# Are coaches overrated?



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Although there has certainly been a lot of discussion about coaching in the past 4 years, I've thought for some time now that most great archers (or athletes in general) will rise to the top eventually, regardless of coaching. It's the relative "archery intelligence" of the individual that enables them to become elite archers, and only part of that comes from the coach. 

Considering the great archers out there, what percent of their succes do you feel is due to their own individual efforts, and what percent is strictly due to the coaching they've received? 

My estimate is 90% archer, 10% coaching...

But then, I was self-coached so my estimate probably reflects that....

John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Although there has certainly been a lot of discussion about coaching in the past 4 years, I've thought for some time now that most great archers (or athletes in general) will rise to the top eventually, regardless of coaching. It's the relative "archery intelligence" of the individual that enables them to become elite archers, and only part of that comes from the coach.
> 
> Considering the great archers out there, what percent of their succes do you feel is due to their own individual efforts, and what percent is strictly due to the coaching they've received?
> 
> ...


 depends. there is no right answer

in some cases a player can be too dependent on their coach

I won't mention names but 10 years ago I was watching one of the USA's top lady archers shooting against, a Mexican I believe, in the US OPEN

this us archer shot a great group-sadly all of the arrows were in the eight. she kept looking back at her coach. He was watching one of his other charges. When she gets back to him he says MOVE YOUR SIGHT

she does

too late-that 24 cost her the match. most archers would have moved the sight after the first shot-at least the second.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jim, I think this is my point - and something more archers should consider instead of clammoring for the latest-and-greatest coaching. In the end, it comes down to the archer executing their form and making decisions on their own. 

I am all for self-reliance, and the best archers I know rely on themselves first and foremost.

For example, the U.S. dominates in compound competition worldwide. How much do we hear about U.S. compound coaches though?

Something to think about... 

John.


----------



## south-paaw (Jul 3, 2006)

i'm starting to think that a coach would be beneficial to a beginnign archer, even if they have no aspiration to become an eliteist, ... for me, i've been lurking and absorbing as much info as i can from this forum, and it's all great info, but had-have i access to a coach from the beginning, my setup and tuning issues wouldn't have transpired over the course of a year, (and it's still not complete yet ). there is an awful lot of knowledge to learn when starting from scratch... equipment, setup, tune, form, execution... it all has to come togehter at "once" inorder to start shooting for score. 
after all that, i guess it will be up to the individual to decide how far they want to go with their game... as one transfers up in level of ability and consistancy, and want more out of it, i'd think a coach would be back in the cards...
this, for me, has to refernce to OR shooting, i have been self reliant with the compound area for three years now, and calling on people that i know in this area for tweaking etc etc... a couple of lesson early on, and then absorb all the info from here on AT for the rest of it. ( compond shooting)


----------



## bowgal (Jun 12, 2003)

I believe that for me the more coaching I get the more I realize what holds me back and how much technic I do not have and I am taught....


----------



## Sighting In (Feb 5, 2009)

Personally, I think a coach is very important.

I didn't get a coach until a few months ago. Before, my _top_ score on a Vegas round was a 296. In about a month or so, it jumped to 298. There is no way I would have done that without my coach. I think I might have gotten there eventually, but not nearly as fast.

Being self-reliant is very important, though. When we mess with my equipment in lessons, he always shows me what he is doing and how he does it so that I know how, and I might be able to do it later on if need be. If a student is not self reliant, it is either their fault because they don't care, or the coach's fault because he/she did not teach them that. 

Like you said, 90% is the archer. But, where would he/she be without that extra 10%?


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

John -

An old (weightlifting) coach I had once told me that the athlete makes the coach, not the other way around. I still think there's some truth in that, but it may not be that simple.

First delineation is to define "coach". A local or club level coach teaching new or intermediate shooters is doing a very different job than a coach trying to "create" a winning national or Olympic team. In the former, the coach basically works with what he has to make them the best they can be (or want to be). In the latter case, the first job the coach has to do is to PICK the appropriate athlete(s) to work with. There's a lot more that goes into that than meets the eye, and it's not just pure or potential ability - the athlete has to jive with with the coaches style or methodology. That may not be such a good thing.

In the end, the best coach in the world will not make a mediocre shooter or worse a shooter without the 3Ds (Drive, Discipline and Dedication) a world champ and the guy with the greatest potential ability won't make it there by himself either. In the latter case, it's rare if not impossible for any athlete to see what he's doing or not doing and as important how to correct what needs to be corrected. One prerequisite of a coach is knowing more than his student. 

Is it a 50/50 thing or a 90/10 thing or a something in the middle? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it has to be a two way street and IMHO, there has to be some connection between the "coach" and the athlete. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

A lot depends on the coaches philosophy as well.

If a coach is Athlete centered they will strive to make the athlete self reliant. Teaching and coaching the athlete to be self coaching.. 

In my teaching and coaching of archery and skiing, I am always trying to teach my students and athletes how to self coach, how to get friends or other athletes to help them coach them selves. Equipment, I try to get them to understand their gear, and learn how to make corrections and adjustments.


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

John,

The percentage changes as the archer matures. I found myself working more on the archer's mental growth once the technical problems were pretty much solved. I worked hard on getting the archer to understand and accept the positive actions of executing the shot. Finally my job was mental re-enforcing in areas of equipment, focus, and knowledge that all this will lead to winning.


----------



## STUDENT-ARCHER (Jun 26, 2009)

a coach may be entirely unnecessary for some individuals who have the drive and utilize all methods at their disposal to improve their mental and physical shooting performance. Some shooters do not have the self discipline(nor time) to maintain the focus required to compete at their top potential.
The age of information has provided answers to most, if not all, of the archers questions. The downside of the glut of information is that it can be overwhelming to a new archer and very difficult to discern between the good and the bad information. Many terrific archery coaches have written books, made videos, and held clinics sharing what they have to offer, what once may have taken years of one on one sessions can be revealed in a very short period of time. Dedicated shooters need to learn to adjust their equipment, recognize flaws in their form or sequence, and be capable of maintaining the focus required to execute the perfect shot repeatedly.
The downside of coaching, as I see it, is that most refuse to offer multiple shooting styles and they are very slow to offer information. There are many ways to put an arrow on target, and no one way can be right for all shooters.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

There is not a single answer to John's questions, as there is not a single path to excellence in archery.
For sure, there are top level archers that have developped to their level by themselves, with very small coaching or nothing at all. If we go back to the past, this situation was quite common in 70's and early 80's. Many champions of those years have put toghether a great talent, a good self understading of archery, and great passion and reched the top with very few help from coaches, for the simple reason that there were no coaches that could help them at the proper level. This situation may happen even today, and even in a little bit more frquent than it was in the past, as general archery knowledge is spread around by internet, even local coaches have good knowledge of the archery basics and top materials are available to everyone. 
So, it may still happen that a new comer in his 30's can reach the Olympic trials in a western country an even go to the Olympics starting shoting few yers before, only, and without a good coach on side... (oh, I'm referring to Mario Casavecchia, alternate of the Italian Olympic team in Sudney 2000, but may be there are others around...  )
But what was and is common to almost all these "self made" top archers is the difficulty they had in repeating their top performacies at a given time. If and when they did it, they were helped by coaches that studied their shooting style and were able to help them to get back to its best content in easier and faster way. 
Nowdays, archers everywere are coming to the top by a long process that starts in their childhood, so by definition they have been formed as archers by their early coaches, and the level of coching they get in the childhood will influence them in their development to the top. 4 to 6 years in Korea, 5 to 8 years in the west, under continuous coaching, is needed by the process to get to its final poduct. 
So, without going to too many details, I can say easily that percentages archer/coach may vary a lot 
1) depending from the age of the archer
2) depending from his learning curve
3) depending from his specific talent
4) depending from the specific event
5) depending from the specific shooting style
6) depending from the specific Nation he/she is from
I think we can easily go from 10/90 to 90/10 with all intermediate results if we consider all factors in any single moment of the archer's career. 
But for a top result in a given moment, surely there can't be an archer without a fraction of coach behind him.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

i am presuming we are equating the word "coach" in archery vs the professional golf teacher or swing guru in golf..

if so an archery coach is especially important in the beginning to make sure the student has all the correct basics in place..

a naturally talented athlete in any sport can only go so far without the proper coach--more so in individual sports vs team sports..

after the athlete has reached a certain level the dependence on their coach should be reduced but i doubt if it will be totally eliminated...even tiger woods has to go back to his swing coach from time to time...JMHO.


----------



## fitadude (Jul 15, 2004)

*Coach*

John,

This is my take on coaching. I can only say what it had done for me. I was very lucky from the first day that I picked up a compound I had Kattie Smith help me in learning the proper way of shooting. She was great and as a youth she was able to work with me. I was able to win my fist Ohio Archers indoor state championship with in six months of picking up a bow. 
In 1992 I switched to recurve and I had another great coach Tom Deberry help me from day one. I had a clicker on the bow from the first shot and we spent many hours of shooting together.
As I improved and really started to shoot well, this is when all the top named coaches wanted to take over. I told them no I had a coach and was going to stay with him. As was mentioned on this post already, if you are a talented shooter the coach will only be thought of as a good coach if the shooter places well in tournaments. I found this as one coach asked me how far I wanted to go in this sport as if he was going to help me. He is still looking for that great shooter to raise his respect level as a coach.
A great athlete will rise to the top anyway but a good coach can shorten the curve in the beginning. This for the most part is a individual sport and the archer has to be able to fix his or her own problems immediately on the shooting line. If he or she has to wait for a coach to make it right it will be to late. When I was on the world field team we did not see a coach until I was walking off the course after a twelve hour day. If I had to wait for them I would have never finished. 
Most of our great shooters have not conformed to one style of shooting I guess that what sets us apart form other countries we have this cowboy mentality. Vic, Butch and many others all have a very different styles of shooting. None are conformed to one way or system of shooting. They took how their body would let them shoot and went from there. They have had great success and that came from themselves as a individual and came from their drive to be the best.
I have just returned to shooting after a three year hiatus and a bout with cancer. I was able to pick up the bow and shoot well right from the start. I think that had to do with a good foundation of coaching and years of practice on top of that.
In conclusion a good coach will help a newbie but he or she will only excel if they have a great wont and a natural athletic ability to go from there.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

I never had a real coach, Redbow aka Dana Chatoo introduced me into Archery and taught me how to shoot, those who know him will know he's a world class shooter (05 IBO world champ) so I was quite lucky, I also had a couple of IFAA World\European champions at my local club who were very willing to help me. 

Still a LOT of my development was trial and error, mostly error.

The recent coaching with Kim Hyung Tak made me realize that although I made it to the top regardless, it would have been much quicker if I had a a good Coach to guide me in those early years, now I have the experience and understanding to guide myself but think everybody would benefit from good coaching infirst 6 months of Archery and the experienced shooters only need a coach when they have a problem they cant fix themself.

The Austrians have several full time Coach's specially for Trad Archers and it shows in the standard of their shooting, they dominate Longbow in IFAA Bowhunter in European and World tourneys.

I'm involved in Coaching here in Estonia, mostly 1 day corporate events but experienced Archers as well, I will be doing shooting Seminar in Finland for their Field team in two weeks. I found here in Estonia most Men have little interest in being coached (too proud) the women are more open and likely why the top 3-4 women outshoot a lot of the Men in Field.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

A coach can lay the groundwork. The elite performer has to forge a finished product from the raw material. 

You can't coach drive. Every great performer has this quality. It is what pushes an elite performer day after day. 

Why would an athlete tear down his entire sequence? To better himself that little bit extra. Some notable examples are Tiger Woods, after winning the 1997 Masters. He needed to control his distance better and tore his entire swing apart to gain more consistency. It wasn't Butch Harmon who made him great. It was the inner fire which drove him to better his game and win. How many 'majors' champions would do this??

How about Jack Nicklaus flattening his swing in his 40's. That was a huge risk. It paid off with a win at the 1982 Masters.

No, you cannot coach someone to be a champion. You can steer a gifted athlete in the right direction. You can notice when some mechanics go awry and coach em up. Then get out of the way and let the athlete zero in on the goal.


----------



## GenesisAlpha (Jun 26, 2009)

John, first thanks for the heads up on the riser/limb alignment. I have the bow set up and vibration is gone. Held off on the rest and using a basic flipper rest.

I think every athlete needs a coach at some point. In archery that could mean asking the person next to you to watch how your fingers are coming off the string or checking a part of your forum to assure unseen or unfelt issues are not becoming habit.

There is a lot to shooting an arrow, not just the actual act itself but the practice, health choices and a shoulder to lean on during the competetive life of an athlete. Coaches allow for the athlete to focus on the sport, the dissipline, the execution of the game. Setting up practice schedules, setting up healthy diets and watching the archer as a critic and an advocate while they use the skill.

I would say behind every winning athlete there is a devoted coach 99 times out of 100.

JMHO

Bob


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Most of my Coaching is me taking 1000fps video footage and checking it for form errors, a Coach would be easier and better but I don't have that luxury and have to do the best I can with what resourses I have, I've done Ok this way so far.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

it's definitely NOT 10/90 IMHO....the percentage will vary as the skill level increases but i wouldn't be able to put a number--too many other factors involved as many have already mentioned..


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Dchan, my personal philosophy mirrors yours as I feel it's a coach's job to make an archer as independant as possible and learn to coach themselves...

But I also have to agree wholeheartedly with Doug too. (fitadude - so glad to hear you're back shooting! Congrats!) I had the same experience.

Vittorio's post makes a great deal of sense to me. I think that as an archer matures, the archer:coach ratio will go from 10:90 to 90:10 .

I find it interesting that we hear an awful lot about recurve coaches - "celebrity coaches" if you will, but hardly anything about coaches for our top compounders. I've spent a little time around our best compounders now, and I can tell you that they are incredibly independent and self-sufficient. No worries about which "method" or which coach is best. They just tend to shut up and shoot....

I think there is so much information available today (online, books, etc) that anyone who is truly serious about becoming a top archer should be able to figure it out largely by themselves. If they can't do it by themselves, then they aren't that likely to do it even with a coach. At some point it comes down to "archery I.Q." 

John.


----------



## strcpy (Dec 13, 2003)

Personally I think that all else being equal the one with the better coach will win. But, that doesn't really answer the question either. All things are rarely equal.

I guess I would say in today's competitive world where perfection is nearly achievable that anything you do that advances your ability to hit the spot is vitally important - your competition sure is using it. Of course, that is also assuming you aren't just tooling around the range for the heck of it as many archers do.

You also have team competitions and, as someone above me pointed out, the coach plays a large part in the team performance if for nothing else than selection of that athletes and making them into a "team". Since we base our teams on trials that puts a heavy emphasis on the coach getting different personalities that were selected on hitting th spot to work together - in that scenario the coach is vital (especially given that archery is more an individual sport - I doubt many would just work it out themselves).

And, lastly, when talking about national/international levels of performance you have the network that said coaches have that is a good source to draw from. There are tons and tons of great coaches out there at a club level that will teach almost exactly the same thing as the high profile greats (and the differences are so minor to be personal), but the "real" coaches have contact with other top archers, manufacturers, sponsors, and a whole host of other things that a person out on their own (or a local coach) would have a tough time with. But then this tends more towards reducing effort/time to get into top spots, not so much how high one goes.


----------



## ScarletArrows (May 25, 2007)

just tend to shut up and shoot...

Advice I wish I could give my brain.


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

midwayarcherywi said:


> A coach can lay the groundwork. The elite performer has to forge a finished product from the raw material.
> 
> You can't coach drive. Every great performer has this quality. It is what pushes an elite performer day after day...
> 
> No, you cannot coach someone to be a champion. You can steer a gifted athlete in the right direction. You can notice when some mechanics go awry and coach em up. Then get out of the way and let the athlete zero in on the goal.


I agree totally! A champion is someone who has the inate talent from the start, and the coach is like a vinter, whose care will take a great grape in a good year and turn it into a fine wine. The grape and the conditions were right, but without the vinter, there would never have been the record vintage. 

I watched what was going on behind the shooting line a Provincial indoor championships (the youth competition) this past December, and what I saw was very interesting. 

A high percentage of Germany's top archers come from the province of Central Franconia in northern Bavaria. There are a number of clubs in and around Nuremberg that really work hard with the kids. Their aim is to produce as many elite archers as possible. Their coaches kept correcting the kids, telling them what to do differently after each shot. I don't believe that you can really create an elite archer, though.

My son's coach was down behind the shooting line as well, but her philosophy is that all the work on problems must be done during weekly practice sessions at the range. During a competition, she is there to show her support, to root for her charges, to comfort them when they are disappointed, to encourage them to shoot to their full potential. 

So what's the difference? Well, with method number one you can take a mediocre archer, work him hard, and actually help him/her reach a certain level of achievement, but you will not be able to make an Olympian out of him. 

Method number two won't make the mediocre archer an Olympian either, but it will make the archer more independent, able to make his or her own decisions. They will grow self-confidence, knowing that there is someone there to fall back on instead of fearing that the coach is gonna criticize their every move.


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> I find it interesting that we hear an awful lot about recurve coaches - "celebrity coaches" if you will, but hardly anything about coaches for our top compounders. I've spent a little time around our best compounders now, and I can tell you that they are incredibly independent and self-sufficient. No worries about which "method" or which coach is best. They just tend to shut up and shoot...John.


The method or frame of mind of ' shut up and shoot' is exactly the place I want the person I am coaching to go. Good compounders tend to get to that place, but even the best will find areas of struggle sometime in their rise to world class. Target anxiety has been one of greatest struggles and has ruined many up and coming compound archers. The same independent nature that makes them so tough also makes them fail when trying to beat target anxiety by themselves. In the archery business one of the greatest selling items for a compounder is a short fix for target anxiety. A good compound coach can recognize the signs and train the archer through it. It can take a month or months if it is real bad. The archers themselves have to dedicate their time completely to understand and beat the problem.


----------



## safe cracker (Sep 28, 2009)

*overrated...*

coaches are good they can tell you what your doing wrong and a how to fix it....a good coach know it not what you say but how you say it..i don't think you need one full time but its good to know one if you think you may have a problem....:thumbs_up


----------



## Miika (Jun 29, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> My estimate is 90% archer, 10% coaching...


Doesn't that mean that in a match between 2 equally skilled archers, the one with a better coach wins?

I think in some parts of the World coaches are overrated, whereas in some other parts they are heavily underrated. I believe one can't have a long, successful (medal-winning) career without a good coach.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Miika, that's a very good point. 

But I think the one with the better mental game wins if both archers are equally skilled  I have noticed that mental management is noticeably lacking with many coaches. Lots of coaches can offer great technique, but very few that I've met can develop an archer's mental game. It seems they leave that part to "other" experts like sports psyc's and books. Never was sure why that is... 

I think we sometimes forget that an archer could very well be their own best "coach." Too few archers IMO ever consider seriously their ability to coach themselves. The fundamentals are out there, easy to find. Alignment, balance, grip, string placement, follow through, etc., etc. It's all out there in a book or on YouTube these days... A good video camera is very inexpensive anymore. Any archer with good dicipline can learn to identify good form and then set up a video training regimen that will help them achieve good results. But what most archers lack is the dicipline to 1) learn and understand what good form looks like, and 2) actually set up and follow through with a training regimen. 

A the elite levels I don't think there are many coaches that understand more than the top archers themselves do. In fact, I think many of the top archers are incredibly qualified as coaches. They just may not spend time performing that function. 

Certainly archers progress through a range of understanding that begins with a great deal of coaching, and ends with occasional check-ups from those familiar with their individial shot or personality. Much like golf. You have a small group of "celebrity" swing coaches that work with some of the big name golfers. But most folks have no idea who coaches (if at all) the majority of the players. And to be honest, most of the celebrity swing coaches were made because of their students, not the other way around.

John.


----------



## BowMakr (Sep 13, 2009)

Being a "do-it-myself" kind of guy, I was self coached for many years. One reason was that I didn't know a coach that I was willing to listen to if he told me to change something. Then my progress stopped. After two years of shooting well but not improving, I decided to spend some time with a coach I had met at some of the big tournaments. I trusted him enough to follow his instructions, and he recommended many fundamental changes. I will find out in the next year if this will lead to improved scores, but I have confidence it will.

When I was self coached I didn't have as good a coach as you did, John, and I had a hard time getting along with him. And while I do find a lot of good information on AT and the web, I also find a lot of misinformation. Its sometimes difficult to sort out what you can believe. 

In summary, I believe a good coach can be a definite advantage, but there are also bad coaches that can make things worse rather than better.

Dave


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

I am a chemical engineer so I sometimes think in those terms. One role of the coach is to serve as a catalyst. One definition of a catalyst is an agent that provokes or speeds significant change or action. They way I have described this to some folks is that there are whole series of locks and keys. The coaches role is to help the primary agent find the right keys to the right locks. The agent could find the right keys and the right locks but it might take a lot longer. The catalyst/coach just speeds up the process or allows it to overcome inertia and just start. But as John alluded to the coach can become the scapegoat if things don't go as the agent expects. Same in chemical processes. The catalyst is sometimes seen as being bad, when in fact it was the raw materials that were the problem all along. The best catalyst in the world can't fix bad raw materials.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Tom, what a great analogy!

John.


----------



## tchiex (May 27, 2008)

My wife has been shooting for 13+ years and only had a coach when she was a kid. She took a break for 5 yrs and now she is shooting in the 280's/300 FITA all by herself. She gets frustrated sometimes because she wishes she had a coach to help her understand those moments when the shot felt good but didn't go anywhere near where it should have. She also shoots her own form, no BEST method here. 

I think if you do the same thing enough muscle memory kicks in, and that certainly seems to be the case for her. 

Me on the other hand she tries to teach me but I'm to hard-headed to listen. :wink:

So yea Coaches might be overrated.


----------



## TimClark (Sep 25, 2004)

I don't think that coaches are overrated, that is, when they are coaching the right way. The best coach is the one that teaches his pupil to realize their own mistakes and fix them on their own. The progression of a coach should start with addressing issues as they come up in a direct manner.

If I had a starting archer who was locking his elbow, punching the trigger, etc I would tell them right away, one by one, what to work on. And, we would work on that problem until it was completely solved, and then we would get to the next one. I would continue that until their form was pretty good and would not enforce bad habits. 

I don't think people should compete until they have decent form, just because once they get into the competition mindset, they will keep track of their scores and what they were doing that day. I could have a day shooting 285 by punching the trigger, and a day shooting 270 but just getting used to backtension...in my mind, I would want to revert back to punching the trigger because that is what gets me instant gratification: a better score. 

Once they have form down, I would not use direct commands for coaching, but rather I would ask questions. If they had a tight group that went low, I would ask them what I would ask myself...did I add weight to my bow recently, maybe I'm not used to it? Did I put my sight on and not check its positioning? Should I move my sight? That way, you teach the archer to coach themselves. That way, it teaches the shooter to answer their own questions, and solve their own problems through an effective, proven method. 

Of course, there are some lucky people, like in any discipline or sport, that can just go out and get a score that most of us dream about...without any coaching. But, I think utilizing a reliable (keyword here) coach does wonders for 99% of the people shooting out there. While AT is a great place to pick up on some things, I don't believe that it should be the primary source for people trying to learn how to shoot better. Not because the people don't know what they're talking about, but because everyone on here has a different style, shoots in different forms of competition, uses different equipment, etc.


----------



## Greg Bouras (Nov 17, 2006)

I have not found a personal coach to be a necessity, preferring instead to learn by reading and doing. What I have found to be of real value in gaining new insights, and improving performance is competition. Having a place to shoot with a serious constituency is in my experience is of equal and probably greater value than a personal coach.

Those of us who have had at one time or are perhaps involved with today a club or pro shop where there is a competitive atmosphere will no doubt agree.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Are coaches over-rated?

Depends on whose doing the rating :wink:

Coaches come in different forms from mentors, idols, guys who answer questions on the internet, authors, guys in videos and actual coaches.

Whatever form they come in...I believe they are blessing as long as they aren't giving bad advice :wink:

Ray


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

I have coached and been coached. Usually it was to work out some specific issue or difficulty. Personally speaking, a full-time regular coach would propogate a system on an archer, kind of putting them inside a box and not let their natural talent, instincts and abilities shine through.


----------



## Jim Pruitte (May 27, 2002)

target1 said:


> Personally speaking, a full-time regular coach would propogate a system on an archer, kind of putting them inside a box and not let their natural talent, instincts and abilities shine through.


Not if the coach is knowledgeable, experienced, and has the genuine interest of the archer at heart.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Jim Pruitte said:


> Not if the coach is knowledgeable, experienced, and has the genuine interest of the archer at heart.


+1!!!! :thumbs_up:thumbs_up

Ray :wink:


----------



## sundevilarchery (May 27, 2005)

target1 said:


> Personally speaking, a full-time regular coach would propogate a system on an archer, kind of putting them inside a box and not let their natural talent, instincts and abilities shine through.


This has definately not been my experience, personally or in observation.

Truthfully, I can't imagine doing it WITHOUT a coach. There are so many things to understand (physical, mental, equipment) and there is NO WAY I could navigate them all without my mentor and guide.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

sundevilarchery said:


> This has definately not been my experience, personally or in observation.
> 
> Truthfully, I can't imagine doing it WITHOUT a coach. There are so many things to understand (physical, mental, equipment) and there is NO WAY I could navigate them all without my mentor and guide.


Well said.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

There seems to be a camp who believes coaches are central to the process of creating an archer. There is another camp who believes coaches are resources to be tapped when a need arises. 

Put me in the resource camp. I want to own every bit of my development. I want to direct which resource is utilized at what time. In my humble opinion, abdicating any of my responsibilites as a performer is a slippery slope.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

my experience has been: Watching many students, joads and such over many years, that a majority of them seldom ever "mature" as archers. They wait for the confirmation from their coaches thay they are doing alright. They never seem to move up. It is the truly unique shooter that steps up and becomes great.

I was coached by a "celebrity" coach (olympic), very expensive and shot alongside a former olympian as well. He, the coach, spent one hour with me, gave me a few things to work on and told me to call him back in a few months for another session. It allowed me to work it out on my own, practice and mature.

My original point is many coaches are all about systems and molding young archers into that system. The truly great archers rise above the systems and just shoot great.

As John pointed out, why is it only recurvers become so dependent on coaches and the compounders just get up and shoot lights out?


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

midwayarcherywi said:


> There seems to be a camp who believes coaches are central to the process of creating an archer. There is another camp who believes coaches are resources to be tapped when a need arises.
> 
> Put me in the resource camp. I want to own every bit of my development. I want to direct which resource is utilized at what time. In my humble opinion, abdicating any of my responsibilites as a performer is a slippery slope.


+1, I agree


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

am kinda both gabe...in the first camp when i started but am now in the second camp..


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

my take on compound vs recurve coaches...

it seems compound technique is easier to master than recurve--specially if you come from a recurve background..

our best recurve lady archer tried to qualify for the compound national team and within a week was shooting 340+ scores at 70m....needless to say she made the team..

all our elite compounders seem to spend most of their time on equipment issues rather than technique..in their case the coaches will only be contributing on the mental side and physical conditioning and most of them just do this on their own...they are also better shooters than their coaches so that may have some bearing too...


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

Our club used to allow those interested in archery to come for 8 nights' worth of practice. They lent you the equipment, but other than a guy occasionally looking your way and saying, "Uh, you're doing it all wrong," there was no coaching. It was learning by doing. That's why, to this day, I shoot LH although I'm right eye dominant. NOBODY told me about eye dominance determining whether you shoot RH or LH. It has been a rough time going for me, working hard to chisel out those bad habits that got ingrained right at the start.

For the past 2 years, we've been offering beginners' courses for those interested, where a certified coach teaches newbies the basics. Oh, how I wish I'd had that advantage. Don't tell me a coach is overrated. I think that a coach is an absolute necessity for a beginning archer, as well as for the elite archer.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Flint Hills Tex said:


> Don't tell me a coach is overrated. I think that a coach is an absolute necessity for a beginning archer, as well as for the elite archer.


I agree.

If I coach can help me get an extra 10 points then he's worth it, the level I'm shooting, 10 points is many cases is the difference between 1st and 3th place.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

jmvargas said:


> my take on compound vs recurve coaches...
> 
> it seems compound technique is easier to master than recurve--specially if you come from a recurve background..
> 
> ...


With reference to my previous post, compound archers majority has started at a mature age, and their tachnical growth has been influnced more by observation of others than by not-yet existing coaches. 
Then, there is a quite wide misunderstanding about what is a top level compound shooter, as scores from low to top are quite close, so that many seems to be reaching top level "easier". But, considering that at world Championship one position can be within 0.3 points over a total fita round (3 archers fin one point) and in Porec World Cup we have seen 11 >1400 Compound men shooters, top level has to be considered nowdays >1355 for Recurve men and >1405 for compound men. A compound archer shooting 1400 "only" is not today a top level one, for sure. 
Then, if the spread within a "medium " level compound archer and a top level one is from 1385 to 1405, and for recurve is from 1325 to 1355, a top level coach has 30 points in recurve and 20 points in compound to work for, over a full Fita round, or half in a 70 mt, or 1/12 of it in a match/set.
Easy to understand that as it is difficult to measure an archer at hose levels, it is even more diffcult to measure the merits of a coach in the same conditions. It can only be done about consistency of results at top level over a long period of time, let's say two years at least. 

Going back to your comments, for sure a good basic development in recurve archery may bring easily to equivalent good results in compound, while the opposite is much more difficult to happen. Top level Recureve archers switching to Compund will generate in around 2 to 3 years top level results again with the new bow. Is an easy forecast to imagine that by 2011 Compound Women field will also be dominated by Korean ladies, as they are now already in the process to this transition. Korean men have not started yet, because they do not have enough (in their parameters) top level men to waste some of them in compound training, but in women they have enough of them. I have spent some time in Ulsan watching the Korean ladies shooting Compound, and I have no doubts about what is going to happen.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

vittorio...i am complete agreement with your assessment of what is going to happen in women's compound in the future..

flint..your story made me chuckle as it reminded me of a good friend who played golf lefthanded his whole life although he was righthanded--and no he didn't have the same reason as phil mickelson..

....when i asked him why-- he replied that when he started out his pro sold him some lefthanded clubs and he just assumed everybody played that way!!!


----------



## dotarchery (Jun 1, 2008)

midwayarcherywi said:


> There seems to be a camp who believes coaches are central to the process of creating an archer. There is another camp who believes coaches are resources to be tapped when a need arises. Put me in the resource camp. I want to own every bit of my development. I want to direct which resource is utilized at what time. In my humble opinion, abdicating any of my responsibilites as a performer is a slippery slope.


+1
Personally, I prefer a coach like midwayarcherywi who rises above the politics and just quietly goes about his business of doing the best job he can.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

dotarchery said:


> +1
> Personally, I prefer a coach like midwayarcherywi who rises above the politics and just quietly goes about his business of doing the best job he can.


wow you necro'd a 55 month old thread. A powerful wizard you must be:wink:


----------



## Arsi (May 14, 2011)

Jim C said:


> wow you necro'd a 55 month old thread. A powerful wizard you must be:wink:


Nah, hes just got some great archery shoes


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

Wow, seems like most of the posters a pretty much in agreement, I read through this whole thread and it seems to be a near consensus that a coach can help an elite athlete over that hump to greatness. Also that beginning archers benefit greatly by having a good coach jump start their career and teach them the basics. One thing that seems to be largely overlooked is what a bad coach can do to an athlete. In some cases they can completely drive the person from the sport. 

Of course my feeling is that coaches are and should be a positive influence in their athletes development. They should always strive to get the best out of their students and to be proud of them when they get their best even if it's not a winning performance.

Another thing that seemed to be a common theme and Jimc mentioned it in the first post, athletes can be too dependent on a coach. I was happy to see that most of the responses agreed with him it's best for both the coach and the athlete if they developed a certain level of self sufficiency. I've seen coaches that don't let their athletes do any work on their bows and don't explain any of the tweaks that they do and this is a real injustice for the student.

Great thread thanks Limbwalker for starting it.


----------



## Mika Savola (Sep 2, 2008)

A coach can teach an athlete how to achieve good technique and form, help selecting equipment and how to tune them etc. That's easy. But what is not easy is when the archer hits the plateau - Scores jam to a certain level, and you 're expected to provide a solution for the problem...

A coach should work with an athlete right from the beginning to develop athlete's own ability to detect and feel minor form flaws, which are not visible to the coach. An athlete should be couraged to try all kinds of different little technique changes that might make his/her shooting more repeatable.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I don't think I asked if coaches were needed or not. LOL.


----------



## rooster61 (Apr 1, 2003)

Beer and Tomato are both 95% water.


----------



## Mika Savola (Sep 2, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> I don't think I asked if coaches were needed or not. LOL.


Sorry but I do not understand your comment.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Well, my entire point was not to say coaches were not important. But that seems to be where the conversation headed... 

Rather, my point was that archery coaches have the luxury of focusing entirely on the athlete as opposed to team coaches or coaches of other individual sports who not only have to train the athlete, but also have to scout the opponent, teach strategy, figure out team chemistry, who to play, who to sit, etc., etc. 

I've coached soccer. Played soccer for 13 years. Coached and played tennis nearly as long. Coaching archers is infinitely easier IMO. That's all I'm saying. Sorry if it offends anyone. Just my opinion.

Maybe I should have made the title "Archery coaches have it made..." ?

John


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I think success with one athlete or group is overrated, because you can roll out the ball for some groups and they'll win. My HS coach was awful, did nothing more than yell at us and roll out the ball, he was handed the products of 2 great club teams (who produced soccer players like Stuart Holden), and he magically won 2 state titles and looked good.

You can trip and fall over one athlete -- and look good by it -- but can you develop a bunch? Can you build and rebuild your program with new athletes? Can you move somewhere else and recreate the same pipeline of quality?

I think you need a certain physical and mental makeup, but it's an execution sport so obviously coaches matter. How did the archer get skilled? They may need only fine tuning at the elite level in a tournament situation, but that's because they've worked so hard with a coach between shoots. Yes, they can self diagnose, but there are limits to human sensory quality (sometimes you need another POV) and you got to the point of self-diagnosis because you were so well coached you can hear your coach without him saying anything.

One thing I think is key as an intermediate archer is a sense of the whole, there can be too much nitpick shot doctoring without a sense of the whole. I've gotten more lately out of, let's work on element 1, 2, 3, in the sequence, than just you're doing x wrong because that's what's visible, but maybe it's really caused by something earlier in the sequence snowballing, you don't figure that out til it's detected.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I still think my point is being missed. It's not a question of what athletes one gets, but rather, the scope of the job.

If you were to write up a job description for an archery coach as opposed to say, a tennis or football coach, the description for the archery coach would undoubtedly be much shorter. 

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Rather, my point was that archery coaches have the luxury of focusing entirely on the athlete as opposed to team coaches or coaches of other individual sports who not only have to train the athlete, but also have to scout the opponent, teach strategy, figure out team chemistry, who to play, who to sit, etc., etc.
> 
> I've coached soccer. Played soccer for 13 years. Coached and played tennis nearly as long. Coaching archers is infinitely easier IMO. That's all I'm saying. Sorry if it offends anyone. Just my opinion.
> 
> ...


Woah, *potstir* is there no "NTS" for soccer or tennis? :mg:

Kidding, kidding.

It does seem very legit to note that shooting sports, which are based solely on independent scoring and have no contingent strategy, are going to be "easier" to coach in the sense you note. But, what about how you talk about how any kind of archery (compound, recurve, barebow) is, in a sense, equally challenging in a competitive sense because you'll be competing against other competitors? I'm thinking of that as an analogy, in that while, yes, you don't have to study the opposition and work out individual or team strategies, isn't the fact that your competitors don't have to do that either mean you really, really have to work on that individual ability that much more? (I'm not disagreeing with your basic premise, though.)


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I'd say it's more like a track coach, you do depend on the trained athlete to do their thing, and the competition is more down to execution by talented people, but I think the skills bar is higher as is the sports psychology aspect. You have to train someone to a high level of execution and have them perform there to win. Soccer players can afford to be a bit sloppy as long as their mistakes aren't costly. Goetze who scored the German winner was subbed in because he'd lost the coach's confidence, then executed one play well in yet another generally indifferent performance. An archer going through the motions and then having one 30 would be lucky to make the cut, would lose in knockouts eventually. Or, it's like you're creating Messi and they're creating Bale and who does better. That's not easy.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yea, a track coach would be in the same boat, unless you're talking relays. But even then, a track coach working with a relay team is basically doing the same job as an archery coach working with a 3 or 2-person "team." 

Sports psyc. and high levels of execution still exist in team sports or sports where their is a direct opponent, so no, I don't give those coaches a pass on that.

Look at it this way. A coach preparing for their student/team to compete against another athlete or team in head-to-head competition will probably lose a lot of sleep the days before the event, thinking of strategy, who to play, plays to run, how to best exploit their opponent's weaknesses, etc. All things an archery coach really never has to consider.

John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Yea, a track coach would be in the same boat, unless you're talking relays. But even then, a track coach working with a relay team is basically doing the same job as an archery coach working with a 3 or 2-person "team."
> 
> Sports psyc. and high levels of execution still exist in team sports or sports where their is a direct opponent, so no, I don't give those coaches a pass on that.
> 
> ...


true, coaching a sport requires much more than coaching a discipline like archery 

For example, I have coached a top ten College squash team and I have coached college table tennis teams

table tennis has a wide array of styles-squash (and tennis) a few less but still variations. How you coach a baseliner in tennis to deal with a net rusher is a bit different than how to deal with a human backboard. In table tennis, coaching a looper against a chopper is very different than teaching say a flat hitter to deal with a blocker. 

with archers, its more a matter of confidence. example, a few years ago, one of my cadets was in a tight battle with another boy who is (or was) later to be an RA. Because we lost the first day of the four day competition, this hurt my student since he was the best 70/60M shooter that year (other than Zumbo who had moved up to junior for the NTC). the other boy was far stronger on the short-smaller targets. with 3 arrows to go, my kid was up a few points and he would be shooting first on that end. So he asked me what to do. I told him to shoot 3 Xs. He said why. and I said, you should always try to shoot 3Xs on three arrow ends. I didn't want him thinking about having a few points he could give.

so he shot three tens-not all xs IIRC. So he comes up to me and says "what happens now" and I told him you get the gold medal because the other boy cannot catch you

a year or two later, another kid from my club was in the gold medal match at EJN. a very good JDT coach (especially at the mental aspects of this sport) had talked to him. He was ready to shoot well. unfortunately he shot the wrong target and was down 2-0 (thank God for the set system instituted that year)

so I walked up to him and said Good job. Good Job? I lost the round. I said you did but you shot a 29 and the other boy was lower. He knows you are going to beat him now-just shoot the right target. he did and he won. 

far simpler than figuring out what to do when some table tennis player has some weird service motion that my student cannot read the sidespin on the ball that looks like backspin


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

John,

You're obviously right on the money - more complexity certainly = less sleep and more angst.

The comparisons break down a little bit from the training/time frames involved, though. An archer's journey to his highest level is such a long road (years and hundreds of thousands of repetitions - not burning the midnight oil for a week to come up with a game plan for next week's opponent), and his product (his skill and mental game) is so much created by him and him alone (or her) ... difficult to compare that with a team sport like football or baseball. 

An archery coach might be more fairly compared to a baseball pitching coach, who patiently has an ongoing mentoring dialogue and teaching and sounding board relationship with the pitchers through spring training and the season, teaching and observing technique, gauging the archer/pitcher's mental state and physical state from day to day or week to week (like a mommy who knows in a instant that her child is off his feed long before anyone else could see the any symptoms). 

To me, much different skills/personalities to being a head coach versus being a very focused 'indig' coach. Apples and oranges.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

It seems that Aida Roman considers her coach to be very very important..

http://www.worldarchery.org/NEWS/Ne...-of-a-good-coach-Aida-and-Ms-LEE-a-true-match


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Vittorio said:


> It seems that Aida Roman considers her coach to be very very important..
> 
> http://www.worldarchery.org/NEWS/Ne...-of-a-good-coach-Aida-and-Ms-LEE-a-true-match


Never said they weren't important. Of course they are. Just saying it's easier to be an archery coach than to coach most other sports. We get the luxury of focusing on one athlete at a time, doing one thing at a time, with no distractions.


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

Limbwalker I think you may have to create a new thread because we collectively have gone completely off the rails you tried to set forth.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

LOL. It's AT. It's expected.

Probably not the smartest thing to suggest, on a forum full of archery coaches, that coaching archery may be relatively easy compared to coaching other sports, eh? Oh well.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> LOL. It's AT. It's expected.
> 
> Probably not the smartest thing to suggest, on a forum full of archery coaches, that coaching archery may be relatively easy compared to coaching other sports, eh? Oh well.


Post it to the soccer forum? :dontknow:


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Never said they weren't important. Of course they are. Just saying it's easier to be an archery coach than to coach most other sports. We get the luxury of focusing on one athlete at a time, doing one thing at a time, with no distractions.


Archery is basically an individual sport, so coaching related to a single athlete has same difficulties it has in all othe rindividual sports. 
But, individuals use here bows and arrows, and tuning materials in combination of coaching the archer is the additional difficult part of the task.
The bow influences the form of the archer and viceversa, and understanding and managing these interrelationships can change a lot the results.
About coaching team, since the team has been reduced from 4 to 3 members and format forced to 1 arrow per archer, there is no strategy involved anymore and no relationship to the other team results. Game was much more complicted to manage at those time than now. But still much more difficult to manage than relay, if the coach is not just "standing there" but really interacts with the team.

Easier than purely team sports? No, a coach in soccer can change 4 players over 11 during the game, so can correct his wrong choices on the way. Here you have to choose 3 archers among many at least 1 month before the game, and you have no possibility to correct your choice. Of course, if use pure trials system to select team like USA Archery, coach has no responsability in it, but all other countries don't ... and believe, coaches may have very hard times there...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> so coaching related to a single athlete has same difficulties it has in all othe rindividual sports.


Sorry but I have to disagree. Tennis is a perfect example. Golf is another. In archery, you are basically training an archer to do one thing, independently of any other competitor. Tennis coaches have to scout the competition and help the athlete come up with a strategy to exploit that opponent's weakness...Golf coaches have to teach every club in the bag and an infinite number of possible situations to overcome - and both have to still train the athlete to execute the shot. 

I've played a lot of sports, and coached a few as well, and coaching an archer to shoot is by far the simplest task. Helping them with their equipment and managing the equipment for a club of 20+ archers, now that's challenging.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Sorry but I have to disagree. Tennis is a perfect example. Golf is another. In archery, you are basically training an archer to do one thing, independently of any other competitor. Tennis coaches have to scout the competition and help the athlete come up with a strategy to exploit that opponent's weakness...Golf coaches have to teach every club in the bag and an infinite number of possible situations to overcome - and both have to still train the athlete to execute the shot.
> 
> I've played a lot of sports, and coached a few as well, and coaching an archer to shoot is by far the simplest task. Helping them with their equipment and managing the equipment for a club of 20+ archers, now that's challenging.


Have you ever coached field archery? I have passed ages going up hill and downhill on infinite number of courses with a my son and many others to teach them the secrets of shooting in so many different conditions. In THA, I have defined Field Archery the University level for archers (and coaches as well) .... The specialty is underrated in the usual recurve world, but really is the only one that can give to an archer the full understanding of his execution. And, unfortunately, you usually cannot explore the course before shooting on it ...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I have a student heading to Croatia.

But you help me make my point actually. Field archery is much more involved than target, and requires more from the coach. 

Many other sports require more still. 

If game planning doesn't keep a coach up at night, I'd say they should feel fortunate.


----------



## shamlin (Aug 18, 2007)

John is exactly right on with this one, coaching archery is much easier than most other sports when it comes to the coaching process. Archery is individualistic in a sense that the archer only can control the outcome of the event by performing better than the opponents. The only variables to consider would be lighting, weather, venue, etc. I have coached travel baseball for example and the time it takes to compete at a high level successfully is quadruple compared to archery! Not only do you have the environmental variables to deal with, but you have the team dynamics, scouting of opposition team, situational baseball that can change pitch by pitch, developing all athletes regardless of talent to field a superior team, and the list goes on and on. I have also coached trapshooters which are very comparable to archers in that it is an individual sport in that there are only a few variables to consider that can effect the outcome of performance. Bottom line, archery coaches have it made!!


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Warbow said:


> Post it to the soccer forum? :dontknow:


I think football requires a ton of hands on coaching attention before and during because you are trying to run plays, the plays change down to down, you may be making subs each down, this may be a response to the scouting or what you've seen from the other team, etc.

But soccer most of the gameday coaching is tactics, making sure the team keeps a shape, and subbing. Teams may be scouted but the game is so fluid there are limits to usefulness. My instructions would be like, go stop x. Some soccer coaches are reknowned for sitting there impassively as goals are scored or the game progresses, except to make subs. Others are more involved but honestly do we actually listen?

And then a lot of these team sports have delegation of duties to assistants. The head coach and his coordinators may obsess over game plans but they don't teach technique regularly. The position coaches conversely have a lot of technique involvement, more like an archery coach, but less involvement in game planning. In pro soccer, often one coach runs drills at the practices, another does the fitness and weight work, and others are the head coach and his brain trust, who worry more at the personnel and tactical level. The head coach may not be the guy teaching someone how to shoot or dribble or hit a free kick, the technical stuff. That is often left to an assistant who just quit playing.

And then like I was saying before, in a team sport in a flowing game, you are allowed much more sloppiness and the guy who wins you the game (Gotze) can have been a waste the other x minutes he played, as long as he shoots his one "arrow" true and the team isn't losing.

The archery coach has to handle some things a team sport head handles, logistics, venue, motivation, psychology, and then also be a highly technical "position" coach, here's "how you block." And I'd be surprised if there was zero gamesmanship in terms of the opposing archer, that you might not try and mess with his or her head somehow, and that that might be archer specific, and start wandering down the road of scouting a little. And while you try not to pressure an athlete I'm sure you're keeping him or her informed what they might need to be posting relative to the opposition.

I realize it's like take it to the soccer thread but I think you're selling yourselves short. You have to do high technique well through an archer where sometimes in soccer my job was to clatter someone without fail and then make a simple pass out, and if I stopped my guy and pitched a shutout but made 5 bad passes, we won, it's not like I didn't qualify because the cut was 4 bad passes. Team sport coaches can have tons of execution errors -- which they will work on -- and still win.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

shamlin said:


> John is exactly right on with this one, coaching archery is much easier than most other sports when it comes to the coaching process. Archery is individualistic in a sense that the archer only can control the outcome of the event by performing better than the opponents. The only variables to consider would be lighting, weather, venue, etc. I have coached travel baseball for example and the time it takes to compete at a high level successfully is quadruple compared to archery! Not only do you have the environmental variables to deal with, but you have the team dynamics, scouting of opposition team, situational baseball that can change pitch by pitch, developing all athletes regardless of talent to field a superior team, and the list goes on and on. I have also coached trapshooters which are very comparable to archers in that it is an individual sport in that there are only a few variables to consider that can effect the outcome of performance. Bottom line, archery coaches have it made!!


I put golf coaches/instructors a close 2nd to this. How many golf instructors make $50-60/hour, but only ever help a golfer with the full swing? I see this All-the-time at courses and indoor instruction centers. And with them, it's never the equipment's fault (when in fact with archers, it sometimes IS the equipment's fault) 

I can see why so many young people want to become PGA teaching pros. Now, running the pro-shop and managing a golf course? No thanks. But if one could just teach the golf swing and get $50-60/hour, how sweet would that be? LOL.

Kinda makes you realize why some archery instructors just teach hourly lessons and don't run a JOAD/AA program, eh?

John


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I've also seen Sr. Limbwalker doing equipment fixes for others in between shots at his own tournaments, and the head coach of a football team isn't taking time from his own game to simultaneously help his players with a separate game, fixing their pads or something, while trying to get results personally and from his students in their separate competitions. It was impressive stuff and I don't see how that's easy.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I'm getting nowhere trying to tell y'all that you have work. Pointless to persist. =p


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I'm not saying it's easy to coach archery at a high level. Not at all. Just easier than many other sports. Fewer things to account for. Far fewer in most cases. I mean, one student, and for the most part (aside from Field, as Vittorio pointed out) one competitive condition. Done.

Now, running a club, being a regional coach or state org. officer, etc. is another thing. Akin to a PGA pro running the pro shop or doubling as the course Super. 

I'll have to agree with Vittorio though. The hardest I've worked as a coach in recent years has been preparing my archers to shoot field. But it was probably the most fun too. 

John


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

There is an ancient proverb, possibly Korean, probably apocryphal, saying that when one feels like they are digging a hole with an archery instructor, stop digging and find a bow and shoot it. Or I may have mistranscribed it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Ha, ha. Yea, I think that's how it went.


----------

