But, using the 11 steps descriptions in THA, you will easily find were different techniques are substantially becoming different. 
I usually go deeper in comparing shooting stiles during my seminars only, as you need videos, a whiteboard and a lot of time and words to do it properly.

By the way, in another thread I have already re-defined the major differencies among existing techniques that make, by themselves, something that can be called different techniques. 
They are:
1) Push
2) Pull
a) front shoulder inner rotation (high wrist, shoulder)
b) front shoulder outward rotation (low wrist- shoulder)
So, basic 4 combinations. And infinite variations inside them. This is the reason why any shooting method /sequence when applied to a human can't be seen as perfectly meeting the theory and therefore generates alot of endless discussions. 
A good coach has his preferred sequence to teach, but usually he has to coach may be tens of archers with tens of different archery backgrounds, hundreds of different body parts combinations , tens of different minds, not to talk about thousands of bow parts combinations. To be successfull, he will then adapt his preferred sequence to the real possibility to apply it to the specific combination of mind, body and bow parts he has to work with. 

Any system when applied to real archers do not evolve, just adapts...


----------



## tylerbenner (May 29, 2009)

gig'em 99 said:


> This is a video of Tyler Benner which is on Youtube, so I hope its ok for me to put the link here...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9ju...DE2D3297A&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=4
> 
> Watch the scapulae from 3 seconds to 4 seconds. Tyler appears to hit his anchor right at 3 seconds, then right after that you see the scapulae "engage" at 4 seconds to holding and then expansion through the clicker.
> ...



To see a more refined version of transfer, please watch the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1futllfoxnY

In the first link from gig'em, I did not have as much control as I did in the link I just posted. It may be harder to see the exact moment of transfer (as it is more blended), but it is definitely still there, and is in fact a much better representation of the desired method. It can even get better still.

Definitely watch Brady Ellison or Jake Kaminksi for beautiful examples of this. Brady and Jake have wonderful control and shoot with very smooth and fluid technique. Most likely their current technique is the best representation of these concepts. If one sees old (1-2 years ago) videos of them shooting and sees 'different' things, this is because they are going through a learning process which as archers, they are synthesizing with their bodies. 

+++++

Terry,

many thanks for helping with all the explanations. With you, who needs books?! *grins*

best,
--tyler


----------



## gig'em 99 (Feb 1, 2008)

Thanks Vittorio. I recall reading that thread. You are very right! Coaches need to be able to teach their students, and in the end it could be an entirely different method that works best any individual. This is one of the reasons that I make the effort, and believe all coaches should make and effort, to learn and understand as much about the different styles and techniques as you possibly can. 

Its simple continuing education :wink:


----------



## Georgemay (May 27, 2008)

Terry, 

Describing feeling as we all know is a very difficult task. 

Do you have a series of simple exercises you prescribe to the kids where they can seek, learn and develop new feeling? 

George


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

*Tools or Exercises to get the feeling -*

When we first start working with new archers learning BEST, we try to get them to feel certain parts of the shot. Although we eventually want them to focus on movement alone, they have to learn the proper location of the feeling first to make sure they are using the correct muscles as they move into higher-level training. 

The types of things we do will vary from archer to archer based upon what they are able to do and how quickly they pick it up but basically, we do the following:

1. After getting permission to place our hands on certain parts of their body (arms, hands shoulders and back), we will have them get into the Set and Setup positions with a stretch band and place our hand on the part of the back where the initial feeling should be during each part of the shot. As they draw the bow, we will move our hand along their back to show them the load progression. Some can figure it out from this.

2. If number 1 alone doesn’t work, we will give them form straps (nylon straps) that are set at two different lengths. One is at Setup and the other is just slightly shorter than their normal draw length. Using the form straps they practice working the muscles as we again show them where the load feeling should be.

3. This one is done without a form strap or stretch band. Have the archer reach behind their back with the bow hand and place tips of their fingers near the lower left edge of the draw side scapula (RH archer). As they go through the motion of the shot, they should feel the scapula move diagonally down to the left. Once at anchor, they should feel a small amount of movement during Transfer and more during release and follow through. 

4. Another drill is to have the archer place their hand inside a stretch band. Have the band at the wrist. Relax the wrist and arm as much as possible and go through the draw cycle. By not using the arm, it forces the back to do most of the work. You could also use a Formaster without hooking the string. 

5. The last thing they can do is use a bow and draw it behind their head like it is shown on page 146 of Total Archery or SPT 4-Structure on the KSL Website.

In terms of gym work, I tell archers to do seated rows with the arms slightly wider than shoulders width and pull the handle back to below the bottom of the ribcage or slightly lower. The other exercise one can do is a bent over dumbbell row to the side of the body near the bottom of the rib cage. Both of these exercises works the muscles in the lower back. 

It is really important that you place your hand on the spot where the feeling should be. If you don’t, most kids (and adults) will use upper back muscles to draw the bow because it is easier to execute.

Other coaches may have other tricks or tools.

Terry


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

I want to tell you about another option in the process that has worked quite well for a number archers that either have difficulty in getting in line when they are close, or can’t get enough initial alignment when getting into the Set position or as they raise the bow to Setup. We call it “Extra Set”.

Extra Set is done after the archer reaches Setup and just before the draw starts. When you reach Setup, execute a small additional upper torso rotation from the waist up. Do not let the bow arm change its position at Setup. This will predraw the bow a bit more but make sure you don’t pull the bowstring independent of this movement. By doing Extra Set, Lan2 is positioned further around toward the back causing the draw elbow to move further inside the string. This works very well for archers that are either close to being in line or it will take in line archers to beyond in line. It will NOT help archers that are too far out of line to begin with. That problem will have to be corrected via other actions. 

Terry


----------



## Rugby (Feb 13, 2003)

Not wishing to distract from this interesting threat but why is Lee referred to as "Coach Lee"? Is this a US thing? I do not recall any of the US coaches ever being referred to as "Coach ......" on this forum.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Maybe it is a US thing. For me it is simply a sign of respect. At the OTC, we don't let the JDT kids call us by just our first name or last name. They don't call me Terry or Laney. It is either Coach, Coach Terry, or Coach Laney. This is the same with the RAs. I have never heard them call him with just his name. It is either Coach or Coach Lee. It is just the way we do things. Just like we normally don't go into a doctors office and call him by his first name unless he says it is ok to do so.


----------



## Rugby (Feb 13, 2003)

Thanks for the reply Terry. It wouldn't be the New Zealand way, cheers.


----------



## azarcher300 (May 1, 2006)

I don't usually make any posts on this site but I have to ask a couple of questions and make a few observations. As a person who has coached national, world and Olympic champions I consider myself as a fairly observant person when it comes to the technique used by FITA target archers. My question is this: Why are none of the top shooters in the world using the Best Method? 

I have been fortunate enough to see most of the top shooters over the years and I will say that Darrel Pace, Rick Mckinney, and Jay Barrs in their prime, with their form would still be able to compete with any of the archers in the world today. 

The human body has not changed and will only move is certain ways to be the most efficient. Trying to change that will cause injuries, tension and eventually mental problems.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

azarcher300 said:


> IMy question is this: Why are none of the top shooters in the world using the Best Method?
> ...The human body has not changed and will only move is certain ways to be the most efficient. Trying to change that will cause injuries, tension and eventually mental problems.


It is an interesting question. What do you think the key differences between BEST Method and other methods are? Is BEST radically different? Or is it a refinement of existing methods?


----------



## OldSchoolNEO (May 11, 2009)

azarcher300 said:


> I don't usually make any posts on this site but I have to ask a couple of questions and make a few observations. As a person who has coached national, world and Olympic champions I consider myself as a fairly observant person when it comes to the technique used by FITA target archers. My question is this: Why are none of the top shooters in the world using the Best Method?
> 
> I have been fortunate enough to see most of the top shooters over the years and I will say that Darrel Pace, Rick Mckinney, and Jay Barrs in their prime, with their form would still be able to compete with any of the archers in the world today.
> 
> The human body has not changed and will only move is certain ways to be the most efficient. Trying to change that will cause injuries, tension and eventually mental problems.



Again, I'm completely underqualified here but...

I totaly agree that the above mentioned archers in their prime (and maybe not in their prime) would still be in the top ranks today.
I just don't see how their form was much different.
Again in terms I understand....


Align using bone structure
Use back tension to excecute the shot
Have good follow through

What am I missing?


----------



## Acehero (Nov 2, 2007)

azarcher300 said:


> My question is this: Why are none of the top shooters in the world using the Best Method?



What method is Brady Ellison using?


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Brady shoots BEST Method.


----------



## gig'em 99 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Off Track*

I want to make sure that we keep this thread headed in the right direction. It isn't intended to debate who is shooting what method at what level, although that would make for an interesting topic, in another thread. 

OldSchoolNEO still brings up a valid point, and the reason that I started this thread...

Are the differences in these modern techniques that substantial? Or is the main difference in how the instruction to get your individual holding position is presented? In the end, I can confidently say that every photo I've ever seen of Rick McKinney, Darrell Pace, Jay Barrs, etc...they look strikingly similar in their upper halves, if you take into account their individual physiology.

I've been hoping that someone would post about a technique and highlight major differences. But the biggest difference I can see is the push vs. pull. There are a lot of very good pushers, or "sighters" as Michelle Frangilli states in THA, but their basic upper body structure still allows the forces to be held via bone structure. In otherwords, they still achieve very good and efficient lines. The same can be said about practitioners of BEST. So even in my mind, pushing vs. pulling is a subtle difference that is experienced in the expansion phase of a shot cycle, but not a major difference.

One of the biggest differences in how the techniques are taught, IMO, is that BEST really drills down to the "how to" aspect of achieving the form. Where other methods give the steps, but don't even attempt the level of detail required to understand the intricacies of the body. And I also believe that it is this that becomes the BEST's biggest enemy. As there are so many ways to achieve a biomechanically efficient alignment. Different muscle groups can come into play at different times, variations in each step to accommodate any individual archer, etc.

I for one, have been able to get "behind the line" without a side anchor, for a long time. To me, I just had to think about engaging my back. I didn't have to think about angular rotation of the shoulder girdle, LAN2, or anything like that, but as I studied the KSL Shot Cycle, I realized that I was doing a lot of it already. It was just being explained differently than I would have expained it. But it has also helped me explain how to get behind the line with several people who could never do it.

In the end, I think that the elite archers of today, all have very efficient technique. And as Coach Lee has implied/stated, it is more important that you achieve the proper form, not how. So is all this really about, "My method is efficient, but yours is more efficient, and his is the mostest-super efficient?" :set1_thinking:


----------



## azarcher300 (May 1, 2006)

There in lies the problem. From my observations of the archers who are being taught the Best method, I find that the archer is required to make moves contrary to the natural motion of the body. Although very good scores can be shot with any method if you shoot enough arrows, the wear and tear on the body when it is out of natural motion and position will ultimately cause injuries and eventually mental problems.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

What moves are being taught that are contrary to natural motion?

Terry


----------



## gig'em 99 (Feb 1, 2008)

azarcher300 said:


> There in lies the problem. From my observations of the archers who are being taught the Best method, I find that the archer is required to make moves contrary to the natural motion of the body. Although very good scores can be shot with any method if you shoot enough arrows, the wear and tear on the body when it is out of natural motion and position will ultimately cause injuries and eventually mental problems.


I think we can tie this into form differences in one way or another, although I don't want to get into a rehash of last week's injury thread. 

We have to be careful just analyzing natural motion. Doing tasks that require muscular effort often don't feel or look natural. And when completed instinctually can result in injury. It isn't natural to bend at the legs to pick up a paint can, most will just bend over at the waste and pick it up. Easy enough, until that one time when you strain your back. Proper lifting form must be taught, because it doesn't come naturally to most.

In the past year, I've seen significant changes in how BEST is being coached/taught. Changes that have presented themselves from one HP Seminar to a subsequent JDT camp. What I will say is that, initially what I was seeing, I would have to completely agree with azarcher300's quote above. But what I'm seeing now makes more sense, feels natural, different than what I normally do, but natural. And this adds to what many have said, particularly John Magera most recently, that you do have to be careful with who is teaching the method. They need to be up to speed on the latest and greatest coaching techniques. Anyone can read Total Archery, and then try to teach or shoot the method. And that could be risky. We should only instruct with proper training. Regardless of the method we're instructing. 

I do believe that a lot of poor instruction, mostly at lower coaching ranks, has occurred, because people tried to teach something they didn't fully grasp. This largely has caused the image problems that persist to this day. So to tie this in to this threads intent...*how *BEST archers are "getting there" to a degree has changed. But where they are when they "get there" still pretty much looks the same to me. And still very similar to elite archers around the country.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

So that I am clear. I am not attacking Mr. Tone's observation. I truly would like to know what he saw. If he saw something and it was being taught incorrectly, it is probably happening somewhere else as well. If this thread could clear that up, that would go a long way in helping more people trying to learn the method.

Terry


----------



## azarcher300 (May 1, 2006)

I don't think here is the proper place to go over all the different things that I see being taught with the best or any other method. However, if you look you will find that I have written many an article and done several videos in the past. Nothing has changed in my thinking, or in how the body moves. However, it seems all the rage to try a reinvent the wheel again. Hopefully we are not falling in to the trap of the Emperors Fine Clothes!


----------



## massman (Jun 21, 2004)

*How about...*

Terry,

One of the biggest differences I've seen, was taught by the level 4 who instructed my level II and what I teach is the use of the lower back muscles in the draw as apposed to using the upper back muscles. 

This to me seem to be a BIG difference between Coach Lee's process and those used by others.

BEST Regards,

Tom


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Tom,

You are correct that BEST uses the bigger back muscles. If you look at the scapula position of a lot of elite shooters now and in the past, you will see the sme scapula position. 

The problem that I have had is when you read about using back tension. Time and time again, either the material doesn't tell you how or where to set it or it simply says raise your arms in a "T" position and squeeze the shoulder blades together. When I watch archers today (not the elite) they are pretty consistantly using muscles in the upper back and shoulder/neck region. 

Terry


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

massman said:


> Terry,
> 
> One of the biggest differences I've seen, was taught by the level 4 who instructed my level II and what I teach is the use of the lower back muscles in the draw as apposed to using the upper back muscles.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but this is simply the consequence of the use of inner rotation for the front shoulder; a consequence, not a basic element in the technique. 
High wrist + Inner rotated front shoulder need mainly low back muscles of the drawing shoulder to be balanced.
Low wrist+ outward rotation of front shoulder need mainly high back muscles to be balanced. 
What part of the back you will primarely need to use to balance the front arm line force depends from the line itself. 

Just try to do the opposite with any bow at any poundage, and you will immmediately feel how difficult it is.


----------



## ArrowNewB (Nov 13, 2008)

First off, I would like to say that I really appreciate this thread. I understand that the supporters of BEST do not have to do this, but are doing so for the greater benefit of the community. Thank you Bownut-tl and Gig'em 99 very much :thumbs_up


I would like to know what people think bio-mechanical efficiency means to them. 
Mechanical efficiency simply refers to the ratio of work output over work input. So does bio-mechanical efficiency mean getting the most work done from the human body while expending the least amount of energy?

If that's the case, it has nothing to do with alignment or injury likelihood. An extremely "efficient" archer could, in this case be performing in a way that is extremely damaging to the body. So why is there this need to imply that if you are efficient, you will not get hurt, or vice versa?
It seems to me like everyone has their own definitions which differs greatly.

Lets face it, the human body was never design to use a bow. In fact, the human body was never designed to do many things well. So what is this thing about the BEST method not allowing for the natural motion of the body? Is some other method out there allowing an individual to shoot a bow with just natural body motions? The natural motion of the body is to not pick up and shoot a bow!

Then there are those individuals here who are beginning to take the position that the BEST method is after all very similar to what we have been doing here all along; just explained it a little differently and in more detail ... thats all.
If one follows this "argument", then the next logical question will be to ask why is there a need to have BEST in the first place?

If this is what have been taught all along, and all our previous top archers have it, why does US archery still suck?

So if the US method is the BEST method after all, and the BEST method is not the Korean method, why not drop the BEST method and learn the Korean method? Then we will finally be as good as the Koreans. Is this what some people here are getting at?


----------



## jeepish (Nov 1, 2006)

*Go get the training first-hand*

While Terry has done a fantastic job of explaining BEST without photos, videos or being able to stand in front of each one of us and just show it, I'd like to reinforce that nothing beats going over BEST in-person.

I just went through the Regional Coach training in Atlanta, and even though I've spent a few years trying to wrap my brain around BEST and asking as many of the HP coaches for more info as I could -- the Atlanta training put all the little puzzle pieces together at last.

(If I posted more frequently, there'd be a link right here to the Coach training section of the USAA website)

Yes, I know it's tough to get a week off work, and the cost of travel can be prohibitive, but if you're really serious about wanting to learn BEST, then I wholeheartedly recommend this as an investment.

Even better: there are grant monies available to help defray the cost!

(ditto for a link to the Coach Education Grant page on USAA web site)

If you can't do a whole week, then at least go through a Community Coach course (only a few days). I know these seminars don't happen as frequently nor as close-by as we all would prefer (I had to fly from Los Angeles to Atlanta), but they are being offered and they are worth it.

I'll probably be writing up something on this for the Collegiate Archery Program website as well, but I wanted to put the plug in for now.

Thanks,
Jeep


----------



## Steven Cornell (Mar 22, 2003)

I to was one of the coaches that attended the first Best Seminar when Coach Lee arrived.
I am also a member of Cincinnati Junior Olympians.
Our club president just so happens to be Darrel Pace.
When I returned, I was telling Darrell about the Best Method.
He told me that was not the Best Method but the Darrel method.
If you look at his old video you will see almost the complete method.

He has always spoke of alignment. If you look at his back you see him using his back scapula.
Darrel used Biomechanics, they just did not call it that back then.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

"Darrell" method


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Steve is right. A lot of the BEST method is based upon what Darrell Pace, Rick McKinney and others were doing. The problem is most US archers aren't doing that anymore. I'm not neccessarily talking about elite archers. I'm talking about the masses.


----------



## tylerbenner (May 29, 2009)

In response to Gig'em's question:

To see a more refined version of transfer, please watch the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1futllfoxnY

In the first link from gig'em, I did not have as much control as I did in the link I just posted. It may be harder to see the exact moment of transfer (as it is more blended), but it is definitely still there, and is in fact a much better representation of the desired method. It can even get better still.

Definitely watch Brady Ellison or Jake Kaminksi for beautiful examples of this. Brady and Jake have wonderful control and shoot with very smooth and fluid technique. Most likely their current technique is the best representation of these concepts. If one sees old (1-2 years ago) videos of them shooting and sees 'different' things, this is because they are going through a learning process which as archers, they are synthesizing with their bodies. 

+++++

Terry,

many thanks for helping with all the explanations. With you, who needs books?! *grins*

best,
--tyler


----------



## OldSchoolNEO (May 11, 2009)

Steven Cornell said:


> I to was one of the coaches that attended the first Best Seminar when Coach Lee arrived.
> I am also a member of Cincinnati Junior Olympians.
> Our club president just so happens to be Darrel Pace.
> When I returned, I was telling Darrell about the Best Method.
> ...


My point exactly!


----------



## gig'em 99 (Feb 1, 2008)

Thank you Tyler for posting and clarifying. Its extremely helpful to have video that illustrates the concepts properly. I'm sure when the new book comes out, we'll have a thread or two dedicated to it!

"The Darrell Method" Although a catchy title, I know the question about why Mr. Pace has never written a book has been around for quite a while. I'm sure most of us would love to hear specifics from him and even comments or his thoughts on BEST and how it is being unrolled.

This forum is a perfect place to discuss methods, their good and bad, make clarifications, their differences, etc as Terry has already clearly demonstrated. So I hope that we do get more people willing to lay it out there, and expose their ideas with the reasoning behind it. I still believe we can continue to have a meaningful conversation, without bickering.

Thanks to all that have contributed!


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

I'd like to know exactly where in that last clip you can see any thing resembling a transfer or a relaxation. It just looks like a rotation.

If we have 30 frames per second on normal video, we should be able to see somewhere in the 30 to 60 frames from reaching anchor to the click where this movement takes place.

We should be able to see it with three frames overlaying each other if it is at all possible to do. The first image should be the position upon reaching anchor. The second the position after transfer has been achieved and a third where the clicker has dropped, but the release has not started.

This latest clip from Tyler is rather interesting and as an unaimed blank bail shot, and I believe rather atypical of what kisik is looking for 

I've attached two frames of Tylers shot. The first is as close to reaching anchor as I could get and the second is right after the clicker dropped. Youtube is not particularly usefull when it come to capturing frames at specific places during the shot :shade:

Surely someone should be able to post a video and or an animation of this movement if it can be seen.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

When I look at the video, not the clips that Pete posted, I can clearly see Transfer taking place between frames 140 and 155. The relaxation, or load shifting if that is what Pete is talking about, is an internal action and can't be seen. Transfer will often look like more rotation because it is an additional movement of Lan2 which is moved angularly to begin with. 

Terry


----------



## Greg Bouras (Nov 17, 2006)

At one point during my study of BEST I copied what I think is some very useful information from the Archery Australia site. In that information I don’t recall if it was the Biomechanics or the Advanced Shooting Technique PDF file that author(s) do a very good job of showing that a muscle reaches its peak load carrying capacity when at half extension. The bicep muscle is used as an example by the author. Knowing this has helped me position the draw side middle and lower trapezoid to (from what I understand is biomechanically efficient) exert less effort to pull through the clicker.

Question 1. How is the above description differing from what the Transfer phase is trying to accomplish? That is stated another way could the Transfer phase be described as positioning the “Lower Back Muscles at mid extension?

Question 2. Much is said about “Lower Back Muscles” my understanding is that the reference is primarily the trapezoid muscle and in particular the trap middle and lower fibers. This seems correct after a look at the amount of muscle mass involved, their spinal origin and insertion points on the scapula.

Great Information Terry Thanks in advance for any consideration to my questions.


----------



## gig'em 99 (Feb 1, 2008)

Greg Bouras said:


> At one point during my study of BEST I copied what I think is some very useful information from the Archery Australia site. In that information I don’t recall if it was the Biomechanics or the Advanced Shooting Technique PDF file that author(s) do a very good job of showing that a muscle reaches its peak load carrying capacity when at half extension. The bicep muscle is used as an example by the author. Knowing this has helped me position the draw side middle and lower trapezoid to (from what I understand is biomechanically efficient) exert less effort to pull through the clicker.
> 
> Question 1. How is the above description differing from what the Transfer phase is trying to accomplish? That is stated another way could the Transfer phase be described as positioning the “Lower Back Muscles at mid extension?
> 
> ...


In Total Archery, page 95 -_3. Upper Trapezius - During the initial draw to anchor there appears to be more tension, however this decreases significantly after transfer...._

Then on page 96- _Lower Trapezius - We can see a greater and earlier engagement of the stronger Lower Trapezius muscle, when coming from set-up to anchor. This increase in muscle activity will allow reduced tension in the upper and middle trapezius, biceps, posterior deltoid and flexors..._

These two excerpts are explaining what EMG results are showing from utilzing this method, and in particular, what is happening during the transfer phase. The muscles that have drawn the arrow back to anchor, upper and middle trap, biceps and deltoids, can be relieved to a degree while the "stronger" lower trap takes over.

This is what also allows for the scapular configuration illustrated on page 90 in diagram 5, where the draw scapulae is positioned lower than the bow arm scapulae and the bottom of the draw scapulae is rotated clockwise towards the spine. This scapular alignment won't occur if the lower trap isn't taking on load or being engaged properly.

So as I read the initial description and compare to my understanding of what the method is recommending, it seems that it is describing what is happening at tranfer. But be careful to refer to the muscles as "lower back muscles." As this is specific to the lower trapezoid. So your statement 2 is right on.

Just my 2 cents...or 10 cents maybe.


----------



## tylerbenner (May 29, 2009)

Sorry Pete, you just did not choose the right time to take snap shots for your photos. Since transfer is a rotation of the shoulder unit, you would really only see horizontal (parallel with the ground) elbow movement, more around the body. For a more correct starting point of your snap shots, you should wait until the archer's elbow has stopped its vertical movement. Transfer only lasts .25 to .5 seconds. Movement should be seen as the elbow and arm/shoulder unit moving just slightly more around the head (rotationally). Transfer definitely can be seen externally. (As further clarification Pete, this video was not taken from a tripod. It may be difficult to analyze one frame versus another because the camera likely moved enough to skew any perception of movement.)

There are dozens of pictures in the new book, Inside the Archer, (www.AstraArchery.com) that show the exact movement in frame by frame analysis, complete with guidelines drawn on them and instruction pointing out exactly what to look for.

If you are interested, please check out a copy. The book is the best way to show what is going on here. The topic requires a good bit of conversation and viewpoints from multiple dimensions to help people learn and understand it entirely.


----------



## tylerbenner (May 29, 2009)

A quick sneak peak:

http://www.tylerbenner.com/skitch//..._HR.pdf_(page_156_of_270)-20090711-011103.jpg

http://www.tylerbenner.com/skitch//..._HR.pdf_(page_158_of_270)-20090711-011311.jpg

Hopefully this helps to clear up a few things. (As you can see, it is very tiny movement)

To see a lot more detail, please purchase a copy of Inside the Archer at www.AstraArchery.com


----------



## massman (Jun 21, 2004)

*My personal experience...*

After shooting a compound on and off for 30 years fingers and a little Aid shooting I took up the recurve back in 2000/01. Using what I see as a "traditional" American style (upper back muscles) I could shoot about 30 arrows before I had to stop. I then couldn't shoot for 3-4 days after because of a rotor cuff injury sustained playing softball. I was to a point after shooting a couple of FITA's in 01 of thinking of going back to the compound. I was working with a Level II with his JOAD. I heard of a Level II cert course in my area that would also be instructing in BEST (back muscles usage). I took the course and then spend the next 3 months learning how to use and strengthen my lower back muscles. I wrote an article that is on the Texas website on this very point.

Learning to use this method allowed me to eliminate most/any draw shoulder and eliminate the rotorcuff pain 100%. Now I can shoot at will with out pain or pain the day after. For me the technique is no less that an archery miracle. Allowing me to continue to enjoy the recurve sport at my level. I shoot to shoot. I never am in the competition to score well because I do not have nor set aside the time to practice as I should. Time is spend teaching and enjoying the students progress. But for me I'm completely grateful to be able to shoot without pain. Yesterday I shot in a new string and tuned the bow and shot some initial marks for an upcoming tourny. About 130+ shots easily. No pain yesterday and no pain today. 

BEST Regards,

Tom


----------



## gig'em 99 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Korean Method*

I wanted to post a few links that I though some of you might find interesting. They've been around for a while, and many of you may have read them before. These links are a 3 part article, written by Chris Shull in 2002 when he and Guy Krueger were able to go and train with the Koreans. I believe these articles were also published in Archery Focus around that time. These articles give a lot of specifics about the "Korean Method," and although a bit dated, never the less, provide a lot of very interesting information. Enjoy!

Intro Article: http://www.texasarchery.org/Documents/KoreanTechnique/Ktech.htm

Part 1:
http://www.texasarchery.org/Documents/Shull/6-6rt300.pdf

Part 2:
http://www.texasarchery.org/Documents/Shull/7-1rt300.pdf

Part 3:
http://www.texasarchery.org/Documents/Shull/7-2rt300.pdf


----------



## clement (Feb 5, 2009)

*Expansion*

Just a very dumb question from a very novice archer:

Exactly what moves during the so called expansion?

Thanks


----------



## OldSchoolNEO (May 11, 2009)

clement said:


> Just a very dumb question from a very novice archer:
> 
> Exactly what moves during the so called expansion?
> 
> Thanks



Here is a simple explanation from a non-expert...


Hold a stretch band in your hands
Put your arms straight out to the side (like a "T") till the band touches your chest.
Squeeze your shoulder blades together.
The result of this is that the band expands.
This is the same principle of using back tension. Only you are expanding the bow until the arrow breaks the clicker.
HTH


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

With BEST, Expansion is simply more Lan2 angular movement. Thinking about which body part is moving only causes problems because the archer is typically trying to find or feel that part move. During the Draw, Loading, Anchor, and Transfer steps, you have already focused your action on moving Lan2. This engagement isn't relaxed when you get to Expansion. As a result, you only slowly increase the intensity of moving Lan2 to make Expansion happen. You do have to have great clicker control to make Expansion work properly.

In case some folks don't know, BEST doesn't squeeze the scapulas together to get expansion to happen. 

Terry


----------



## moot (Jul 10, 2009)

bownut-tl. said:


> With BEST, Expansion is simply more Lan2 angular movement. Thinking about which body part is moving only causes problems because the archer is typically trying to find or feel that part move. During the Draw, Loading, Anchor, and Transfer steps, you have already focused your action on moving Lan2. This engagement isn't relaxed when you get to Expansion. As a result, you only slowly increase the intensity of moving Lan2 to make Expansion happen. You do have to have great clicker control to make Expansion work properly.
> 
> In case some folks don't know, BEST doesn't squeeze the scapulas together to get expansion to happen.
> 
> Terry


Terry,
Just curious if you are noticing any of the kids from other countries doing the BEST Method at the youth worlds this week in UT.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Moot,

I'm not in Utah and I haven't seen any video so I don't know.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Terry, why are we still referring to this location as "Lan2" ? Do you know?

Very confusing for the average person to understand. Gotta be a better name for that than "Lan2". 

John.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

John, 

We still use it because Coach Lee does and once someone learns where the spot is, using the name has never been a problem. Since the spot isn't part of the normal anatomy like the elbow or rear deltoid, it wouldn't matter what I called it, people would have to learn that name. We would just trade one name for another. The reason we use that spot is simple. It is extremely difficult to move it linearly without a lot of unwanted body movement. 

Terry


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bownut-tl. said:


> John,
> 
> We still use it because Coach Lee does and once someone learns where the spot is, using the name has never been a problem. Since the spot isn't part of the normal anatomy like the elbow or rear deltoid, it wouldn't matter what I called it, people would have to learn that name. We would just trade one name for another. The reason we use that spot is simple. It is extremely difficult to move it linearly without a lot of unwanted body movement.
> 
> Terry


I'm not sure what you are saying here. Do you mean that the spot isn't the same on different people and isn't actually a specific muscle or muscle group?


----------



## pbdollar (May 1, 2005)

bownut-tl. said:


> John,
> 
> We still use it because Coach Lee does and once someone learns where the spot is, using the name has never been a problem. Since the spot isn't part of the normal anatomy like the elbow or rear deltoid, it wouldn't matter what I called it, people would have to learn that name. We would just trade one name for another. The reason we use that spot is simple. It is extremely difficult to move it linearly without a lot of unwanted body movement.
> 
> Terry


Will someone please post a picture of an archer at full draw and a pointer or fingertip touching the Lan2 location. Thought I knew where you were refering to but now am a bit confused and a pic would clear things up a lot.


----------



## OldSchoolNEO (May 11, 2009)

Warbow said:


> I'm not sure what you are saying here. Do you mean that the spot isn't the same on different people and isn't actually a specific muscle or muscle group?


From post #50...



bownut-tl. said:


> Pete and others,
> 
> A couple have tried to answer the Lan2 location. I wil expand on it a bit.
> 
> ...


----------



## OldSchoolNEO (May 11, 2009)

pbdollar said:


> Will someone please post a picture of an archer at full draw and a pointer or fingertip touching the Lan2 location. Thought I knew where you were refering to but now am a bit confused and a pic would clear things up a lot.


from Tyler's post #108 and his book...

http://www.tylerbenner.com/skitch//..._HR.pdf_(page_156_of_270)-20090711-011103.jpg


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

In an earlier post I described Lan2. For some it is a spot (can point to it with one or two fingers) on the back of the arm/shoulder and for others it is a general region (can use the palm of my hand to show where it is). How we describe it to a person depends upon how easily they can imagine moving it. As long as the movement is correct, we aren't picky about the specific location. 

Terry


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Thanks for the help OldSchoolNeo. 

Terry


----------



## OldSchoolNEO (May 11, 2009)

bownut-tl. said:


> Thanks for the help OldSchoolNeo.
> 
> Terry


You're quite welcome.
Thank you for all the time you’ve spent.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

So, is it safe to say that LAN2 is imaginary? Just a visualization tool to help achieve a desired motion?


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Warbow,

In general terms you are correct. As an example: let's say I wanted to help somene learn to lift their hand above a table top. I tell them to place their hand on the table palm down. I could try to tell them which muscles to contract or relax to make the hand come up or I could take a pen and draw a dot on the back of the hand and simply ask them to focus on the dot and raise it. If they can raise the dot, the hand has to rise with it and they let the brain figure out what to do with the muscles. Lan2 is synonomous with the dot on the back of the hand.


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

tylerbenner said:


> Sorry Pete, you just did not choose the right time to take snap shots for your photos. Since transfer is a rotation of the shoulder unit, you would really only see horizontal (parallel with the ground) elbow movement, more around the body.


Thanks for the explanation Tyler. I actually do see a few frames in there of horizontal movement as the elbow stops moving upward to finish anchoring (where my first frame is captured by the way). I see the transfer as nothing more than a movement or change in direction as you are finishing the anchor. 

The combination of this, the concept of angular movement and getting the draw arm elbow behind the line of the arrow are all causing the excessive load and tension built up in all archers trying and or shooting this technique. All of these concepts create tension outside the actual direction of the load and are the reason for the increase in injuries seen with the technique and what I believe Mr. Tone was refering to above.

I'll suggest that simply keeping the minimum tension required to draw the bow as the fingers relax off the string is the proper way to keep from "dumping". Archery is a very simple game in the end of the day. BEST is spending way too much energy and stress trying to mechanically fix something that is simply in the control of the minds eye all along. Hold the draw and continue to hold the draw as the fingers relax. It's really quite simple.

As Jay Barrs once told me. "Pull it back and when it clicks, let go".

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Terry, I guess I expected we would be using another name for that location by now. "Lan2" just sounds silly. I mean, where did "Lan 1" go? It's not even a word. At least, not an English word. I just assumed it meant something in Korean and it had not been translated. Never knew where the "2" came from...

There's gotta be a better name we could use besides "Lan 2". Kinda reminds me of pig Latin...

John.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

John,

I remember Coach Lee being asked the question of where Lan2 came from but I don't recall his answer. Just for info, Lan1 is on the front of the shoulder. We just don't use it. Also, Lan1 and Lan2 exists for the bow shoulder as well but we don't reference those either. We didn't change the name because it was easy to remember and once you learned it, there simply wasn't any compelling reason to change it. Just like using the term "back tension". The back muscles are being contracted and not placed under tension yet we still use the term that describes one thing to actually mean something else. It's just a name. At the OTC, If I asked every RA or JDT member (past or present) that is shooting BEST to tell me where Lan2 is, they all know what I mean with no further explanation needed. People accept all those crazy sounding names for various body parts, I see no reason why they can't accept "Lan2". 

Who knows, if folks have a problem with "Lan2", maybe the name will change to "the-imaginary-spot-or-region-located-near-the-middle-of-the-draw-side-rear-deltoid-muscle-or-located-approximately-midway-between the-rear-deltoid-muscle-and-the-tricep muscle". Or we could call it "TISORLNTMOTDSRDMOLAMBTRDMATTM". I'll live with Lan2. Another one could be the "Draw Side Focal Point or DSFP. You still need to describe it just like Lan2 and Lan2 is easiser to say than DSFP. 

Terry


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bownut-tl. said:


> John,
> 
> Who knows, if folks have a problem with "Lan2", maybe the name will change to "the-imaginary-spot-or-region-located-near-the-middle-of-the-draw-side-rear-deltoid-muscle-or-located-approximately-midway-between the-rear-deltoid-muscle-and-the-tricep muscle". Or we could call it "TISORLNTMOTDSRDMOLAMBTRDMATTM". I'll live with Lan2. Another one could be the "Draw Side Focal Point or DSFP. You still need to describe it just like Lan2 and Lan2 is easiser to say than DSFP.
> 
> Terry


While your satirical example is loquacious I think it is better than LAN2. LAN2 gives the false impression that "LAN2" is an actual anatomical reference rather than a subjective visualization tool. Since BEST is supposed to be science based it is natural for those of us who don't know it well to presume that "LAN2" is an anatomical reference rather than a visualization tool, so your posts on this matter are helpful.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

*Darrell Method*

I too am from CJO, and if I tell you it is a thrill to watch Darrell Pace shoot!
You can set a watch by his timing.

Listen the most important thing in shooting is to do the same thing repeatedly! We have one of our kids who was the ONLY NON JDT member on the OR line, for medal matches, at JOAD Nationals in PA this year! Our student doesn't shoot the BEST method, nor does he want to change anything right now. His form works for him. He was asked to be on JDT, but respectfully declined for several different reasons.

The Darrell method works, the BEST method works! Like I said , the most important thing to to is to repeat the same steps every time you shoot!

Coach Lee took Darrell and Rick and broke down every movement they did and voila, Bio-mechanical Efficient Shooting Technique was born!

Koodos to Coach Lee for breaking it down, but better yet, thanks to Darrell and Rick, for giving Coach Lee the inspiration to say what did they do right? How can we show everyone to shoot like that?!

Shoot a lot and get it in your mind and muscles, Practice perfection, and perfection you will have! 

Shoot your form, the score will follow!!


----------



## Rugby (Feb 13, 2003)

So looking from the outside in, it would appear the US hired a Korean coach to teach US archers the Darryl Method (a US one) using an imaginery spot in the back.

I hope it works out.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Hopefully we will be able to move beyond the name issue, but let me ask this: If I said the "spot" was anatomically located on the outer surface and middle of the rear deltoid muscle, would that buy one anything? Can you feel or see this spot when you shoot? Try as I might, I can't do either one. Since I can't see it or feel it, I may as well rely on visualization. When I do that, I can see the spot in my minds eye and I can visualize moving it via shoulder girdle rotation. 

Now, I can understand people first thinking Lan2 was a physical location like the tip of the nose or elbow or something. Once the definition is given, one should be able to accept it and move on. For those that can't or haven't, we will simply have to come up with something else for them. They can call it what they wish. 

Terry


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> maybe the name will change to "the-imaginary-spot-or-region-located-near-the-middle-of-the-draw-side-rear-deltoid-muscle-or-located-approximately-midway-between the-rear-deltoid-muscle-and-the-tricep muscle". Or we could call it "TISORLNTMOTDSRDMOLAMBTRDMATTM".


Now that's funny 

Actually Terry, I like your DSFP better. Makes a lot more sense than some imaginary made-up name. But your point about "back tension" is well taken. 



> So looking from the outside in, it would appear the US hired a Korean coach to teach US archers the Darryl Method (a US one) using an imaginery spot in the back.
> 
> I hope it works out.


Rugby, based on the scores I just saw by the Koreans at the Jr. World Champ's, I'd say we need a Korean coach to teach us the Korean method... And that's merely a statistical observation. 

John.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

John,

It would also help a lot if we could use the Korean method for selecting and training archers. 

Terry


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

bownut-tl. said:


> It would also help a lot if we could use the Korean method for selecting and training archers.


Help what? Win more medals or have more people enjoy the sport of archery?

I'll suggest the latter is what America is all about and much more important than winning medals. The powers that be these days seem to see it a bit differently though and the reason many are so frustrated with this program and technique :shade::shade::shade:

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## ButchD (Nov 11, 2006)

> So looking from the outside in, it would appear the US hired a Korean coach to teach US archers the Darryl Method (a US one) using an imaginery spot in the back.
> 
> I hope it works out


. 

Lol! As a somewhat mature pursuant of BEST, a little levity is useful.



> Rugby, based on the scores I just saw by the Koreans at the Jr. World Champ's, I'd say we need a Korean coach to teach us the Korean method... And that's merely a statistical observation.


Based on my reading of :


> Intro Article: http://www.texasarchery.org/Document...ique/Ktech.htm
> 
> Part 1:
> http://www.texasarchery.org/Document...l/6-6rt300.pdf
> ...


, there are a number of factors which could partially explain the performance differences between South Korea and the USA.
Initial instruction is a rigorous system to promote proper form. Shooting is later. 
Archery is promoted in elementary school through University and into the business setting. To qualify for a Corporate team, FITA 1330.
Recurve archery is sponsored: 


> “The Korean‘s financial security
> runs on archery, and there is a
> ton of pressure from the people at
> home to perform. (Ms. Yun made
> US$185,000 for her two golds.)”


I'm quite certain that Olympic level archers from the USA have no less focus or committment than the Koreans, however, I'm uncertain if we would be willing to emulate their program to achieve greater success.
Apologies for the verbosity! Great thread.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Pete,

I appologize. I must have misunderstood John's post. I didn't realize his comment about the Koreans at the Utah tourney was about having more people enjoy the sport of archery. Some of the hidden meanings in posts is harder to learn and understand than learning what Lan2 is. 

Terry


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

Terry, maybe you should get out some more. Maybe go to a national or international tournament or two. You might start to get it if you did 

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## Steven Cornell (Mar 22, 2003)

c3hammer said:


> Terry, maybe you should get out some more. Maybe go to a national or international tournament or two. You might start to get it if you did
> 
> Cheers,
> Pete


Wow Pete. :mg:
Is this an attack on Terry?
Terry is a JR. Dream Team Coach and spends at least 4 weeks on Jr. Dream Team camp. Now he also works for a living. So how much vacation do you think he gets to go to Tournaments?

He got on this tread to explain and then people jump on him.


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

Sorry Steve and Terry. That's the problem with humor. It's difficult to write without being taken wrong. 

Johns original post was in jest about using the korean method. Terry's next was in jest about selecting and training like the koreans. My next was a little dig about how that's not what we really want to be doing. Terry's answer was again, in jest about how he didn't read that into it. Again I was just poking fun at him in my last post about how he could read that into it if he would get out a little more often.

That's how I read and posted to those. Sorry if anyone found that as a personal attack. It wasn't meant that way.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Actually, I was just making an objective observation myself. However, I guess I'm not afforded that opportunity any longer as I "know too much"... ha, ha.

come on now folks, let's not get so darn serious about all this. I can easily imagine Terry, Pete, Steve and I sitting down eating barbeque and having a cold one, teasing one another about all this nonsense. At least, that's how I see it. I never get angry about any of this stuff because to me, it's ALL icing on the cake of life... Like it or not, it's just recreation to all but a minute few who's jobs actually depend (or so it would appear) on this stuff.

Truth is, we're all the "peanut gallery" here on AT anyway. Anyone who takes these discussions too seriously is the one that needs to "get out" more often 

But I'll say again - purely from a statistical perspective, the Korean method still seems to be winning ! 

Feel free to take that however you want. YMMV 

And we need to find out what Miranda is having for breakfast these days. Whatever it is, it's working! 

John.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Pete, 

I knew in advance you were going to suggest I get out more. That is why I will be in El Salvadore later this month and then Nationals to help the kids. 

I do need to get out more because I have been spending so much time making finger tabs and spacers for the JDT kids and some RAs and other things for Coach Lee that even my hand is tired of seeing me. 

Steve, it will be seven weeks vacation this year.

Terry


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

John,

As long as that cold one is a Mt. Dew, you're on. 

Terry


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Terry,

Mt. Dew it is... 

As for me....  :darkbeer:

John.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bownut-tl. said:


> We didn't change the name because it was easy to remember and once you learned it, there simply wasn't any compelling reason to change it. Just like using the term "back tension". The back muscles are being contracted and not placed under tension yet we still use the term that describes one thing to actually mean something else. It's just a name.


I'm curious about this. I've heard it said that Coach Lee didn't understand why used the English term Back Tension because it is an inaccurate description of how the muscles in the back are used. But I'm confused by your statement that the muscles in the back are not under tension. If you are contracting against a load you are presumably placing them under tension.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

It is my understanding that the muscles used to move bone are in either a fully contracted state, fully relaxed state or, most probably, somewhere in between. I have never heard of a muscle moving bone via tensioning the muscle. Are muscles under some tension, meaning, are they being pulled by other muscles in an attempt to lengthen them to permit a particular movement... Yes. Did tension cause the bone to move...no. It was caused by muscle contraction. 

Someone with more knowledge than I have may wish to correct me if I am wrong or expand on this in a way that is clearer or makes more sense. I caused enough trouble with that "Lan" thing.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bownut-tl. said:


> It is my understanding that the muscles used to move bone are in either a fully contracted state, fully relaxed state or, most probably, somewhere in between. I have never heard of a muscle moving bone via tensioning the muscle. Are muscles under some tension, meaning, are they being pulled by other muscles in an attempt to lengthen them to permit a particular movement... Yes. Did tension cause the bone to move...no. It was caused by muscle contraction.
> 
> Someone with more knowledge than I have may wish to correct me if I am wrong or expand on this in a way that is clearer or makes more sense. I caused enough trouble with that "Lan" thing.


Well, what do you think "tension" is? When you contract a your bicep to curl a dumbbell, muscle contracts and puts tension on the ligaments which lever your bones to move your arm. No tension means no movement.

tension |ˌtɛnʃən|
noun
1 the state of being stretched tight : the parachute keeps the cable under tension as it drops.
• the state of having the muscles stretched tight, esp. as causing strain or discomfort : the elimination of neck tension can relieve headaches.
• a strained state or condition resulting from forces acting in opposition to each other.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

When back tension is being discussed, people aren't talking about what the connective tissue is doing. The discussion has always been limited to the muscle fibres themselves. Muscles only contract, or shorten, or relax. They don't lengthen on their own without some outside force causing it to happen. It is within that context that I am talking about the back and muscle usage.

My description was limited to describing what the muscle is actually doing to cause a bone to move. The definitions you posted don't apply.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bownut-tl. said:


> When back tension is being discussed, people aren't talking about what the connective tissue is doing. The discussion has always been limited to the muscle fibres themselves. Muscles only contract, or shorten, or relax. They don't lengthen on their own without some outside force causing it to happen. It is within that context that I am talking about the back and muscle usage.
> 
> My description was limited to describing what the muscle is actually doing to cause a bone to move. The definitions you posted don't apply.


If they don't then I'm even more confused. The muscles are part of the Musculoskeletal *system*. If muscles contract they create tension in the system--which applies whether you are talking about tendons or "muscle fibers themselves."


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Warbow, just let it go man... 

I think everyone knows what "back tension" means well enough. It is a pretty intuitive term. Take a guy off the street, and he could 1) point at his back and 2) tense it up. It's not a stretch from that to understanding why the term came to be used as it is. "Lan 2" on the other hand... :shade:

I love the funny looks I would get when I used that term. Spent more time trying to explain what that meant (and offer explantions why it wasn't important that the name sounded goofy) than I really cared to. So, I just thought a better term would be, well, better -and coaches wouldn't have to deal with the "Lan-what?" factor so much...

John.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Warbow, just let it go man...
> 
> I think everyone knows what "back tension" means well enough. It is a pretty intuitive term. Take a guy off the street, and he could 1) point at his back and 2) tense it up. It's not a stretch from that to understanding why the term came to be used as it is. "Lan 2" on the other hand... :shade:
> 
> ...


Well, John, I'm not trying to start an argument on this issue. But I am seeking clarification on my understanding and Terry's on "back tension" "LAN2", etc. I have no doubt that terry understands the execution of [insert name here] better than I do. That is just a given, but I am genuinely mystified to hear him say that tensed muscles are, well, not under tension--which means either I really don't understand what he's saying or he doesn't understand physics and anatomy, and I have a hard time believing he's ignorant of physics and anatomy, hence the reason I'm a bit flummoxed by his responses.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Warbow,

You are talking about the entire system. My example was limited, although I could have made it clearer, to just the muscle fibre itself. The skeletal muscles will only contract or relax. That is it. When I was talking about tension, I was talking about an action and not a result or condition.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

I understand physics and anatomy. If a skeletal muscle does something other than contract or relax to move bone, then please educate me.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

John,

I will take the advice you gave Warbow and let it go. I'm tired of typing on my phone. 

Terry


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bownut-tl. said:


> I understand physics and anatomy. If a skeletal muscle does something other than contract or relax to move bone, then please educate me.


You are, of course, correct in that. Muscles only contract or relax. They pull, they do not push. But when they pull they create tension. I think we are talking across each other.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Ok, I lied, sort of. 

Warbow, I agree.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Terry, I don't know how you do that on your phone. I never even would have tried... 

My big fat thumbs don't type on anything smaller than an IBM Selectric II 

John.


----------



## InKYfromSD (Feb 6, 2004)

*A new book?*

So, when can we expect "The Shot Cycle Explained for The Common Man, Complete With Twenty-Seven 8x10 Glossies With Circles And Arrows On The Back" to hit the shelves? Or do I need to keep cutting and pasting into a Word document?


----------



## Mr. Black Magic (Sep 13, 2007)

.............Meanwhile.....As US archers become more embroiled in Anatomy texts and sawing up cadavers to find the ever elusive "archery muscle" responsible for the shot.

............Some foolish clod living in the right brain picked up a bow and shot gold:


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

John,

For me it isn't easy doing it on a phone either. The frustrating part is when I log in, write a quick post then submit it just to have AT tell me I'm not logged in and I have to do that again and refresh the page just to have AT lose what I typed so I get to start over. I have probably typed twice as much as I have posted when I use the phone. 

Terry


----------



## Georgemay (May 27, 2008)

InKYfromSD said:


> So, when can we expect "The Shot Cycle Explained for The Common Man, Complete With Twenty-Seven 8x10 Glossies With Circles And Arrows On The Back" to hit the shelves? Or do I need to keep cutting and pasting into a Word document?


I already have it!:darkbeer:

Reading it right now.

George


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

You don't need me anymore. 

Terry


----------



## ButchD (Nov 11, 2006)

Terry,
Thanks for your time! There are folks who need to hear this. Butch


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

I'll stick around and answer questions as they come up. I may not have to post a discussion like I did before unless a question requires it. I'll just see how things go.

Terry


----------



## Rugby (Feb 13, 2003)

"Rugby, based on the scores I just saw by the Koreans at the Jr. World Champ's, I'd say we need a Korean coach to teach us the Korean method... And that's merely a statistical observation"

Limbwalker; While the Korean women pretty much own the Olympics the Korean men do not even come close. They may shoot the best scores outside of the Olympics but do not seem to have the mental game to perform at the olympic matchplay. The team does well but individually something is lacking. A Korean man has never won individual gold at an Olympics whereas the US has won the mens title 5 times. 

Perhaps the Koreans could learn something from the US coaches involved with the US Olympic success?


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Rugby said:


> "Rugby, based on the scores I just saw by the Koreans at the Jr. World Champ's, I'd say we need a Korean coach to teach us the Korean method... And that's merely a statistical observation"
> 
> Limbwalker; While the Korean women pretty much own the Olympics the Korean men do not even come close. They may shoot the best scores outside of the Olympics but do not seem to have the mental game to perform at the olympic matchplay. The team does well but individually something is lacking. A Korean man has never won individual gold at an Olympics whereas the US has won the mens title 5 times.
> 
> Perhaps the Koreans could learn something from the US coaches involved with the US Olympic success?


Since the start of OR at Olympic games:


Gold Silver Bronze
1992 I FRA KOR GBR
T ESP FIN GBR
1996 I USA SWE KOR
T USA KOR ITA
2000 I AUS USA NED
T KOR ITA USA
2004 I ITA JAP AUS
T KOR TPE UKR
2008 I UKR KOR RUS
T KOR ITA CHI 

Total 

1) KOR 7
2) USA 4
ITA 4
4) GBR 2
AUS 2
UKR 2
7) RUS 1
CHI 1
JAP 1
SWE 1
NED 1
TPE 1
ESP 1
FRA 1
FIN 1


Then, if you go to the World championships, Korea has won all Men's gold medals but 2 sice 1993, individual and teams. 
The introduction of the Olympic Round has increased the dominace of Korea on men's side, not decreased it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Thanks Rugby, I didn't know my Olympic archery history... 

Vittorio, your statistics are spot-on.

If I were a betting man, I think I'd put my money on the "korean" method, thank you... I've noticed several other countries who's names are at the top of the leaderboards have decided to do just that. India, Mexico, Australia, etc., etc.

_____________________________________________________________

On another issue I've been wondering about -

A lot has been made about the "sheer numbers" the Koreans turn out to compete in archery, and how other countries "simply can't compete" with those numbers. I don't think I buy that entirely.

I mean, as with anything, there is a law of diminishing returns that kicks in after a certain number. What I mean is, it shouldn't take 10,000 archers to produce 5 elites. I doubt it would take 5,000 or even 1,000. But maybe it does.

But what I find hard to believe is that countries with even just a few thousand young archers are not capable of producing enough elite archers to compete with any other country in the world - regardless of how many young archers they may have.

Reason I think this is that we're only sending 3 men and 3 women to each event (Oly. or world champ's). If we were sending teams of 20, then yea, I'd say we don't have enough out there shooting to compete. But when the teams are only 3 and 3, I think it should be entirely possible for a country with even just a few hundred competitive archers to produce at least 3 elites in both men and women's divisions. 

So, the argument that we don't have enough "in the mill" just doesn't get it with me. I think it's an excuse at best. Like I said, there is a law of diminishing returns that kicks in at some point. 

Statistically, I think you could research all the countries, looking at their youth archer pool and the number of elite archers, and come up with some trends to refute the whole "numbers" argument.

John.


----------



## gig'em 99 (Feb 1, 2008)

InKYfromSD said:


> So, when can we expect "The Shot Cycle Explained for The Common Man, Complete With Twenty-Seven 8x10 Glossies With Circles And Arrows On The Back" to hit the shelves? Or do I need to keep cutting and pasting into a Word document?


The book is out. Total Archery - Inside the Archer 

I recieved my copy yesterday, and so far, I'm quite impressed with it. This book departs from the "9 steps" or "12 steps" archery process. This book, complete with illustrations, numbered, with lines, arrows, etc...is highly descriptive about all components of the shot. For example, no pictures of where the string crosses the fingers..this one literally describes the process of hooking the string, how to account for differences in finger length, etc. Finger angles, etc. Plenty of pictures too...did I already type that? Now, this is a BEST methodology book, so the techniques described fit into Coach Lee's method. The reasoning behind why things are done is explained, in addition to just "I do it this way." Another very interesting aspect of this book is how it continually emphasizes how each step is interconnected. And how doing something incorrectly with your stance or posture for example, will cause a disconnection with another part of the shot. Very intriguing.

Regardless of your opinion of the right method to use during a shot, this book has a lot of very useful information. I couldn't imagine any archery coach or archer that wouldn't benefit from this book in some way. And I'm not even to the half way point. Just chapter 8. Tyler Benner has already posted where to find this book through his website...and I noticed that Lancaster is carrying copies as well on-line.

I will say that this is the most descriptive archery instruction book I've ever read. Its easy to read and understand, and I think that Coach Lee and Tyler et al have done a great job with this one. The introductions in this book also mention another book that Coach Lee is going to publish - one directed at coaches, as this one is really directed at the shooter.

Gig'em


----------



## ButchD (Nov 11, 2006)

Gig-em,
Thanks for the heads up. I checked with Lancaster twice, and they think they'll have the book by August. Butch


----------



## OldSchoolNEO (May 11, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> Thanks Rugby, I didn't know my Olympic archery history...
> 
> Vittorio, your statistics are spot-on.
> 
> ...


The following is just MHO...

As I understand it, the Korean's (and others) are looking at more potential archer and weeding out the ones with the most potential. Those key archers are then taken into the program and programmed with said countries system of doing things ... with less say in the matter than here in the USA. So, in my mind, they are looking at, say several hundred archers, and pigeon holing them into one program and that's that for the archer. Here, we have many clubs across the Nation that are not one system (really) so our ability to find *most *of the good ones is much, much less. The one’s we do find are then left to (mostly) their own resources to train and develop their skills.
*BUT*, that’s what makes the USA what it is; people doing things out of their passion to succeed. With that said what great US archers really became great archers because of a program? John W., Darrell, Jay, Justin, Rick, Butch, Vic, Brady … we could go on and on but they are all great because of who they are not because of a pigeon-holing program. That’s not to say they were not involved with local clubs and/or JOAD along the way, but the system didn’t make them, it just tried to follow them as did other countries. 
I’m not sure if this Korean method or BEST method or any other method is the answer but one thing is for sure, we are lagging behind. I’ve always been told that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. We have to try something different.


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

OldSchoolNEO said:


> ....but one thing is for sure, we are lagging behind.


OldSchoolNEO, I can relate to what your saying, but I don't know if I'd call it lagging behind.

I've contended for a number of years now that our issue has nothing to do with the quality of coaching, the techniuqe or any of those issues, but purely a concept of individuals paying to play on their own vs. state sponsored sport in many of these foreign countries.

Here in the US we had 43 ladies shooting outdoor nationals in the senior division in 2007 before the first 2008 Olympic Trials. Korea had 57 women shoot over 1350 at theirs that year. They have more ladies shooting 1300's in their program than we have total recurve archers in the country who ever go out to shoot a tournament.

The simple fact that they pay to develop their program from the bottom up is where we are missing it. They have something like 3000 kids in their program. That's more than the total membership of USArchery.

Here we talk about developing our program from the bottom up, but the time and energy are being spent on fewer than 50 athletes. Obviously a balance is required, but the base needs to grow and our money and time need to go there to make it happen.

I don't know how to do it, but things like JOAD, NASP, the new Olympic Archery In Schools Program that the Easton Sports Foundation is funding are just a glimpse of where we need to go.

The director of our JOAD, Steve McKenna has raised money and equipment sponsors to allow our club to offer our JOAD for free to all who will show up. We now have about 50 kids shooting. One got 3rd at JOAD Nationals and another couple cadets are close to becoming nationally competitive. It's just a start for us, but for every kid in our program there are 10,000 more here in the valley that have no clue what archery is all about.

The question isn't what tension, contraction or technique should be taught, but how do we reach out to another 499,950 kids around here that might just hold the next world champion ???

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> how do we reach out to another 499,950 kids around here that might just hold the next world champion ???


Pete, I guess my question is, do we really need that many to start with?

Man, how I would love to take just 100 top high school athletes (high school all-Americans in whatever sport) and see if they could become elite archers. My gut tells me that within that 100, we would get at least 5 boys and 5 girls that could reach the elite levels...

I'm not sure how many USAT members (Sr. or Jr.) were ever high school varsity all American level in any of the common sports, but I seem to think it would be very few. In this country, the best athletes are playing football, softball, volleyball, swimming, tennis, baseball or another of the sports that are well funded and recognized nationwide. So I think it's a matter of us not being able to attract excellent athletes in the first place. Because when it comes down to it, the difference between a 1200 shooter and a 1300 shooter usually is pure athleticism, athletic intelligence, and the ability/desire to train and compete. That's very general, but I think it's true.

John.


----------



## Rugby (Feb 13, 2003)

Vittorio;

How many times has a Korean man won the individual archery gold medal at the Olympics?
Never.

How many times has a US man won individual archery gold medal at the Olympics?
Five times.

Which is the more dominant country?

Who has the best archery program in the world?
Korea.

Why don't the Korean men win the individual competition at the Olympics then?

It's all in the head at that level not just what method you shoot.

If I was a betting man (which I am not) Limbwalker I would never put money on a Korean man to win the individual Olympic competition. The stats speak for themselves.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Dear Rugby,

Since Olympic games went to OR format in 1992, Koreans have got seven medals and US and Italy 4 each in Men.
Olympics is just one competion shot every four years with very variable results.
Not so many countries have got more than one medal there, and for instance USA haven't got any medal after 2000 games, while Korea got 3 since then.
And since 1993 world Championships, Koreans have won 14 Gold medals in men, Italy 2 and others nations zero. 
If this is not almost totally mastering the OR game, I don't really know what they should do... 

Fita has changed the OR rules to decrese the number of Korean medals at the Olympics, with the only one result to incease their number. 

Total number of medals for Korea men and women from Athen to Beijing is definitely increased, as the OR format is favouring a lot the Korean nationaol archery program.

I'm presently in Ogden, an the power of the Korean Junior and Catet teams is simply shocking. Of course you may have some of them loosing one match here and there and not going to the finals, but the 4 teams are all in the God finals after showing a devastating supremacy. Think we all need to wash our eyes and look to the reality. It's purely a Korean game were sometime others are allowed to participate. By their generosity if they simpley don't participate, or based on statistical fact that in OR luck is now a strong part of the game rules.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

> Because when it comes down to it, the difference between a 1200 shooter and a 1300 shooter usually is pure athleticism, athletic intelligence, and the ability/desire to train and compete.


I would add time, resources and opportunity to that list. 

TAO


----------



## G4RB4G3M4N (Feb 12, 2009)

*"Rick's Feet"*



gig'em 99 said:


> Terry,
> Rick's feet position may be a bit wider or a bit too open to the target to comply is baseline BEST,
> 
> Gig'em


I will admit, I have not read Total Archery, but, I have read the Simple Art of Winning. And in it, Rick mentions three stances an archer may chose from. The reason his stance is to "open" or "wide" is by design. He calls it the "McKinney Stance". It is designed to provide better balance in windy conditions. Yes, it is very open, and a little odd to use, but I have tried using the stance on a windy day, and it does work for me. But, to everyone their own, be they the BEST, a Heritic, a Renagade, other style..... or (my word:mg Self Taught!


----------



## Rugby (Feb 13, 2003)

Vittorio; I cannot argue with the performance of Korea. Given their dominance at events how do you explain the failure of their men to win individual gold at the Olympic? They couldn't even win in 1988 under the old format at home (Seoul).

World Champs don't rate with Olympians, nice to win but ask any Olympian what medal they world rather have, Olympic or World Championship. They will all answer the same, OLYMPIC.

There is no question how good their training methods, talent identification, etc... are. My point is learning the "Korean" method is not "the answer", if it were then Korea would have earned another 5 gold medals.

All to often I see archers looking for that magic method, magic tip, bit of gear, form change that will make them a champion. There is so much more to it than that as I am sure you know. 

Learning the BEST method alone will not make you a champion, or learning the Darryl method or any method for that matter. I do not know what method the Ukranian archer used in China but it worked. Certainly not a classic method. Do you think if everyone copied the Ukranian's technique they would become winners. His head was in the right place that dayand good on him.


The Korean men win the team event at the Olympics because as a group they are so far out in front there is no pressure on them. Same with the women in both team and individual events.

If the Korean men can get their heads sorted out for the individual event then they would be virtually unstoppable.

Right now if I lined up for the gold medal match at the Olympics against a Korean I would feel confident and there is a lot to learn from that.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Right now if I lined up for the gold medal match at the Olympics against a Korean I would feel confident


My money would still be on the Korean 

Just a matter of time before they have a men's Oly. champion. This OR round is a fickle one. Rarely does the best archer win. That's not what it's about and everyone knows it. It's a performance, not a competition. A competition would have a different format. Double elimination at least. If we had that, then we would have seen mostly Korean champions in the past 4 games I think. Other Oly. events are double elimination. If archery were, then there would be no element of surprise left.

Since '92, there have only been five Men's Oly. champions. Five. Out of what? 320 competitors? So statistically, it is entirely possible that we could go another 20 years without a Korean man winning. In fact, its more than possible, it's statistically very likely.

If you want to get hung up on one event every 4 years, that's fine. But the volume of data that proves their dominance since 1988 is indisputable.

Oh, and four of the five U.S. golds were won by three men more than 21 years ago. I don't think that helps your argument today.

John.


----------



## Rugby (Feb 13, 2003)

The facility at Chula Vista is called the US Olympic Training Centre, so I guess I'm not the only one hung up on the Olympics.


----------



## strcpy (Dec 13, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Pete, I guess my question is, do we really need that many to start with?


Both yes and no.

In computer hardware (and to a lesser extent in software - where I more or less work) we have an idea called "Mean Time Between Failure". This is a statistical measurement that says how often something will fail.

For instance you purchase a hard drive that says you have a MTBF of 100,000 hours (realistic number) that doesn't mean you will get 100,000 hours out of your drive. The number only makes sense once you get to a large enough number of drives to be statistically significant (hard to say, but you do need quite a few). Ultimately what it means is if you 100,000 drive expect a failure every hour, 200,000 every half hour, 50,000 every two hours. One can not use that for a single drive - that means some will fail within the first hour and others will make it years.

We then note that this follows a normal distribution curve - or what is normally called a "bell curve". So, the more and more of those drives you get the further and further out you are likely to get extremes. For each drive that fails within 30 minutes you have to have either a number make it a long time or a few make it a *really* long time for everything to even out. Basically if you have 100,000 drives you are VERY likely to have some *really* long lasting once to offset those poor ones, even to the point of being +5/6 standard deviations out. In fact the more numbers you add the better those chances become - and those are the real winners. 

In the hardware case we are worried about failures, however we can then swap that around and say "Mean Time Between Olympic Gold". So, we can see the same thing. The difference here is that to add one or two to the upper reaches takes a few hundred thousand to get there and since that is what is needed for a *program* to win the difference between 100,000 and 200,000 is largely insurmountable over a longer term. That is if I have three competitors at that level and you have one then unless you are simply lucky enough to get the one HIGHLY skilled archer (the counter part to the one that could never shoot a bow at all) you can not expect to win other than luck. Then again I would rather be lucky than play the odds if there is only one winner and everyone else looses.

But, as with the hard drive example that is a program vs an individual. With an individual all bets are off. It doesn't matter how many you can draw from, you are only looking at a sample of one. When we start to talk about a program what the distribution curves are matters as to how dominate they will be. Three archers that are each 15 percent capable of winning will dominate one that is 25% capable of winning.

There are lots of ideas go into it - not only does simply raw talent but coaching does too. Someone who is Olympic Gold Quality has many variables in there. I'm a computer scientist so I do not know all that needs to be factored in there, the only thing I can do is read if they have understood those ideas and presented a mathematical concise description (much as I would when/if I peer review from any other scholarly field).

For the nest part note that a standard deviation is an average difference. One standard deviation either way will cover ~68% of the population. So one standard deviation is quite large - usually enough to not be over come. Basically someone 5 standard deviations out will dominate someone 4 out, indeed that is usually enough that the four SD can not hope to beat the 5 SD. The difference between 4 SD and 5 is insurmountable, 4 covers 99.99% and 5 covers 99.9999% of the population (and you have to half that as that includes both the high and the low).

Even without Standard Deviations we can easily say the following: how many "nines". That is at 99.99% of the population we need 20,000 to produce an archer of that caliber or better. At 99.999% we need 200,000 to do so, at 99.9999 we need 2 million. Yet at each one of those stages they are *dominate* to the ones below, so much so that it is nearly impossible to beat.

In the US's case I would be shocked to get much above 100,000 to draw from for the Olympic Rounds. Our archery programs are not geared towards producing them. We have the ability to do so, yet we do not. Compare to Korea that probably has nearly a million to draw from without a problem - they are dominate. That is what we see in real life too.

Now, there are other factors too - this assumes things like coaching is the same, it is not and that can make a BIG difference. So that one can be discussed till the end of time (yet I think out national coach at this moment has all the credentials needed to say that isn't an issue).

Of course, as I have been informed I have no students at the OTC and have never been there myself. My pedigree (as far as is known - which is not stated) grants me no amount of ability to read research papers and discuss statistical ideas with relation to archery. So, feel free to ignore, not the first time or last time.

Well, I hope that made sense - it's not an easy topic to try and explain and I've been in demos all day along with a rough set-up yesterday so I'm, well, tired (and being dyslexic I'm not the greatest at this type of short term impromptu writing either). However if anyone is truly interested lots of good discussions out there on the internet and they keywords should be easy enough to note.


----------



## Mr. Black Magic (Sep 13, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Pete, I guess my question is, do we really need that many to start with?
> 
> Man, how I would love to take just 100 top high school athletes (high school all-Americans in whatever sport) and see if they could become elite archers. My gut tells me that within that 100, we would get at least 5 boys and 5 girls that could reach the elite levels...
> 
> ...


Well Put.

I think a large part of the problem here is that Archery is not perceived as an athletic pursuit. Particularly by those who are attracted to the more common sports. I don't know how one would go about changing that view (maybe making them pass SEAL training in order to get into the program:wink but that would be necessary to increase the numbers to the point where you would get your hundred.

Alternatively you could poll from athletes who did well and have the drive but cannot compete in their first choice sport any more. An all star QB with knee problems might be a good candidate.

In cycling, a close eye is kept on young Triathletes, when the repetitive strain from running gets them the bike becomes more attractive:


----------



## Mr. Black Magic (Sep 13, 2007)

strcpy said:


> Both yes and no.
> 
> In computer hardware (and to a lesser extent in software - where I more or less work) we have an idea called "Mean Time Between Failure". This is a statistical measurement that says how often something will fail.
> 
> ...


The problem with using MTBF to predict a winning scenario is that it is solely designed to predict failure. It is a system of accounting for failure and would probably be best applied to statistical analysis of how often Gold Medals are NOT won. 

Were I to begin looking at metrics to affect a positive outcome, the manufacturing process is where I would look and most likely Six Sigma would be the model for creating success.

Or alternatively, I might recommend studying Henry Petroskis work beginning with "To Engineer Is Human: The role of failure in successful design".


----------



## OldSchoolNEO (May 11, 2009)

*Hijacked*

It would appears as if we've Hijacked the intent of the original thread i.e. "KSL Shot cycle/BEST Philosophy" and started down the "How to build the best (not BEST) Olympian".
Sorry Gig'em 99.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Vittorio said:


> Dear Rugby,
> 
> 
> 
> I'm presently in Ogden, an the power of the Korean Junior and Catet teams is simply shocking. Of course you may have some of them loosing one match here and there and not going to the finals, but the 4 teams are all in the God finals after showing a devastating supremacy. Think we all need to wash our eyes and look to the reality. It's purely a Korean game were sometime others are allowed to participate. By their generosity if they simpley don't participate, or based on statistical fact that in OR luck is now a strong part of the game rules.


Having just returned from the World University Games in Belgrade the Koreans posted the following results:


Kim Yeseul Women's Individual Recurve GOLD
Seok Jihyun Women's Individual Compound GOLD
Korea Men's Team Recurve GOLD
Korea Women's Team Recurve GOLD
Korea Mixed Team Recurve GOLD
Kim Yumi Women's Individual Recurve SILVER
Korea Women's Team Compound BRONZE
Korea y Mixed Team Compound BRONZE

So in addition to doing well with recurve, they can play with compounds too.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

I was hoping this thread would have stayed on topic because I thought the conversation was worth having. Since it has morphed into something else, I'll leave you folks with it. Have fun and it was great talking to you. 

Terry


----------



## gig'em 99 (Feb 1, 2008)

When threads on AT get this long, they inevitably all morph into something other than the original intent, or just start rehashing already discussed items. There was a ton of useful info put into this one, and I hope some benefit was gained for those who care. Thanks to all that contributed to the original topic, and all those that often tried to get it steered back on course.

I'm off to read my new book.

Gig'em


----------



## strcpy (Dec 13, 2003)

Mr. Black Magic said:


> The problem with using MTBF to predict a winning scenario is that it is solely designed to predict failure. It is a system of accounting for failure and would probably be best applied to statistical analysis of how often Gold Medals are NOT won.
> 
> Were I to begin looking at metrics to affect a positive outcome, the manufacturing process is where I would look and most likely Six Sigma would be the model for creating success.
> 
> Or alternatively, I might recommend studying Henry Petroskis work beginning with "To Engineer Is Human: The role of failure in successful design".


Those are still ultimately the same equations. They are slightly different but they still have the same underlying basis. For one thing since we are only looking at one person - the top individual - many of those equations break down as they are more based on a program. A program of one could very well produce the greatest there has ever been and there is no way to account for that. However over a long enough period the MTBF equations, or rather MTBS (mean time between success) will hold true (the math doesn't change). In the case we are arguing - one program against another then MTBS is more important even if you loose on the individual case.

I'm not trying to predict a winning scenario - indeed as is shown that is nearly impossible. A winning scenario (especially where you have a winner and everyone else is a looser) is impossible to predict (individual vs a program). However with a large enough sample size we *can* do such a thing within a program. It's done all the time in many many many different disciplines - go to a decent university and take an engineering degree to see that (it is what they all teach and is ultimately the core of an engineering degree - creating success every time).

Indeed, the "six-sigma" paradigm is *exactly* the equations I posted and has the same conclusions. The main difference is that they are looking at producing products that work in the 5 9's category (and that isn't *that* good - one of the products I work with stays in the seven nines and bumps 8 from time to time). 

Nor does it's math (or the material you suggest I read) work for archery. It is an attempt to produce a manufacturing process that has a 5 9 pr better success (that is a 99.999% success rate - or six standard deviations) . You *can not* do that in archery or any competitive sport - there is one and only one winner. You can not have a program that succeeds in the 5 9's category as you are competing against others and there is only a single victor - the math does not work for an individual. However if you apply it to a program you get exactly what I posited.

In fact in the HA world much of the statistical models break down - if you have 99.999% success how does that compare to a standard deviation? If *everything* is +6 SD how do you arrive at a SD at all? To figure it you *must* have failures. If ~68% of your products have a 99.999% success rate then you are *not* at +6 standard deviations - you are at +/- one standard deviation. Some of it still works out, but much of it does not.

This is ultimately why I want to see studies that back certain claims up. I can no determine if what is being said is verifiable or not unless I see how one comes up with it.

How much of a base you have to draw from makes a HUGE difference in the over all long term dominance of a program. In the short term it has little to no difference as individual ability rules. This is basic statistics that you should have received in college if you were in a program that required it. 

So, basically, Limbwalker is correct in that you could take 100 athletes and probably get 5 good archers and coach them to greatness - indeed were I betting man and wanted to find that one great archer this would be the way to go - for one thing you are not pulling from everyone but pulling from athletes to begin with. Ones that talk about having a group to pull from are also correct in that this will typically ensure many good archers. The latter is also more likely to produce a great archer. 

In short if you want to be dominate over time then all else being equal the one with more archers to pull from will be dominate. As to which will currently be the most dominate there is no metric to look at other than individual skill. If you want to see the math behind that look at High Availability world (and yes, the six-sigma stuff is that too - it agrees with what I wrote). 

However I will also note that all is rarely equal - coaching, national programs and support, monetary incentives, and social incentives are a large part of that too. A pull from 200,000 who do not care if they are good or not will *never* compete with 100 who have the drive to win. This is where Limbwalker is 100% correct, yet I think it also misses that if we have the correct structure we can pull from a larger than 100 base. I generally have felt (and personally seen) archery being a different enough sport from those "main" US sports that we are missing a real opportunity there. As in other shooting sports we can harness less than great body styles for Baseball - indeed some body shapes that are horrid for most other sports are great for Archery. I think that as a program having 2,000,000 to draw from is needed to compete with countries that have 200,000 that are dedicated (say Korea for example). I do not know exactly the numbers as I am both not privy to national statistics and do not care enough to calculate them even were I privy too them (as is it is something those in power would not want to hear anyway - if they watned to hear them they would have them). However we would be better served by making Archery a desired sport, but that is probably a harder thing to do right now.


----------



## Mr. Black Magic (Sep 13, 2007)

strcpy said:


> Those are still ultimately the same equations. They are slightly different but they still have the same underlying basis. For one thing since we are only looking at one person - the top individual - many of those equations break down as they are more based on a program. A program of one could very well produce the greatest there has ever been and there is no way to account for that. However over a long enough period the MTBF equations, or rather MTBS (mean time between success) will hold true (the math doesn't change). In the case we are arguing - one program against another then MTBS is more important even if you loose on the individual case.
> 
> I'm not trying to predict a winning scenario - indeed as is shown that is nearly impossible. A winning scenario (especially where you have a winner and everyone else is a looser) is impossible to predict (individual vs a program). However with a large enough sample size we *can* do such a thing within a program. It's done all the time in many many many different disciplines - go to a decent university and take an engineering degree to see that (it is what they all teach and is ultimately the core of an engineering degree - creating success every time).
> 
> ...


All that and you didn't get to SABRmetrics. Hmmm


----------



## south-paaw (Jul 3, 2006)

gig'em 99 said:


> When threads on AT get this long, they inevitably all morph into something other than the original intent, or just start rehashing already discussed items. There was a ton of useful info put into this one, and I hope some benefit was gained for those who care. Thanks to all that contributed to the original topic, and all those that often tried to get it steered back on course.
> 
> I'm off to read my new book.
> 
> Gig'em




```

```
i certainly did.. thank you bownut and gig em .


----------



## south-paaw (Jul 3, 2006)

Mr. Black Magic said:


> Were I to begin looking at metrics to affect a positive outcome, the manufacturing process is where I would look and most likely Six Sigma would be the model for creating success.




```

```
hmmmm.... is there a picture book version for .... never mind....

different thread.. come and gone.... burried !


----------



## gig'em 99 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Archive File*

A couple of people approached me this past weekend at the Texas State Outdoor tournament asking if there was a way to archive this thread. There may be an easier way to do it, but I've gone ahead and copied the text into a word document, and edited the links so that they are all functional (at least in their original postings).

If any one would like a complete transcript of this thread, please feel free to PM me. There is a lot of great information here. I've left all posts in the archive file I've created, many of them are not entirely useful, but still were apart of the thread.

Gig'em


----------



## Mr. Black Magic (Sep 13, 2007)

gig'em 99 said:


> A couple of people approached me this past weekend at the Texas State Outdoor tournament asking if there was a way to archive this thread. There may be an easier way to do it, but I've gone ahead and copied the text into a word document, and edited the links so that they are all functional (at least in their original postings).
> 
> If any one would like a complete transcript of this thread, please feel free to PM me. There is a lot of great information here. I've left all posts in the archive file I've created, many of them are not entirely useful, but still were apart of the thread.
> 
> Gig'em


good idea! If you like you can get pdfcreator free on the web and use it to make a PDF out of the file.

As well, in Word if you use copy and then "paste special" it should bring the copied stuff in as a web page with all the links intact.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Make sure you fix all my spelling and grammar errors. I'd hate for folks to think I was a complete idiot. A partial one is ok.

Terry


----------



## gig'em 99 (Feb 1, 2008)

bownut-tl. said:


> Make sure you fix all my spelling and grammar errors. I'd hate for folks to think I was a complete idiot. A partial one is ok.
> 
> Terry


Oh my, that took a while. Look since this forum takes on a very conversational tone, I didn't mess with the grammar. I'd need to hire a professional writer/editor for that. Instead, I focussed on the spelling. I should have gotten most of it, and I ignored a lot of the suggestions, based on context, or the fact that this is a forum, etc.

For those of you who want a copy of this thing, make sure you send me your email address in a PM.

Thanks,

Gig'em


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

It took a while to fix mine or all of them? 

Terry


----------



## gig'em 99 (Feb 1, 2008)

Yep! :wink:

No, all of them.


----------

