# The "IT" Factor



## erdman41 (May 6, 2009)

Bobmuley said:


> desire to win and know what it takes to get to that level, ability to live in the micropresent, able to turn their focus on at will, and throw in a good dose of beneficial support and circumstance.


Only thing I would change is not just knowing what it takes to get to that level but willing and able to do whatever it takes to get to that level. That is going to be different for each individual.

Also I think it takes all of those things with none being more important than the others.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Really don't know how to answer....Well, other than archery is just another game to play and I've played a lot other games.....


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

I think if you're looking for an "it", you're probably missing the whole idea of archery. For me, anyway, there actually being no "it" is kind of the "it". The old trite saying about it being about the process, not necessarily the outcome. For me it's good to have goals and to try to achieve them, but how I achieve the goal if I make it there is the important part of what keeps me on the line behind the bow. 

It's the difference between shooting a 10 by accident on a bad shot vs doing it on purpose with a good shot. Both achieve the goal of shooting a 10, but the two approaches are entirely different and mean very different things in the process of shooting. Both are "teachable moments" but provide very different lessons to the shooter.

I also kind of like trying the oddball stuff. Like my long-term goal of shooting a 300 using a bow for a purpose for which it's not intended (shooting my fingers wheel bow with a recurve sight, 10" stab and release aid for example - 1 end down, 9 to go... ):









lee.


----------



## adventurejack (Oct 30, 2006)

I think bobmuley's post vs lees' post is high level competitive archery vs recreational archery. One's not any better than the other...it's just what makes you happy.


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

Call me old fashioned, but second place is just the first loser. 

“It” is winning. 

...and not just winning leagues, but competing against guys you know can beat you.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

adventurejack said:


> I think bobmuley's post vs lees' post is high level competitive archery vs recreational archery. One's not any better than the other...it's just what makes you happy.


I don't agree. Even if your goal is to be competitive, your priorities still have to be archery first, other goals secondary. I didn't make that up, either. GRIV talks about that, for instance - he describes archery as being a process and the target is only the judgment of how well you actually execute that process. So he teaches concentrating on the process, not just shooting a 10 by any means necessary or necessarily beating your opponent, etc. In other words, even if the ultimate goal is a 10 every time or winning a match, you can't get around having to practice the actual archery part of it to do that. 

The way i think about it is, 30 bad shots into the 10 ring is far harder to reproduce than 30 good shots into the 10 ring. That's why working to master the process of archery and learning to make good shots, not just getting it in the 10 ring by itself, has to remain the #1 goal, whether you're competing or just shooting for fun and recreation.

Don't ask me why I know all that.

lee,


----------



## "TheBlindArcher" (Jan 27, 2015)

I have a lot of archery moments... they rhyme with "it," but [for the sake of this forum] start with a $ and #...


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

cbrunson said:


> Call me old fashioned, but second place is just the first loser.
> 
> “It” is winning.
> 
> ...and not just winning leagues, but competing against guys you know can beat you.


I'd say anyone that makes things like the shootoff in Vegas, Indoor Nat's, etc has "it", winning or not; especially those that repeatably get to that level. "It" may get you there, or to most upper end competitions, but there's still a bit of happenstance and luck involved - otherwise we couldn't explain Jesse never winning Indoor Nationals (IMO of course). When multiple guys with "it" come head-to-head...it gets real interesting.

https://youtu.be/AmvRVdw84aw?t=1716 Watch the original "second place is first place loser"-quoting archer. At about 19:00 he goes from Mr. Funlover, to Mr. I'd-push-your-grandma-over-to-win in the course of 60 seconds.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

"TheBlindArcher" said:


> I have a lot of archery moments... they rhyme with "it," but [for the sake of this forum] start with a $ and #...


Best post in thread, hands down......

Lee


----------



## Rick! (Aug 10, 2008)

cbrunson said:


> Call me old fashioned, but second place is just the first loser.
> 
> “It” is winning.
> 
> ...and not just winning leagues, but competing against guys you know can beat you.


Ok, I’ll bite, “yer old fashioned brunson.” So am I.

Winning is “it” for me also. Being a big fish in a small pond is fun but my goal is to be a big fish in a national pond.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

Bobmuley said:


> I'd say anyone that makes things like the shootoff in Vegas, Indoor Nat's, etc has "it", winning or not; especially those that repeatably get to that level. "It" may get you there, or to most upper end competitions, but there's still a bit of happenstance and luck involved - otherwise we couldn't explain Jesse never winning Indoor Nationals (IMO of course). When multiple guys with "it" come head-to-head...it gets real interesting.
> 
> https://youtu.be/AmvRVdw84aw?t=1716 Watch the original "second place is first place loser"-quoting archer. At about 19:00 he goes from Mr. Funlover, to Mr. I'd-push-your-grandma-over-to-win in the course of 60 seconds.


We both know that everyone making that shootoff wants to win. They are there to wn. Sure, second place among those peers is great, but they are there to win.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

"It" can be as simple as being the best you can be. So "It" can mean different things to different people.


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

Rick! said:


> Ok, I’ll bite, “yer old fashioned brunson.” So am I.
> 
> Winning is “it” for me also. Being a big fish in a small pond is fun but my goal is to be a big fish in a national pond.
> 
> ...


I’d call that drive. Drive to be the best, rather than just “the best I can be”. You never know how good you can be if you don’t continually push to be better than the best. Maybe you don’t make it, but someone has to. Might as well be you. 

...or I suppose you could give up, be happy in the pool of mediocrity, and just give “expert” advice on the internet. There seems to be plenty of room for those guys here.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

lees said:


> I think if you're looking for an "it", you're probably missing the whole idea of archery. For me, anyway, there actually being no "it" is kind of the "it". The old trite saying about it being about the process, not necessarily the outcome. For me it's good to have goals and to try to achieve them, but how I achieve the goal if I make it there is the important part of what keeps me on the line behind the bow.


That's great for any person to have an introspective approach to life or hobby. Everyone doesn't get a trophy, regardless of how many styles and division are created; nor is IT limited to any one style or division. Dave Barnsdale, John Demmer, and clearly Brady Ellison have IT in spite of their lesser recognition and notoriety among archers.

What you've described above is more of an eastern self-discipline sense of self, by separating the process from the result. That is great for practice and training, but to draw a simile to eastern martial arts how much victory is gained by fighting "right", but getting your butt handed to you. Clearly, that isn't IT. Some local-park flag-football legend may think he's Aaron Rogers or Todd Gurley, but he doesn't really have IT.



lees said:


> It's the difference between shooting a 10 by accident on a bad shot vs doing it on purpose with a good shot. Both achieve the goal of shooting a 10, but the two approaches are entirely different and mean very different things in the process of shooting. Both are "teachable moments" but provide very different lessons to the shooter.


 A person that has IT ties the process and the result together...a unique skillset in my opinion that limits those with it to the uppermost group. As archer's, we can't really separate ourselves from competitive scorekeeping or current results. Ever notice those guys that avoid scorekeeping...don't really do well under pressure towards the end?

In posts following this one quoted you speak of GRIV talking about honesty and and the target being the judge of the process. You misquoted. GRIV speaks of the the target being the judge of the performance because there are two sides...what you do on the line and in your head, and where the arrow lands. 

Not that what GRIV was talking about as being relative to who has IT, but rather how to reach an individuals maximum performance. 



lees said:


> I also kind of like trying the oddball stuff. Like my long-term goal of shooting a 300 using a bow for a purpose for which it's not intended (shooting my fingers wheel bow with a recurve sight, 10" stab and release aid for example - 1 end down, 9 to go... ):


While I think that caters to one's creative side, I don't see as how that relates to the topic.

Someone that has IT wants to win. I think those of us that are in close proximity to those with it can even sense it; not as intimidation, but their desire is effectively communicated through speech, physical movements, and not-so-subtle expressions. Wanting to win is not the same as planning and preparing to win, or mean that you have IT. Those with IT prepare more, plan more, train more, and do what is necessary to actually have a chance to win. I've known thousands of archers over the years; most "want" to win...few actually achieve success because they don't have the IT to prepare themselves to actually get there...and even know of several that will either consciously or subconsciously sabotage their planning/training/event to avoid the actual pressure of having to compete at the level needed to win...it's easier that way. Heck, I've been guilty of it myself, especially as I age and my thoughts of competitive versus recreational archery transform. 

I don't think that the winner has exclusive rights to IT, or that others that finish mid-pack don't have IT. Somethings happen beyond an archer's immediate control; but, you'll notice the same faces time and time again standing on the line while everyone else is sitting in the stands watching. IT is largely limited to a few day-in day-out successful competitors.

IT is borderline cockiness. The kind of stuff that we can't separate from what we think of as attitude and personality. I have watched one of the biggest perceived jerks in archery shoot an arrow into the ground and on another occasion call a deflection during a field round (a reshoot for his competitor) in the name of sportsmanship and fairness. Clearly, Cousins is intense, confident in his ability, and even though he's probably a little past his prime, I don't know too many top-shelf shooters that would want to see him in a shoot off. On the opposite spectrum is someone like Broadwater whom we all adore because of his humble persona. There's no doubt though that his intention of every shot is to shoot it in the middle and even in his humble ways knows that what he has done in the past isn't good enough and still tries to better his ability, mental game, and readiness. 

Speaking of Jesse, I don't know how many times over the years I've watched this. https://youtu.be/mIqWbX-BqZY?t=150

Though he's not in the center of the frame there's 16 seconds there from the time that he shoots (2:35) and loads his bow (2:43)........16 seconds....... and draws his bow (2:59) where it looks like he's "somewhere else". I've always wondered where he is in his head. His ability to go there (if you look at other non-WA timed events) you can see him go "there" when the pressure increases. He has IT.


----------



## Bob's My Uncle (Jan 9, 2012)

lees said:


> ...
> The way i think about it is, 30 bad shots into the 10 ring is far harder to reproduce than 30 good shots into the 10 ring. That's why working to master the process of archery and learning to make good shots, not just getting it in the 10 ring by itself, has to remain the #1 goal, whether you're competing or just shooting for fun and recreation.
> 
> ...


I like this description - and a very clear point too.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Bobmuley said:


> What you've described above is more of an eastern self-discipline sense of self, by separating the process from the result.


I described nothing of the kind - I'm advocating no "separation" of any Eastern anything. All I said was, if you want to be good at archery, including having whatever this "IT" would be, be a winner, shoot a score X in competition, etc., a necessary prerequisite to all of that is that you first have to learn how to make a good shot. The very foundation of "winner" or "IT" (whatever that means) must include the blood/sweat/tears of learning how to actually shoot your bow. Without that, you won't ever be able to become whatever it is you want to be as a shooter, including having whatever "IT" is. Full stop, end of story.

I only disagree that there's an "IT" at all, but that's ok.



> In posts following this one quoted you speak of GRIV talking about honesty and and the target being the judge of the process. You misquoted. GRIV speaks of the the target being the judge of the performance because there are two sides...what you do on the line and in your head, and where the arrow lands.


This is what I said in #7: " he describes archery as being a process and the target is only the judgment of *how well you actually execute* that process."

lee.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

lees said:


> I described nothing of the kind - I'm advocating no "separation" of any Eastern anything. All I said was, if you want to be good at archery, including having whatever this "IT" would be, be a winner, shoot a score X in competition, etc., a necessary prerequisite to all of that is that you first have to learn how to make a good shot. The very foundation of "winner" or "IT" (whatever that means) must include the blood/sweat/tears of learning how to actually shoot your bow. Without that, you won't ever be able to become whatever it is you want to be as a shooter, including having whatever "IT" is. Full stop, end of story.
> 
> I only disagree that there's an "IT" at all, but that's ok.
> 
> ...


There's a lot of guys and girls that have the process and aren't successful because they don't have IT. There's 500 guys and girls at Vegas that CAN shoot 300s at will. They do it at home all the time. A lot of those will string 3 of those together all the time...but we end up with only about a dozen in any given year. We see it all the time. Local hotshot beats up on folks in league and local/regional shoots...then turns into a 298-299 shooter overnight when driving into Clark County. They have the skill and process. They just don't have IT. 

I'm not talking about "us" hobbyist/recreational archers; but there is definitely an IT factor just like in golf, football, baseball, etc. IT is what separates them from the wannabes, up and comers, has beens, and unfocused talented people. 

I am not saying that process isn't important, at least for most people, but that it isn't enough to become a consistent high-level finisher. Being a high-level finisher isn't for everyone; otherwise we'd all be training instead of posting on AT.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Bobmuley said:


> There's a lot of guys and girls that have the process and aren't successful because they don't have IT. There's 500 guys and girls at Vegas that CAN shoot 300s at will. They do it at home all the time. A lot of those will string 3 of those together all the time...but we end up with only about a dozen in any given year. We see it all the time. Local hotshot beats up on folks in league and local/regional shoots...then turns into a 298-299 shooter overnight when driving into Clark County. They have the skill and process. They just don't have IT.
> 
> I'm not talking about "us" hobbyist/recreational archers; but there is definitely an IT factor just like in golf, football, baseball, etc. IT is what separates them from the wannabes, up and comers, has beens, and unfocused talented people.
> 
> I am not saying that process isn't important, at least for most people, but that it isn't enough to become a consistent high-level finisher. Being a high-level finisher isn't for everyone; otherwise we'd all be training instead of posting on AT.


But I can bet, with at least 99% confidence and perhaps higher, that you won't find the reverse: a "IT"-bearing champion/winner/high-level finisher/etc that *doesn't *have archery itself - the basic process of shooting a good shot - as the foundation of their "IT" and their #1 priority. I'll assume for the sake of argument that this ill-defined "IT" is a real "thing" - my point remains what I stated in my first post. If your #1 priority is whatever this "IT" thing is, you're, by definition, placing it above the practice of archery itself - mastering the art and craft of actually shooting your bow the best you possibly can. 

Or saying it another way: no matter how hard you want it, or how convinced you are you already got it, you can't be a champion if you're a lousy or incomplete archer - if you can't make good shots. That's just how it is and how it always will be.

So again all I'm saying is your priorities have to be in order no matter what your other goals are in archery. Even for shooters like us and the other participants in this thread who, for whatever reason in each case, aren't champions and don't have this "IT". Well, except Sonny. What we do have in common with true champions, though, is that we know (hopefully) that the very basis of what we do has to be first and foremost learning to make a good shot; then all the rest, whatever it might be, can fall into place.

You're right that the process of doing good archery isn't sufficient for achieving championship, but I think we can confidently say that it is necessary.....

lee.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

lees said:


> ...- mastering the art and craft of actually shooting your bow the best you possibly can.


I think that's close, but I'm gonna butcher it up in a paraphrase:

"Mastering your genuine shot with near perfection under all conditions of stress" 

IT is what gets "them" there. The mental fortitude to dedicate the time and training to do what is actually needed, instead of thinking what's needed or worst yet "hoping and wishing" to shoot well.

Why did Tiger Woods, who undoubtedly had IT, change swings during his career...while he was winning? Because mastering the game isn't enough for someone with IT. He was always searching for better. Why did Jesse Broadwater change his form after winning just about everything there is? Because perfect is still out there. He has the IT to keep searching for it.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Bobmuley said:


> I think that's close, but I'm gonna butcher it up in a paraphrase:
> 
> "Mastering your genuine shot with near perfection under all conditions of stress"
> 
> ...


Very much like your paraphrase, I prefer it to my statement for sure. 

As for the desire to get better, though, that's probably another one of those not sufficient but definitely necessary conditions again for championship. I don't think that's exclusive to championship level shooters only. I know quite a few archers who are never fully satisfied with where they are and are constantly looking for ways to improve and working to gain that improvement, but are not championship level. I'm one of those myself; I'm never finished working on my shooting, or feel I ever have it down pat even when I'm successfully solving problems and shooting better afterwards than I was before. I still keep on going trying to get better than I used to be all the time. So if that's a characteristic of "IT", I have to go out on a limb and assert that even I have that. But my "IT" is probably not the "IT" you're quite looking for... 

lee.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Bobmuley said:


> Being a high-level finisher isn't for everyone; otherwise we'd all be training instead of posting on AT.


Most excellent and I'd note that in post #1 if you don't have support in one manner or another some can't be that high level finisher. Okay, I'm talking anything, not just archery.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

SonnyThomas said:


> Most excellent and I'd note that in post #1 if you don't have support in one manner or another some can't be that high level finisher. Okay, I'm talking anything, not just archery.


Well, I'm still saying blindarcher has the right answer overall.... in post 8.....

lee.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Bobmuley said:


> Someone that has IT wants to win. I think those of us that are in close proximity to those with it can even sense it; not as intimidation, but their desire is effectively communicated through speech, physical movements, and not-so-subtle expressions. Wanting to win is not the same as planning and preparing to win, or mean that you have IT. Those with IT prepare more, plan more, train more, and do what is necessary to actually have a chance to win.


PS: Cassidy Cox is the archer I've been on the line with personally that has whatever the "IT" is. She shoots at our shop sometimes and I shot next to her at our state outdoor this summer - I believe I even put an arrow in her target that day also right in the 10 ring, either hers or Gabe's target above it. Don't ask. 

But my impression is that she just simply worked for and has a superior level shot and she knows it. And that's what gives her the confidence she has that she can win and be championship level. I don't get the feeling that it's the other way around as one or two other posters seemed to suggest - I start with "drive", I reject "mediocrity", I visualize myself already as a champion-in-waiting, etc, and that's what makes me exceptional and will hopefully make me shoot at a championship level one day. 

For her, again just my 3rd hand observation is she's just really really exceptional at shooting (under all conditions, etc. as you stated earlier); she did the footwork and put in all the blood/sweat/tears on the line with the bow in her hand. And that shot that she worked her hiney off for is her foundation - what gives her the "IT" to become a champion. And that's also, I think, why she has the support to compete at the national levels also.

I've known some other celebrities in other lines of work and they appear to have the same progress of their priorities: they got exceptional at what they did first and that's what led them to become the top practitioners in their art and craft.... 

Anyway, just another data point that leads me to think archery first, champion later.....

lee.


----------



## erdman41 (May 6, 2009)

I think the IT the op was talking about is a lot rarer than what is being bandied about here.

Example there are 32 starting Quarterbacks in the NFL. Have to be pretty good to be a starting QB in the NFL. I would say only two or three have the IT factor he's talking about.

Two of them are playing Sunday night.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

erdman41 said:


> I think the IT the op was talking about is a lot rarer than what is being bandied about here.
> 
> Example there are 32 starting Quarterbacks in the NFL. Have to be pretty good to be a starting QB in the NFL. I would say only two or three have the IT factor he's talking about.
> 
> ...


I thought Fran Tarkenton retired years ago  Whoops! For the shame of me, in Bears country and a Viking lover.


----------



## erdman41 (May 6, 2009)

SonnyThomas said:


> I thought Fran Tarkenton retired years ago  Whoops! For the shame of me, in Bears country and a Viking lover.


Fran Tarkington is a classic case of someone who was good but didn't have IT.



Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Rick! (Aug 10, 2008)

lees said:


> P
> But my impression is that she just simply worked for and has a superior level shot and she knows it. And that's what gives her the confidence she has that she can win and be championship level. I don't get the feeling that it's the other way around as one or two other posters seemed to suggest - I start with "drive", I reject "mediocrity", I visualize my *process and my arrow hitting the X... *


You just described, with the exception of what's in red, the ingredients to conjure IT; skill, confidence, extraordinary visualization, and swagger. 
It is the same refrain given in the Adult HP Compound Archery Academy. 
Once you can print behind the dot, it's all mental. Re-read Lanny and add Don't Leave Your Mind Behind, and Finding Your Zone, et al.



erdman41 said:


> I think the IT the op was talking about is a lot rarer than what is being bandied about here.
> 
> Example there are 32 starting Quarterbacks in the NFL. Have to be pretty good to be a starting QB in the NFL. I would say only two or three have the IT factor he's talking about.
> 
> ...


In my best Dale Carnegie emulation: 
I appreciate your analogy of NFL quarterbacks and the inkling that only a small subset of them have IT. I would add that in the context of this discussion, venturing into arenas outside of upper level amateur archery could lead to speculation and several rabbit trails which will significantly add to some folks word count without adding value to the conversation...


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

Rick! said:


> You just described, with the exception of what's in red, the ingredients to conjure IT; skill, confidence, extraordinary visualization, and swagger.
> It is the same refrain given in the Adult HP Compound Archery Academy.
> Once you can print behind the dot, it's all mental. Re-read Lanny and add Don't Leave Your Mind Behind, and Finding Your Zone, et al..


That is one of the big problems with this acceptance of limitations. Sure it’s okay to have excuses for not finishing strong, but being a winner is not a product of “rejecting mediocrity”. It is a product of determination and desire. 

While being happy with oneself for bumping up their league average, it is completely irrelevant with regards to competition. That has nothing to do with the “It” factor.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

erdman41 said:


> Fran Tarkington is a classic case of someone who was good but didn't have IT.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


Well, I was funning. Still, Tarkington was called the Scrambler. And off subject; Later, after he retired, he was noted having the highest average yardage for rushing, 7 yards per carry I believe...


----------



## erdman41 (May 6, 2009)

SonnyThomas said:


> Well, I was funning. Still, Tarkington was called the Scrambler. And off subject; Later, after he retired, he was noted having the highest average yardage for rushing, 7 yards per carry I believe...


675 attempts 3674 yards

So 5.4 yards per carry but you were close at 7. Not enough career attempts to qualify for any rushing records.

Someone with IT you are more surprised when they don't win/make the shoot off then you are when they do.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Bob's My Uncle said:


> I like this description - and a very clear point too.


Believe it or not, this is one of the few discoveries I made completely on my own and didn't actually borrow from shooters far better than me . But I'm finding it to be true. Out of all the tricks, scams, mental hocus-pocus, positive self-talk and vague attitude nonsense that you read about in archery, I have found that just shooting my bow as much as possible, and in public on the line with peers at every opportunity, is the easiest route to shooting higher scores. 

The only way out is through, as the old saying goes - learning to execute a good shot (with Bob's modification to my remark of course  ) through the repeated practice of archery itself really is the easiest way to shoot as many 10's as possible of all the other "methods" out there. 

The real gauge being, if you outshoot yourself over time at a reasonable rate, that's how you know what you're doing is probably working. If you don't outshoot yourself at a reasonable rate, it's probably time to revisit what you're doing. 

That's how I've settled on shooting my bow as much as possible and the rest is dessert, as my "IT" I guess you'd call it. Practicing archery first and foremost is where you begin. Of course, YMMV.....

lee.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Maybe not top level in whatever sport, but can you have "It" for a brief period say to reach a goal. I think you can. Some higher levels of competing are out of reach when support isn't there or other obligations are the call and some obligations are important, family, job, and there is growing older. There is also and making decisions for one's change in life. Life has this "curve ball" that you don't want thrown at you....


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

lees said:


> Believe it or not, this is one of the few discoveries I made completely on my own and didn't actually borrow from shooters far better than me . But I'm finding it to be true. Out of all the tricks, scams, mental hocus-pocus, positive self-talk and vague attitude nonsense that you read about in archery, I have found that just shooting my bow as much as possible, and in public on the line with peers at every opportunity, is the easiest route to shooting higher scores.
> 
> The only way out is through, as the old saying goes - learning to execute a good shot (with Bob's modification to my remark of course  ) through the repeated practice of archery itself really is the easiest way to shoot as many 10's as possible of all the other "methods" out there.
> 
> ...


10s ain’t good enough anymore. At least for the indoor game. 

Just like Tiger changed the game of golf the archery IT-sters have changed the game. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

SonnyThomas said:


> Maybe not top level in whatever sport, but can you have "It" for a brief period say to reach a goal. I think you can. Some higher levels of competing are out of reach when support isn't there or other obligations are the call and some obligations are important, family, job, and there is growing older. There is also and making decisions for one's change in life. Life has this "curve ball" that you don't want thrown at you....


Setting the bar where you choose doesn’t make sense. In competition, the winner sets the bar. Anyone can say that if they had the time and tools they have what it takes, but only a few actually do it. Those guys...the doers, those are the ones that have “IT”. Those guys with the excuses as to why they’ve never been at the top, don’t have it. 

The only question I see is whether the one time winners fall into the same category of achievement as the few that repeatedly win or finish on the podium.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Bobmuley said:


> 10s ain’t good enough anymore. At least for the indoor game.
> 
> Just like Tiger changed the game of golf the archery IT-sters have changed the game.


True that... and us non-IT-sters fall ever further and further behind as long as we don't have time to shoot . 

A little off-topic, but one contributing factor is that our equipment is getting easier to shoot all the time too. Not too noticeable year over year, but if you look at a span of time like, say, 1985 to today, you see a pretty large gain in just overall quality and precision in the gear we have available. I'm thinking of the "how did they shoot that old junk" thread I started in the general section where I finally found some extended video of Terry Ragsdale shooting in competition, but then ran across bonuses like Katie Smith and Becky Pearson also. And comparing that to a typical indoor shoot of today.

Us older folks like to reminisce about the Good Old Days when we started out, but really looking back, as is so often the case the Good Old Days' bows and arrows weren't really all that Good Old. We're truly in the Good Old Days today I think.

That's not making an excuse, but I do think the easier-to-shoot and much more durable bows and release aids, etc., we have available now have helped improved scores overall. 

Just the simple fact that your rest and sight now stay put on your bow without rattling loose or breaking off, and your arrows last seasons now rather than a month or two tops has helped increase scores. Those sound like just minor distractions, but when you have to start tossing out bent arrows after a couple months or even sooner and fletch up new ones, or the rest keeps moving or the cam servings on your strings keep coming completely unwound on a regular basis.... that can actually start to make a dent in your concentration over a period of time and effect your shot. 

Not to mention having to shoot 50% more poundage with 50% higher holding weight into a 10 foot long back wall just to shoot an arrow 50% slower than we can today.... It all adds up....

So, without all that going on and you can just go and go without carrying allen wrenches in your pocket and otherwise worrying too much about what's going to break or crack next, you can go measureably further with your shooting....

lee.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

cbrunson said:


> Setting the bar where you choose doesn’t make sense. In competition, the winner sets the bar. Anyone can say that if they had the time and tools they have what it takes, but only a few actually do it. Those guys...the doers, those are the ones that have “IT”. Those guys with the excuses as to why they’ve never been at the top, don’t have it.
> 
> The only question I see is whether the one time winners fall into the same category of achievement as the few that repeatedly win or finish on the podium.


If the "bar" was set by someone else? Okay, a "ride" in a sport is there," but you have to produce to get it and then to keep it.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

lees said:


> True that... and us non-IT-sters fall ever further and further behind as long as we don't have time to shoot .
> 
> So, without all that going on and you can just go and go without carrying allen wrenches in your pocket and otherwise worrying too much about what's going to break or crack next, you can go measureably further with your shooting....
> 
> lee.


The It-sters MAKE time to train (not just "shoot"). 

I used to shoot 4-6 hours every day. Didn't matter if it was a Saturday, a Tuesday, Christmas, or my ex-wife's birthday. Honestly, outside of nerves, I couldn't miss. I had the physical abilities but initially lacked the mental training needed to realize that I didn't need to shoot "extra" well in the hottest part of competition. Other problems included falling asleep at the wheel during longer shoots because I didn't train for that. I worked hard enough to have the shot I needed, but not the training to know that I had the necessary shot and how to use it. I was short of IT. 

Then came along two little girls. I didn't quit shooting, but my competitive side was put on standby and the number of tourney's I'd attend went from 30, to 10, to 2, to zero quickly over the next decade. I had found the thing that I wasn't willing to...no...couldn't...sacrifice. It's not an excuse, just a fact that at the time there was no way I'd be able to be with them and the lack of support system I had that I'd been able to further the mental game to search for IT. I wouldn't change a thing as I now have two good, smart, young ladies that live full-time with me. 

THEY want me to shoot now. Which is great as a father, but I realize that the odds are stacked against me being able to even capture old glory, much less attain greater success approaching the IT-sters. I don't know that I have the drive anymore to stay up until 2:00 every morning shooting, training, and working on equipment. 

Sure equipment has made progress, but the IT-sters have upped the game. These guys are shooting full time, hundreds of arrows a day, and dedicating the necessary training to the mental side to know that they don't have to try harder when it counts. Once a barrier is broken, it becomes somewhat commonplace. I remember when Dave Cousins broke a 590 in the old NAA and was winning by 12 points. Now that might not even get you into a bracket...That record kept going higher and higher until Schloesser completed the gap and now only perfect counts...and it's been done 2 more times since, because everyone knows it CAN be done. 25 guys shot 120 Xs at Nationals this year. 30X games are attained every day of Vegas. Perkins shot a ridiculous 105 Xs at Harrisburg. Levi Morgan refuses to let anyone else win a SOY. Everyone is complaining because "too many guys" are breaking 700 in the WA outdoor qualifications. etc. etc. 

The game has changed because these guys changed it.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

cbrunson said:


> Setting the bar where you choose doesn’t make sense. In competition, the winner sets the bar. Anyone can say that if they had the time and tools they have what it takes, but only a few actually do it. Those guys...the doers, those are the ones that have “IT”. Those guys with the excuses as to why they’ve never been at the top, don’t have it.
> 
> The only question I see is whether the one time winners fall into the same category of achievement as the few that repeatedly win or finish on the podium.


I would guess to say that IT is expendable. IT can be gained, had...and lost. 

Here's the right attitude...just needs a little reinforcement. I hope he goes far with it. https://youtu.be/qTiQ8J3C4Vc?t=4285


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

SonnyThomas said:


> If the "bar" was set by someone else? Okay, a "ride" in a sport is there," but you have to produce to get it and then to keep it.


I’m not sure what you are saying. A “ride”? 

What I assume, is the common belief most people have. “Whatever my best is, is really good, and everyone better than me is either extremely gifted, given opportunity I don’t have, or whatever excuse you have for not being at their level. 

What I get from you and another poster here is that you either have “IT” but never were given the chance to use “IT”, or you dumb your version of “IT” down to your level for your own self-esteem, because being a self proclaimed expert is easier than proving it. 

If you have what “IT” takes, you show it. You perform when it matters, in competition.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Bobmuley said:


> The It-sters MAKE time to train (not just "shoot").


Couldn't agree more with your whole post... 
For brief periods this past year I got some opportunities to shoot literally every day and it was an eye-opener. In the past, I'd always heard it taught that the compound was "training wheels" and even a monkey could shoot a 300 Vegas. The real mastery was olympic recurve, the compound was what you fell back on when you couldn't shoot oly. 

My oly career was finally ended this past year by a terminal form of clicker panic, so it went in the case and I went full on on compound. I bought my shootdown and built a new set of strings for my tribute and went at it. I can confidently say that the old "training wheels" thing is false..... Nobody even looks at you until long after you start shooting 300's but it starts getting hyperbolically harder even before then. Once you start getting them just in the gold trying to get them all in the 10 makes that effort look like child's play. 

Speaking of oly, it's even getting like that on the olympic recurve. It's becoming not so much outshooting the other guy as it is who makes the fatal mistake first, like it has been on compound for the longest time. The very top isn't as heavily populated as it is on compound, but the bar keeps going up and up there too.

so you're quite right, the "IT"-ers are the ones doing it. A glorious thing to watch .

lee.


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

Bobmuley said:


> I would guess to say that IT is expendable. IT can be gained, had...and lost.
> 
> Here's the right attitude...just needs a little reinforcement. I hope he goes far with it. https://youtu.be/qTiQ8J3C4Vc?t=4285


Sure. 

This year in Redding I shot with some great champions of years past. I know without a doubt that they have had the “IT” I believe you are speaking of. I beat all but one of them easily, yet I will argue that they have “IT”, and that I don’t. They’ve done it. They set the bar back in their day, or when they were winning and I have not. I don’t have that right until I prove it. (Which will not likely happen given my self-limiting excuses)


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

SonnyThomas said:


> Maybe not top level in whatever sport, but can you have "It" for a brief period say to reach a goal. I think you can. Some higher levels of competing are out of reach when support isn't there or other obligations are the call and some obligations are important, family, job, and there is growing older. There is also and making decisions for one's change in life. Life has this "curve ball" that you don't want thrown at you....


That's another reason I'm not sure there's an "IT", tho I'm referring to it now rhetorically. There's a reason you've never heard of any of the guys posting in this thread out on the competition trail. Their priorities are just out of whack - they want to be "IT"-ers probably worse than anyone else, but they don't have a realistic approach to actually getting there. They think just the right attitude and the right gruff or whatever will do it. So they remain unknowns that you never see on any podiums anywhere. Maybe a local competition or two or a league score and that's about as far as they've gotten.

Others of us have different reasons too, maybe other priorities in life as you and Bob say. It could be any number of things, but those things are real and you can't just wish them out of the way of what you really want to achieve.

The bottom line is, just wanting to be an "IT"-er and wishing your way there and actually becoming an "IT"-er by really mastering your bow are two entirely different things. You don't actually have to be an "IT"-er to understand that either; just shooting your bow as much as you can will really make that plain to you.

If you listen to the real "IT"-ers they all almost universally attribute their success to a single-minded devotion to shooting a good, repeatable shot first and foremost. Only once they get that foundation solid, the rest of the goals can finally be put on the table and pursued. That includes all the logistics required to really become exceptional, including a realistic look at your life situation and making adjustments accordingly. It doesn't make sense to do all that until you can see you really have the shot needed to start with, and a realistic plan to get to the next level.

So, your idea of having "IT" to achieve a goal is a good one, I think. Getting better as a shooter is often just discovering a problem by running into it as you practice more. Then developing a plan to fix it and executing that plan. And accepting that you may just not shoot better for quite a while until you get over that hump. Shawn Padgett says that a lot and he's spot on, IMO. That's one thing I also remember Brady Ellison saying - the more you shoot the faster you run into problems and the opportunities to fix them....

lee.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

You hit some good ones there, Bob. Sacrifice and you can only hang on to something for so long...Well, except for Levi  

Little "Its" help. I had to go back to school to advance to a higher paying job. And then schooling didn't stop. All great going up the ladder, but then when you get to be one of three fully qualified you don't get the time off you'd like. 51 years old to be exact when I started competing. 4 years from retirement you don't put your job in jeopardy. Health Insurance for life for me and the wife. Nice retirement check. And then my surgeon; "Look, if your hand has to be rebuilt again it doesn't go near as well." Company doctor; "Your surgeon told the truth. You've got 35 years in, don't you think retirement is in order?" I retired with 36 years in. We had "30 and Out" in our contract. So another 6 years added to my retirement pay. Retirement and SS I probably take in more than some do working. I know I made the right choices.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

cbrunson said:


> I’m not sure what you are saying. A “ride”?
> 
> What I assume, is the common belief most people have. “Whatever my best is, is really good, and everyone better than me is either extremely gifted, given opportunity I don’t have, or whatever excuse you have for not being at their level.
> 
> ...


"Ride." Sponsored or sponsored to different degrees. You have to work for that "ride." Really no different than wanting a better job. To get that better job you do whatever it takes. Maybe a different "It," but still a "It." 

Evidently you're too young to understand. Bob noted sacrifice...you don't make. Family and job come first and this makes you "limited." Never even gave the thought of some one being gifted above and beyond.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

SonnyThomas said:


> ...Bob noted sacrifice...you don't make. Family and job come first and this makes you "limited."


Maybe Bob should clarify. I remember quitting a job I had back in 1994 to go to a shoot. He wanted me to work on Saturday and I had plans for a shoot out of state. I made the choice to find a different job, because that risk was minimal. I had a better chance of making a better check in Phoenix than I did busting tires for 6 hours for him. I could also find a different, or better, job without much trouble. Things like better wages, kids, and other obligations weigh in on all our decisions.

It's choices. You either choose to get better and get to the top, or you weigh your chances and determine your aversion to risk and determine whether or not it's worth the gamble. 

If you don't really believe in yourself, I suppose it's harder to gamble.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Bobmuley said:


> Maybe Bob should clarify. I remember quitting a job I had back in 1994 to go to a shoot. He wanted me to work on Saturday and I had plans for a shoot out of state. I made the choice to find a different job, because that risk was minimal. I had a better chance of making a better check in Phoenix than I did busting tires for 6 hours for him. I could also find a different, or better, job without much trouble. Things like better wages, kids, and other obligations weigh in on all our decisions.
> 
> It's choices. You either choose to get better and get to the top, or you weigh your chances and determine your aversion to risk and determine whether or not it's worth the gamble.
> 
> If you don't really believe in yourself, I suppose it's harder to gamble.


I'm going through that exact thing right now too. A job change recently almost totally cut off my practice schedule for about 10 or 12 different reasons all at once. One of which being I'm old and can't recover from medium-hard labor 8 hours a day as quickly as I used to, so shooting before and after work isn't an option I can do physically at the moment. 

OTOH, I can't starve either and I need income to buy arrows, etc. 

But the idea of moving onto something else so I can actually practice a realistic amount isn't foreign to my mind and I'm having consider those hard choices. I was actually getting good enough prior to that, and outshooting myself to a degree that that's a reasonable sacrifice I have to think about making if I want to keep getting better than I was before. 

Like I said, it's not all about just thinking you're the greatest and it'll just happen if you've got a gristly enough attitude, etc. You have to make it happen by being realistic about your situation, your chances of going up another step and what sacrifices and changes you have to make to do that....

lee.


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

SonnyThomas said:


> "Ride." Sponsored or sponsored to different degrees. You have to work for that "ride." Really no different than wanting a better job. To get that better job you do whatever it takes. Maybe a different "It," but still a "It."
> 
> Evidently you're too young to understand. Bob noted sacrifice...you don't make. Family and job come first and this makes you "limited." Never even gave the thought of some one being gifted above and beyond.


I don’t think we’re even talking about the same thing.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

SonnyThomas said:


> "Ride." Sponsored or sponsored to different degrees. You have to work for that "ride." Really no different than wanting a better job. To get that better job you do whatever it takes. Maybe a different "It," but still a "It."
> 
> Evidently you're too young to understand. Bob noted sacrifice...you don't make. Family and job come first and this makes you "limited." Never even gave the thought of some one being gifted above and beyond.


Exactly. You don't achieve success by just labeling everyone else as making excuses or "dumbing down your version of 'IT'" - you have to be realistic about your situation, probability for success and have a realistic plan for how you're going to achieve your goals. Not just fantasizing your way into greatness.

Like I said, if we ever saw these guys on podiums at national events, the shooting level they think they deserve, that'd be another story and we could take them seriously.

These young guys probably don't remember the old John Houseman commercial which is still a surprisingly good expression of these basic principles even today  :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl9Cyn266Lo

lee.


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

lees said:


> Exactly. You don't achieve success by just labeling everyone else as making excuses or "dumbing down your version of 'IT'" - you have to be realistic about your situation, probability for success and have a realistic plan for how you're going to achieve your goals. Not just fantasizing your way into greatness.
> 
> Like I said, if we ever saw these guys on podiums at national events, the shooting level they think they deserve, that'd be another story and we could take them seriously.
> 
> ...


I don’t think there is a “version of IT”. Only that winners have “IT” and losers don’t. 

It doesn’t surprise me you do.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

erdman41 said:


> Two of them are playing Sunday night.











I hate Tom Brady, but I would never disrespect his talent, drive, and passion to win. I've never seen him give up and can only imagine the work it take's to compete in the NFL at his level at 41 years old.

He has IT, no matter how much I like him.


----------



## erdman41 (May 6, 2009)

Bobmuley said:


> View attachment 6644545
> 
> can only imagine the work it take's to compete in the NFL at his level at 41 years old.
> 
> He has IT, no matter how much I HATE him.


I wish I could find the article of Reo Wildes average day while he was still working at UPS. It was a rediculous schedule. Something like deliver 5am til 2pm. Rush to the range and shoot til 6pm. Go home eat quick with Family then back to the range til 9pm. That's IT.

Last time I went to Iowa Pro Am he pretty much lived on the practice range. Might have even slept there not sure lol.


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

erdman41 said:


> I wish I could find the article of Reo Wildes average day while he was still working at UPS. It was a rediculous schedule. Something like deliver 5am til 2pm. Rush to the range and shoot til 6pm. Go home eat quick with Family then back to the range til 9pm. That's IT.
> 
> Last time I went to Iowa Pro Am he pretty much lived on the practice range. Might have even slept there not sure lol.
> 
> ...



One of the things that has always impressed me about Dee is how he can step his game up in competition. Last year at Lancaster was the best example. Tuesday night he was fighting some issues and struggling to settle in, but by the weekend he was pounding Xs on live TV.

I’m pretty sure if I’m going to learn anything from old guys, it’s going to come from old guys like him that have done it and can still get it done.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

erdman41 said:


> I wish I could find the article of Reo Wildes average day while he was still working at UPS. It was a rediculous schedule. Something like deliver 5am til 2pm. Rush to the range and shoot til 6pm. Go home eat quick with Family then back to the range til 9pm. That's IT.
> 
> Last time I went to Iowa Pro Am he pretty much lived on the practice range. Might have even slept there not sure lol.
> 
> ...


10 games every day if I remember correctly.


----------



## LMacD (Mar 16, 2015)

A quick chime in to say "best thread in ages". Cheers!


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

lees said:


> You don't achieve success by just labeling everyone else as making excuses or "dumbing down your version of 'IT'


 Having different priorities is not an excuse. Using those priorities to explain why one hasn't achieved success is. 



lees said:


> you have to be realistic about your situation, probability for success...


...said no person that ever achieved greatness at anything. Being "realistic" with goals will hold you back more than anything...

You may weigh your options and decide that you don't want to put in the effort and sacrifice to achieve the goal because it's not "worth" it. That's fine, but you have to realize that someone out there will be willing to do those things. That doesn't mean they're a better or smarter person. It just means that they're more dedicated to archery (or whatever endeavor) and unrealistic success than the person that decides against it. It could even be apparent that it's the wrong decision to others; like what if a guy ignores his kids altogether in favor of training and successfully competing? His level of success is measured in Xs...and obviously not as a parent. Generally, as a society we'd label him a failure regardless of what he'd "won". THAT is why we all like someone like Jesse...we can't find any obvious faults as a shooter or as a person. 



lees said:


> ... have a realistic plan for how you're going to achieve your goals. Not just fantasizing your way into greatness.


That's pretty much what we've been saying.


Let's say that Joe Bagadonuts, who is a 285 Vegas shooter wants to be a contender for Vegas. He plans, schedules, gets coaching, trains effectively and learns to compete and win at his state tourneys. He goes to Vegas and shoots an 896 and 63 Xs. 

Some damn good shooting. 

He still doesn't have "it". That's not to say that he'll never get there; but I think most of us know that those last 4 points are a lot harder to overcome than the 41 he's already made up. Joe will have to stick to or modify the plan...but only if he's not satisfied with what he's achieved. If he's not satisfied until he gets to the top he may have the seed of "IT" in him, but until proven in pressure situations it's hard to say if "IT" will ever be realized. By having unrealistic expectations he didn't allow himself to be satisfied with mediocrity. He's put himself into the bottom- to mid-level of the "best shooters" group and I wouldn't say he failed by coming up short (although it may feel like it to him). He just has a little bit further to go.

I've not had the pleasure of shooting against the newer generation: Beauboef, Broadwater, Anderson, Tedford, Schloesser, etcetera and am in no shape to take them on today. What would most all of us do if we toed the line with them? If you think you'd stand no chance against them, you for sure don't have "IT". If you "think" you might have a chance you don't have "IT". If you can't wait to wipe your butt with their scorecards you might have "IT". When you at least equal them...you'll have "IT".


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

Bobmuley said:


> I've not had the pleasure of shooting against the newer generation: Beauboef, Broadwater, Anderson, Tedford, Schloesser, etcetera and am in no shape to take them on today. What would most all of us do if we toed the line with them? If you think you'd stand no chance against them, you for sure don't have "IT". If you "think" you might have a chance you don't have "IT". If you can't wait to wipe your butt with their scorecards you might have "IT". When you at least equal them...you'll have "IT".




Confidence is probably the biggest attribute of someone who has “IT”

Not to be confused with arrogance.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

cbrunson said:


> Confidence is probably the biggest attribute of someone who has “IT”
> 
> Not to be confused with arrogance.


Confidence is more a byproduct. You get good and confidence follows. The better you get the more confidence settles in.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Bobmuley said:


> Having different priorities is not an excuse. Using those priorities to explain why one hasn't achieved success is.


Don't agree. Look at the posters in this thread, including you and me - we all have pretty good, reasonable notions about why we haven't been successful. A few are stubbornly trying not to admit their reasons for not achieving the success they think they deserve, but they have them regardless, and (hopefully) know what they are too just like we do. Does that imply directly that we'll never be successful? How do you know?



> ...said no person that ever achieved greatness at anything. Being "realistic" with goals will hold you back more than anything...


Don't agree again. Reo Wilde, for example, has said more than once in interviews that he has a wife and kids to support and that definitely affects his decisions about sponsorship and so on. Is that just making an excuse for switching bow companies at the minor, but possible, risk that may have to his performance? Or is that actually a sober and thoughtful look at the logistics of pursuing his career and making an informed choice accordingly? 

Think about it like this: there's a fine line between giving up through just making excuses and having a realistic plan for achieving something that also includes acknowledging any of the roadblocks that you must deal with to get there. Both situations involve being honest about what those upcoming roadblocks are, but one decides to work around, or overcome, the roadblocks and the other does not. I won't insult you by asking you to name which is which .



> like what if a guy ignores his kids altogether in favor of training and successfully competing? His level of success is measured in Xs...and obviously not as a parent. Generally, as a society we'd label him a failure regardless of what he'd "won". THAT is why we all like someone like Jesse...we can't find any obvious faults as a shooter or as a person.


So what? How is the choice to ignore your kids and be a neglectful parent to pursue archery to the bitter end not a *realistic* choice? And who cares if you're liked or not? Yes, it's reprehensible to be sure and probably also includes a plan to avoid jail and the courts, yes, of course . And we may label him a failure as a parent, but if he shoots enough X's in competition and wins matches as an archer, he's achieved his goal through deliberate planning, has he not?

Here's another way to think about it: what if that same guy simply unknowingly started neglecting his family and just shot his bow all the time, without really taking the consequences of his actions into consideration. Is that different from the scenario where he deliberately decides his family is a roadblock and he's simply going to go around it by active choice? If so, how? if not, why not?

lee.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Oops, PS:



Bobmuley said:


> I've not had the pleasure of shooting against the newer generation: Beauboef, Broadwater, Anderson, Tedford, Schloesser, etcetera and am in no shape to take them on today. What would most all of us do if we toed the line with them? If you think you'd stand no chance against them, you for sure don't have "IT". If you "think" you might have a chance you don't have "IT". If you can't wait to wipe your butt with their scorecards you might have "IT". When you at least equal them...you'll have "IT".




Again, this is why I don't think there's an actual "IT". Two reasons for that: a) there's no firm definition of what "IT" actually is here, only the results of this supposed "IT" and b) even if there were such a thing, if we all knew what it really was, we'd all be on those podiums with those "IT"-ers, actually beating them from time to time. And not the unknowns that we are. Well, again, except Sonny.

But since no one in this thread is an "IT"-er by any stretch of the imagination given that none can compete with the list of shooters you gave, the best we can do is guess at a constellation of characteristics we think make up this "IT" and that's about all. 

That said, I reiterate my position that archery itself, with always outshooting yourself as much as possible as you go forward, is probably the real foundation of success and everything else is built on that. Maybe there's *an* "IT" and not really a *the *"IT"...?

lee.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

lees said:


> Don't agree. Look at the posters in this thread, including you and me - we all have pretty good, reasonable notions about why we haven't been successful. A few are stubbornly trying not to admit their reasons for not achieving the success they think they deserve, but they have them regardless, and (hopefully) know what they are too just like we do. Does that imply directly that we'll never be successful? How do you know?


 There's only three real possibilities with building talent, or for us...score. You get worse, you stay the same, or you get better both over short term and long term periods. There is a time element to consider. There was a time before when even the likes of Broadwater, Levi, and Schloesser had IT. For those of us that didn't take this moderately serious until after pubescence is definitely an uphill battle, but folks like Roger Willet, Dee Wilde, or Benton Christenson prove that it can be done (It wasn't that long ago that Benton was little more than "just" Amber and Lindsay's dad). 

We don't know who will and won't be successful because mindset can be altered and changed. One may have the growth mindset that allows success, but after getting kicked in the gut a few times can develop a fixed one. Someone holding themselves back with a fixed mindset can suddenly be inspire and open the growth mindset which allows training for success possible. Those that have IT almost undoubtedly have a growth mindset during the majority of their journey upwards and during their stay at the top. 

Not being afraid to name names here, I'd say cbrunson and erdman are aware of their limiting factors...but, work through them in order to achieve more success than those that look at their limitations as unbreachable barriers. 

Lets say someone doesn't think they have the time. In reality very few do. Lets say you don't have the facilities. Most don't...until after they've reached the successful level. The successful guys look at those limitations and figure a way around it through creativity or by sacrificing other life aspects. 



lees said:


> Don't agree again. Reo Wilde, for example, has said more than once in interviews that he has a wife and kids to support and that definitely affects his decisions about sponsorship and so on. Is that just making an excuse for switching bow companies at the minor, but possible, risk that may have to his performance? Or is that actually a sober and thoughtful look at the logistics of pursuing his career and making an informed choice accordingly?
> 
> Think about it like this: there's a fine line between giving up through just making excuses and having a realistic plan for achieving something that also includes acknowledging any of the roadblocks that you must deal with to get there. Both situations involve being honest about what those upcoming roadblocks are, but one decides to work around, or overcome, the roadblocks and the other does not. I won't insult you by asking you to name which is which


Reo already had IT. It's not hard to figure out that his current situation is a lot different than his 2004 situation while he was still working for UPS. Back then there was a LOT more to the back story as well. We tend to think of someone like Reo as where they are now, but that is not the case. He had IT, before the shooting contracts and dedicated indoor and outdoor ranges. Ultimately he didn't think "safe" like I/we do that we should take our paycheck and try for cardboard checks. He went for the shooting contract instead, and having IT, cashed those big cardboard checks. That is all a financial decision that has brought about more luxury to his shooting lifestyle; yet he continued to strive for more success and perfection. The real IT decisions were made long before in how he works around everything in his life to make the time to train...and to stick with it that long. 

On the performance side, he's shooting at pretty much the same level he always has. Other's with IT have figured out how to get just a bit more in an uber-competitive division. Just look at the winner of Nimes, 2nd at the WA Vegas shoot, Vegas 2nd place, the winner of the WA World Cup Final (and more)...he just barely made the US team. When we have 20 or so ITsters in the US, the top 4 could come from any combination of them. I have no doubt that Reo has the IT left to fill the gap to the others. 



lees said:


> Think about it like this: there's a fine line between giving up through just making excuses and having a realistic plan for achieving something that also includes acknowledging any of the roadblocks that you must deal with to get there. Both situations involve being honest about what those upcoming roadblocks are, but one decides to work around, or overcome, the roadblocks and the other does not. I won't insult you by asking you to name which is which .


 None of that relates to your "probability of success" addressed in your original quote. 

Every decision you make towards success depends on that. 

If you don't think you'll be successful...you won't be. You won't make the time to train like someone that does. You won't find the extra $10 to make the entry fee for the state shoot. You won't find a reason to nudge your drawlength searching for 30 inside-out Xs. 

I don't disagree with the planning part.



lees said:


> So what? How is the choice to ignore your kids and be a neglectful parent to pursue archery to the bitter end not a *realistic* choice? And who cares if you're liked or not? Yes, it's reprehensible to be sure and probably also includes a plan to avoid jail and the courts, yes, of course . And we may label him a failure as a parent, but if he shoots enough X's in competition and wins matches as an archer, he's achieved his goal through deliberate planning, has he not?
> 
> Here's another way to think about it: what if that same guy simply unknowingly started neglecting his family and just shot his bow all the time, without really taking the consequences of his actions into consideration. Is that different from the scenario where he deliberately decides his family is a roadblock and he's simply going to go around it by active choice? If so, how? if not, why not?


 Not judging it one-way or the other. Just stating that society projects their priorities onto others and that "well-rounded" people are typically more respected than those one-trick ponies. 

Their priorities clearly don't mesh up with "most" peoples...unless you're just talking about potential ex-wives. :wink:


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

^^^^ great post this, IMO. At this point, I more agree than disagree and don't really have any more I think I can usefully add as I think you say it all here..... As for the ex-wife, luckily I don't have one, past or future, but I've heard similarly..... from those poor souls who do have em......

lee.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

lees said:


> Oops, PS:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


IT is just a generic term for the common characteristics of successful people. 

Success is measured differently by the individuals. I shot a 285, 287, and 285 (857) in Vegas last year. I considered it a success because I wasn't able to shoot a full Vegas round two weeks before going. Chance Beaubouef shot a 899 and probably thinks of it as an unsuccessful trip because he's used to and expects to be in the 900 club. Individual success (_accomplishing an aim or purpose_) isn't the same as "successful" (_having achieved popularity, profit, or distinction_). 

While someone like Tom Brady has IT in football, Tony Robbins has IT for public speaking, or Lebron has it in basketball. Kinda like what Erdman stated earlier...we're surprised when these people don't surpass our expectations, win, or come out on top. In the case of team sports...there's only so much that one person can do, but the guys like Brady and Lebron have the ability to at least make those around them appear to be better than they would normally be. 

Speaking of Tony Robbins, one of his not-so-secrets for others is to find someone successful at what they're doing and emulate it. Lanny Basham had a similar process - buy a champion lunch and talk to them, hang out with them, shoot with them and learn what they do. Do you believe its just statistical anomaly that 5-different guys shooting out of the same shop in Montana have been in the Vegas Shootoff in the last few years? What could possibly make this possible?

Relating to competition, you'll notice mostly the same names and faces are always at the top. If IT was just a love of the game and shooting above your pay grade you'd see many different faces all the time. So, you are right and from the outside we're looking for that recipe of characteristics that has gotten them to where they are...then, hopefully, others can emulate it ala Tony Robbins and Lanny and maybe even surpass the current crop of top-level shooters.


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

SonnyThomas said:


> Confidence is more a byproduct. You get good and confidence follows. The better you get the more confidence settles in.


You have to have the confidence to win the first one. I think people believing they have to somehow get lucky enough to win one to gain the confidence, are the ones that never get it.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

lees said:


> And not the unknowns that we are. Well, again, except Sonny.
> 
> lee.


??? Heck I know what you meant.... Like I noted, I really didn't know how to answer "It." All I can get out all this is "It" is nothing more than desire. Without desire nothing is going happen.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

cbrunson said:


> You have to have the confidence to win the first one. I think people believing they have to somehow get lucky enough to win one to gain the confidence, are the ones that never get it.


BS! You start gaining confidence when getting the arrow on the target face. Confidence builds as one progresses.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

That gets into the two different definitions of success and the degree to which they can be independent of each other. I suppose each one can have its (again, rhetorical) "IT" as Sonny suggested. If say, I manage to outshoot myself once or twice on the various couple of rounds shot for a score, that may not qualify me for that particular "IT". But if I consistently equal or better it every time I shoot for a score, I might latently have that particular "IT" or the potential for it. If I can replicate that in competition, I almost certainly qualify for that particular "IT".

And similarly for the other type of success (beating your competitors, achieving a high rank among them). 

But again, I would only reassert my same two points: a) whatever this "IT" is is open to wide interpretation and b) those two measures of success still have in common the requirement that you actually learn how to shoot your bow . Again, that's the foundation of all of these measures of success. And we can even prove it: ask an "IT"-er if he or she got to where they are *without* executing a good shot, every time, as the foundation of their success. I doubt you'll many, if any, that'd answer yes to that.... 

lee.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

lees said:


> But again, I would only reassert my same two points: a) whatever this "IT" is is open to wide interpretation


Because it's easier to ask than: what's the proper characteristics of motivation, deep practice, dealing with nerves, competitive level, available time, confidence, focus training, coaching, equipment knowledge and understanding, biomechanics, physical fitness, emotional control, calmness under pressure, drive to practice, diet, and available facilities are.




lees said:


> But again, I would only reassert my same two points: b) those two measures of success still have in common the requirement that you actually learn how to shoot your bow


Lots of people shoot bows really well in their back yards and local ranges but their performance doesn't show it on the big stages. 

Guy here has probably a 299.8/9 ish average. Watching the shootoff last year and he talked about how he'd probably poop (paraphrased) himself to shoot under the lights. 

He'll never have IT until he wants to shoot under those lights.


----------



## erdman41 (May 6, 2009)

Bobmuley said:


> Because it's easier to ask than: what's the proper characteristics of motivation, deep practice, dealing with nerves, competitive level, available time, confidence, focus training, coaching, equipment knowledge and understanding, biomechanics, physical fitness, emotional control, calmness under pressure, drive to practice, diet, and available facilities are.


What is all this? You just have to learn to execute a good shot lol.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Bobmuley said:


> Because it's easier to ask than: what's the proper characteristics of motivation, deep practice, dealing with nerves, competitive level, available time, confidence, focus training, coaching, equipment knowledge and understanding, biomechanics, physical fitness, emotional control, calmness under pressure, drive to practice, diet, and available facilities are.


My point being, that's a veeeery wide range of stuff there. Or putting it another way, maybe "IT" is just really huge... 


> Lots of people shoot bows really well in their back yards and local ranges but their performance doesn't show it on the big stages.
> 
> Guy here has probably a 299.8/9 ish average. Watching the shootoff last year and he talked about how he'd probably poop (paraphrased) himself to shoot under the lights.
> 
> He'll never have IT until he wants to shoot under those lights.


Again, acknowledged. But show me an actual, real "IT"-er who *can't* shoot well in his/her back yard too. I stand by my assertion that, you can't have the one ("IT", whatever that is) *without *the other (a good shot as your foundation), though you can and frequently do see (posters in this thread for example) the reverse.... well, except Sonny. But you get my point.....

lee.


----------



## erdman41 (May 6, 2009)

lees said:


> Again, acknowledged. But show me an actual, real "IT"-er who *can't* shoot well in his/her back yard too. I stand by my assertion that, you can't have the one ("IT", whatever that is) *without *the other (a good shot as your foundation), though you can and frequently do see (posters in this thread for example) the reverse.... well, except Sonny. But you get my point.....
> 
> lee.


Read this thread twice now and can't figure out who is arguing that having a well developed shot process isn't required.

But even a the smallest level of competition that isn't going get you any success by itself.

It's like saying a successful NFL QB has to have throwing a spiral as his foundation.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

lees said:


> Again, acknowledged. But show me an actual, real "IT"-er who *can't* shoot well in his/her back yard too. I stand by my assertion that, you can't have the one ("IT", whatever that is) *without *the other (a good shot as your foundation), though you can and frequently do see (posters in this thread for example) the reverse.... well, except Sonny. But you get my point.....
> 
> lee.


A good shot execution is not measurable. It’s just something you feel should be a certain way. Two of the top shooters in the game, Schlosser and Hansen are both punchers and battle target panic, yet they have set world records and are dominant on the world stage. So you saying you have “IT” because you have mastered your release, yet still can’t score well is nonsense. It’s like saying you get a trophy for driving on the race track while everyone else is racing for the podium.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

What top shooter hasn't fought target panic? Probably not on-going, but had it. 

Just because one has a good shot foundation doesn't equate to consistent accuracy, helps, yes. Much is dependent upon something else.


----------



## holler head (Mar 23, 2004)

All those that shoot and compete at a high level, all have a repeatable shot, that they shoot over and over again in practice.

But being able to shoot that "practice shot" while under the stress of a high level competition are the ones that have "it"


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

holler head said:


> All those that shoot and compete at a high level, all have a repeatable shot, that they shoot over and over again in practice.
> 
> But being able to shoot that "practice shot" while under the stress of a high level competition are the ones that have "it"


Stress, chit....There I was practicing and here comes D.M. and about 25 girls dressed in various....a....a. Well, said dressed for P.E. D.M. forgot to tell me Thursday was reserved for archery class of the local High School. He apologized and then said to finish the last end. He then turns to the girls and announces; "This is Sonny. He's one of our better shots." Pffffft! I have no idea how I cleaned that last end......


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

SonnyThomas said:


> Stress, chit....There I was practicing and here comes D.M. and about 25 girls dressed in various....a....a. Well, said dressed for P.E. D.M. forgot to tell me Thursday was reserved for archery class of the local High School. He apologized and then said to finish the last end. He then turns to the girls and announces; "This is Sonny. He's one of our better shots." Pffffft! I have no idea how I cleaned that last end......


Now, I'm an old man, so that doesnt affect me so much anymore, but.... that's what I call "IT"...... 

lee.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

^^^ I don't know, but I pretty had it when that last arrow went in. Yeah, I let out a sign of relief. This happened....16 years ago....


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Personally, I feel grateful that I'm still able to shoot. I busted my release hand, which didn't heal 100%. I've bow hand has a artificial wrist/thumb joint - half of 2003 season shot. Came back from the next to being blind (diabetes). One or both eyes have the oval thing...stigmatism or slow eye? Slipped 3 discs and ruptured one - there was the 2006 season shot. I had Carpal and Cubical surgery, both at the same time (said most have a weak arm afterwards). My release side shoulder tore to pieces and 2015 season shot. I've suffered back pain for over a year now and just now getting relief. You do your best to avoid pain and you do things differently. Well, I kept shooting and my release side shoulder developed pain and always after practicing or other shooting events. Felt like my shoulder was about to not fall off, but blow off. The Chiropractor I'm now going to found this. A little crunching and my shoulder was back in place. So he teaches me how to draw and not screw up my back and hips any more than they are. Slow process getting my hips like they should be. Plan for 2019 in the works, new bow using cable stops and pick on all the "pups" I can....


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Well, that's another "IT" I guess you could say. I've had inner ear, spine surgery and then recovering from surgery for cancer most recently as my roadblocks to try to shoot around. See how much our bodies break down and still be able to get them at least in the gold, if not a 10 lol. 

Or, also known as, I'm too stupid to quit..... if that's an "IT", I can probably assert I have that one too. Maybe not quite the 20 good looking gals running along the flight line quite, quite yet... but, just throwing that one out there......

lee.


----------



## "TheBlindArcher" (Jan 27, 2015)

Lost my mind, my sight, my foot, and my "it," but still I pick up the bow so I haven't lost that.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

I think some of us said there was different kinds of "It."


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

"TheBlindArcher" said:


> Lost my mind, my sight, my foot, and my "it," but still I pick up the bow so I haven't lost that.





SonnyThomas said:


> I think some of us said there was different kinds of "It."


Yes, it has been concluded by the tribal elders that you can place the goal post wherever you choose. You are a superstar little buddy! Come get your purple ribbon.


----------



## TNMAN (Oct 6, 2009)

Thought I had "it" for a while......until I shot with guys that really did have "it".


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

cbrunson said:


> Yes, it has been concluded by the tribal elders that you can place the goal post wherever you choose. You are a superstar little buddy! Come get your purple ribbon.


Actually, this is true. “IT” is whatever you want “IT” to be.

The chances of everyone agreeing on what “IT” is, is never going to happen. 

What is amusing is seeing how we can even argue about what “IT” is, and tell each other we are wrong.

If Sonny had “IT” on that day, then by his definition, he had “IT”. If we need to ridicule his definition of “IT”, we need to find a new hobby. 

For me “IT” is when you are at the point where you aren’t trying to win... you are simply there to shoot, and still winning.
Not saying that the guy who has “IT” doesn’t WANT to win, just that he can shoot his game and win without “trying” to do anything more than what he knows.
One who goes to the match, and to paraphrase a different Steve Anderson, ‘shoots to his current level of skill’ and wins. 

Now, of course there is a prerequisite level of dedication, time, and knowledge of how to train that goes into all of that.

The people we see that have “IT” are the ones who had the time, dedication, and resources to get where they are.

That’s what I think of when I think of “IT”.

I’ll leave you to your own definition of what “IT” is, but tell me I am “wrong” and I’ll tell you why you are wrong as well.

We really don’t need to cut each other down over something so weak as our personal definitions of “IT”.... and that has no place here.


----------



## "TheBlindArcher" (Jan 27, 2015)

cbrunson said:


> Yes, it has been concluded by the tribal elders that you can place the goal post wherever you choose. You are a superstar little buddy! Come get your purple ribbon.




Interesting [to me anyway] question to ponder... If someone always sets the goal just out of their reach, always work for but never quite achieve, will they ever have the "it?"


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

"TheBlindArcher" said:


> Interesting [to me anyway] question to ponder... If someone always sets the goal just out of their reach, always work for but never quite achieve, will they ever have the "it?"



If you win under the pressure of real competition, yes.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

"TheBlindArcher" said:


> Interesting [to me anyway] question to ponder... If someone always sets the goal just out of their reach, always work for but never quite achieve, will they ever have the "it?"


Jesse has said he's looking for 30 inside out Xs.

Tiger Woods has the goal of beating Jack's 18 Majors.

They've both been competitively short of their goals, but I think we could all agree those two have IT. 

Here's some good reading...


> In 2014, as she approached the modern record in women’s tennis of winning 18 major tournaments, set by Chris Evert and Martina Narartolova, Serena sat on 17 major wins for her career, and the brink of history. Then came the plateau. “I’ve got to get to 18” she repeatedly told herself. The stress she was putting on herself caused her to struggle to compete, despite being ranked the №1 player in the world. Serena put so much pressure on herself that she lost 3 Grand Slams in a row in really bad fashion. “I put too much pressure on myself”, she later conceded.
> 
> Then her coach stepped in and challenged her to shift her mindset. “Why are you trying to get to 18 major wins? Your goal should be 30 or 40. 18 is such a low goal”. In this one conversation, her coach shifted Serena’s entire vision for what she wanted and thought was possible in her tennis career. Serena later reflected, “To me, it made so much sense. I set my goal for what was in sight. I think that subconsciously, a lot of people set their goal on what is already there. Why not reach for a higher goal? I really learned from that. Why would I reach for that when there’s more”.
> 
> ...


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

And the question was; 



Bobmuley said:


> What is "it" for archers?
> 
> What does "it" look like?
> 
> ...


No mention of what level. What answers you have is what they think.


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

SonnyThomas said:


> And the question was;
> 
> 
> 
> No mention of what level. What answers you have is what they think.


I would think that the most logical reference would be to those who dominate the sport at the professional level, since no one would care about some back yard shooter thinking he is hot sh.. for beating his league average that one time ten years ago.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Several things have stood out, but then a couple hit home, sort of two in one. Bobmuley; "Being a high-level finisher isn't for everyone; otherwise we'd all be training instead of posting on AT."


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

I think most people know what it takes to compete at the higher levels. I've read books of great ball players, baseball, football and basketball and other athletes. Bill Russell was a gangly kid that "couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time" and then noted as the only one to "tame" Wilt Chamberlain. Did you know Wilt was reported to "nail" more women than John Holmes?


----------



## erdman41 (May 6, 2009)

SonnyThomas said:


> I think most people know what it takes to compete at the higher levels.


Well in archery all you have to do is pay your entry fee to compete. Winning is a different story.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

SonnyThomas said:


> Several things have stood out, but then a couple hit home, sort of two in one. Bobmuley; "Being a high-level finisher isn't for everyone; otherwise we'd all be training instead of posting on AT."


I think the point is that NOT everyone can be the best. It takes something extra, or something great to stake that claim. If you can feel good about yourself for your accomplishments that’s great, but it should not take take away from that extra thing that those performers have. 

I’ve won tournaments. I’ve won 3D shoots. I’ve shot perfect 300-30x Vegas games back to back in practice, but I know the difference between those accomplishments and standing on the line in Vegas. One league night last year I beat Reo with a 300-28x to his 299-28x but at USA Nationals the year before he beat me by something like 30 points. lol. I would say he has “IT” whereas I do not. At least not yet. But by the standards displayed here it would seem I could hang my hat on a couple tournament wins and some good practice scores. When it’s all said and done, I may have to hang my hat on that, but if that is the case, I hope I remember the difference between my mediocre accomplishments and those of the top professional shooters in the game. 

Knowing that difference is what makes them great. If we all celebrated our accomplishments on the same level, competition would mean nothing. It would be pointless.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

SonnyThomas said:


> And the question was;
> 
> 
> 
> No mention of what level. What answers you have is what they think.


I don't think there's a need for "levels". 

Whenever anyone talks about who has IT in any other sport, actor, profession...is related to the top level. 

Besides, I don't think we need to find out what makes a person tick that shoots 295s, but thinks they have IT. A guy that shoots 295s in competition CAN shoot 300s but is missing a couple key mental/training ingredients.

I also don't think we need to know what makes 300 backyard shooter tick (This is the Competition forum) because of the lack of competitive experience and knowledge. 

Last year or two we had the "talent" discussion in here. I was of the opinion that it's mostly work, but given the same time to train one guy would have "talent" evidenced in the way of better scores. I've since read and researched to find the differences in score would be the results of: deliberate or deep practice, motivation, coaching, habits, motivation, and mindset (short list).

Like I asked earlier, but went unanswered...do you think it's just random statistics that put 5 different guys shooting out of the same archery shop in Montana in the Vegas shootoff over the last 5 years, often more than one guy at a time. 

Just for comparison, I can only think of one guy this century from Illinois (Wifler) in a state of about 13 million people. Montana has about 1 million total.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

SonnyThomas said:


> I think most people know what it takes to compete at the higher levels.


I highly doubt it. That would not explain the same 20 guys in the perpetual running at tournaments. 




SonnyThomas said:


> I've read books of great ball players, baseball, football and basketball and other athletes.


Have you read any books about great archers? That's the point of the thread.


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

Bobmuley said:


> I don't think there's a need for "levels".
> 
> Whenever anyone talks about who has IT in any other sport, actor, profession...is related to the top level.
> 
> ...


Having someone (or several) to train/compete with/against, certainly seems to help.

Perhaps those in Montana, had they lived in <enter state here> might never have been considered to have “IT”. 

You could look at Reo and Logan. I would say both have “IT” but Reo has been more successful for whatever reasons. 

Had their father not been a great archer, we most likely would not know their names.

I’m not saying they were born with it (I don’t believe genetics plays much of a role) but born into a good environment to develop it.

Training the same number of hours, doesn’t give the same results. State of mind will yield different results. 

Perhaps that is where “IT” comes from, your state of mind, your attitude, and your training. 

I don’t believe anyone is born with it, and desire alone isn’t enough.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

SonnyThomas said:


> I think most people know what it takes to compete at the higher levels. I've read books of great ball players, baseball, football and basketball and other athletes. Bill Russell was a gangly kid that "couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time" and then noted as the only one to "tame" Wilt Chamberlain. Did you know Wilt was reported to "nail" more women than John Holmes?





erdman41 said:


> Well in archery all you have to do is pay your entry fee to compete. Winning is a different story.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


I said most people know what it takes....



Bobmuley said:


> I highly doubt it. That would not explain the same 20 guys in the perpetual running at tournaments.
> 
> 
> Have you read any books about great archers? That's the point of the thread.


Archery is no different than any other sport. Watched this Women's Trap Shooting clip focusing a upcoming female Trap shooter. This little girl had put some 300,000 through her shotgun. I was impressed especially her telling how many times she's had shotgun changed to mate with her so that she shot as well as she does. I shot Trap at the club level and one ATA sanctioned event. I have no doubt I've put a good 300,000 through my Trap guns. There were times I won enough money to take a day off work - I didn't, but could have. I sometimes won enough merchandise to really please the wife - turkeys, hams, cases canned good and if Annie Oakley I'd sometimes bring home some cash. ATA event; I asked D.H. what one could win and Donnie was tough, competed around the world. He replied there's hardly any money to win around here. I won my entry fee back that day.
My wife hates archery. She's tried to "buy" me off. There's 750 Yamaha sitting in my garage with inch dust on it and couple guns that hasn't been out of the gun safe since she gave them to me. 

Archery is game. You said it and I've said it - Family for one. Me, I had a $75,000 plus per year job. I was 51 years old when I started competing. What's more important? I know you know the odds of being that super top level archer. I made the right decision....

If I haven't noted it, Terry Wunderle lives about 40 miles from me. Terry, Vic and Sally use to shoot at our club (Dawn absent most the time). Terry and I vied for the IAA Big Doe Award every year that I was in NFAA. On the Board of the IAA I presented Terry the IAA Big Game Award for his buck that later took top honors in the NFAA Big Game Award. Sent him a copy of a score sheet. On it is Terry, Vic, Dawn and Sally and they all won....Tid bit; Terry would never allow Sally to shoot a recurve bow...Kevin had her shoot his at Larry's Wolf Hollow Indoor range. Larry, one of Ted Nugent's Generals. Larry and I were paired for the Bowhunter division that never took place - the NFAA/TNUSA merger thing that failed......

There's been more than Wifler, but years back. Bob Wolfran (Vegas, goes now just to be there), Steve Boylan (2005? NFAA Senior Triple Crown winner - retired out of the sky blue), Chris Eggers and of course Vic Wunderle. I don't know how Chris could stand to shoot with all the bone chips in his elbow - haven't heard of him of late. Steve and I were shooting this club 3D and Steve went to pull arrows. This "pup" says you know who he is and you're having him pull arrows? I came back with; Steve's younger than I am." Steve couldn't shoot 3D to save his life... 

Never claimed to be all that good, but I've good enough to have full sponsorship racing motorcycles (John Barsman, Yamaha District Rep, hated me, but he coughed up a brand new racer for the team points I earned), shooting firearms and partial sponsorship with Martin (Silver) and Pearson (Silver to start back in 2012 and 2 or 3 years ago National Coordinator Michael Shore moved me up to Gold Level - I didn't ask to be Gold Level.
Barsman hating me. I took 3rd in class of 107 at Daytona Beach, the Alligator 200. When the huge score sheet came into being John made sure my name wasn't on it. I still have the trophy and the name plate in on it.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

???

Gotta say I have no response to that. 

You win. You’re IT. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

I had fun, still having fun.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Bobmuley said:


> ???
> 
> Gotta say I have no response to that.
> 
> ...


That's what I tried to tell yall, but ya'll wouldn't listen.... What's that commercial say: sonny does more before 9am than the rest of us do all week... or something like that... 

lee.


----------



## erdman41 (May 6, 2009)

Bobmuley said:


> ???
> 
> Gotta say I have no response to that.
> 
> ...


made me think of Walter Payton.

"When you're good at something you'll tell everyone. When you're really good at something they'll tell you"

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

SonnyThomas said:


> Archery is no different than any other sport.


What happens when someone misses a bird at the Grand American?

What happens when you miss a corner in supercross?

What happens when a pitcher misses his spot up and over the plate?

What happens if Tom Brady throws an interception?

What happens if Kevin Harvick spins the tires at the start of the race?

What happens if Lebron misses a free throw?

What happens if Rory McIlroy drives the tee shot into the right rough?

What happens in darts if you hit 20 instead of triple 20?

WHAT HAPPENS IN VEGAS IF YOU MISS A TEN? There's such a premium on NOT MISSING, that imo, it makes competitive archery different than most other "games".


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Much of all noted amounts to you're out. So pick yourself up and prepare for the next event. Super Cross and Stock Car racing and a "miss" could be mean more than out of the race. Dale Earnhardt for example. 

What, noted was $70,000 for the Vegas, year before, I think. The other noted make what?

Vegas, as reported in 3D Times; Called trying to intimidate Jeff Hopkins, Words something like; Dave Cousin on the line with Jeff Hopkins. Dave; "You nervous? I never shot for this much money before." Jeff; Nope. I've shot for $50,000." Jeff won. Jeff, 2002?, note first archer to earn $1,000,000 in archery.....Jeff once noted 7 ASA SOYs probably never matched. Levi proved him wrong, now with 10. 

If you think other sports figure don't practice to no end, go that extra distance, try something different, you better think again....


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

erdman41 said:


> made me think of Walter Payton.
> 
> "When you're good at something you'll tell everyone. When you're really good at something they'll tell you"
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


Never noted a win, did I? If I ever have it's been a club or state sanctioned event.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

I will not put archery up on a pedestal....


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

SonnyThomas said:


> Much of all noted amounts to you're out...


Hardly.

What happens when someone misses a bird at the Grand American? _*All you do is roll into one of the next 25 rounds that make up the week. Nobody is perfect throughout the event. Not even close.*_

What happens if Tom Brady throws an interception? Nothing. _*In team sports you let the other players do their things. He only completes 64% of his passes anyhow. The last time he threw a pick was week 7...the Patriots won...http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000412111/Week-7-Tom-Brady-highlights
*_
What happens if Kevin Harvick spins the tires at the start of the race? _*You gonna tell me that for the next 500 miles Kevin can't catch up? He's done? Make sure that someone tells Kyle Larson.*_

What happens if Lebron misses a free throw? _*Lebron makes 74% of his free throws. Short of him missing a game tying or game winning free throw it's just*_ _*another miss. It'd be tough to find another NBA player that's "not out" as much as Lebron. http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=25252046*_

What happens when you miss a corner in supercross? _*I've seen the likes of Tomac and Stewart crash out of the heats, win the LCQ, and go on to win the main event. They get a second chance.*_

What happens when a pitcher misses his spot up and over the plate? _*Chances are...nothing. Again, in a team sport you're often covered by your teammates or the lack of opportunity taken by the opponent. We don't go "head-to-head" like that in archery. We compete simultaneously, but not against one another like an "archery duel". The worst possible thing in baseball that could happen on any given pitch is to give up 4 runs. That doesn't mean you're out, or even a loss for the team.*_

What happens if Rory McIlroy drives the tee shot into the right rough? _*Here's the winner of the most recent PGA Championship. Notice the shots out of the rough (missed drive) - for the record he had a 64% driver accuracy rating. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF78_5CqHHg*_

What happens in darts if you hit 20 instead of triple 20? _*Just watch darts some time and notice that there's about a 66% chance of them hitting what they're trying to hit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSVTi2fcVqo*_

Really, especially until the advent of the Lucky Dog, there was only one number that mattered at Vegas and Indoor Nationals...."one". Once you hit "one", you were done. Still that way at Indoor Nationals and you pave a very path to winning going through the lucky dog. (in spite of recent statistics).


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

SonnyThomas said:


> There's been more than Wifler, but years back. Bob Wolfran (Vegas, goes now just to be there), Steve Boylan (2005? NFAA Senior Triple Crown winner - retired out of the sky blue), Chris Eggers and of course Vic Wunderle. I don't know how Chris could stand to shoot with all the bone chips in his elbow - haven't heard of him of late. Steve and I were shooting this club 3D and Steve went to pull arrows. This "pup" says you know who he is and you're having him pull arrows? I came back with; Steve's younger than I am." Steve couldn't shoot 3D to save his life... .


You completely missed the point. The 5 Montana guys (six if you include Aaron Tedford) are competing in the present. As in now, not spread out across different divisions and generations. 

All that struggle with a hinge release and Terry Wunderle only lives 40 miles away...I know what I would have done.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Of 106 I assumed you wanting worst cases.

All I did was note them. I know part of my problem with a hinge and Terry isn't going fix a hand that didn't heal well. And battling back pain hasn't helped. Times I couldn't fire but 2 arrows and had to sit down to take the pressure off my back. I didn't care one dang bit of being wheelchair bound and bed ridden....


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

What happens when someone misses a bird at the Grand American? All you do is roll into one of the next 25 rounds that make up the week. Nobody is perfect throughout the event. Not even close.

Had to go to the doctor. The Grand has different events, different requirements. Required targets, 50, 100 and 200. Yep, you can miss one of 25 and you will shoot the next 25 to make the required 50. That one missed target can put you out. Of the upper ranks from 16 yards you better smoking the targets. It's the handicap where it gets harder - handicap yardage is 18 thru 27 yards. A few have broken 100 from the 27 yard line.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Might qualify a bit; Smithfield Trap club president for 2 1/2 years - finished year for former President due to family issues. My handicap was 23....


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

If it’s that easy... reminds me of that brisk fall morning on the playground in the third grade. All was at stake. It was my favorite cat’s eye marble. Green and yellow with a thin purple stripe. It was a beauty. Alas, what is competition without risking it all for glory. 

The orb hitched in the folds of my index finger, resting snug against the firm thumbnail, waiting to be launched directly into glory. My game was solid. My aim was true. You could hear a pin drop as the hoards of onlookers anticipated the final match of the day’s first recess. 

I held steady, adjusted for windage, knowing this was at or near my maximum range. With a swift flick of my thumb and a hint of twist with my wrist for that slight curve shot I was so well known for, my marble flew with surity, but my curve was light. It didn’t have quite enough spin. All eyes were locked. Not a breath was taken, as everyone watched it sail through the air. The moment of impact was a celebration of pure excellence. It barely touched, glanced off of the upper right edge of the shiny new cleary I had long dreamed of owning. It was mine. It was beautiful. Not a single air bubble inside. 

I owned that day. “IT” was mine.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

SonnyThomas said:


> Might qualify a bit; Smithfield Trap club president for 2 1/2 years - finished year for former President due to family issues. My handicap was 23....


Why is there a handicap in ATA?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## erdman41 (May 6, 2009)

cbrunson said:


> If it’s that easy... reminds me of that brisk fall morning on the playground in the third grade. All was at stake. It was my favorite cat’s eye marble. Green and yellow with a thin purple stripe. It was a beauty. Alas, what is competition without risking it all for glory.
> 
> The orb hitched in the folds of my index finger, resting snug against the firm thumbnail, waiting to be launched directly into glory. My game was solid. My aim was true. You could hear a pin drop as the hoards of onlookers anticipated the final match of the day’s first recess.
> 
> ...


I think it's pretty clear some posters in here have lost their marbles.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Basically, levels the field in Handicap class and no other class. Top shooters usually still win. Never shot registered ATA enough to see where my 23 handicap helped me. Shot Leagues and my handicap had me sitting out as my handicap added yards to the team's would have been yardage to shoot (league handicap in play). At club level the handicap was figured on your 16 yard score of 50 targets. Total 16 yard score divided by 2. 1/2 yard shot the shorter yard. 50 broke, 25 yard line. 

3 classes in ATA, 16 yard (different divisions), handicap (first timer adult male shoots from the 20 yard line) and Doubles shot from the 16 yard line (different divisions). There is no division of firearms. Okay, a $100 yard sale 12 ga heads up the against best Trap gun Perazzi has to offer.

So what would like me to compare it to or "say why?", Bob? NFAA, IBO or ASA? Every organization has it's rules. Go by them or don't compete. Pretty simple.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

SonnyThomas said:


> Basically, *levels the field* in Handicap class and no other class. Top shooters *usually* still win. Never shot registered ATA enough to see where my 23 handicap helped me. Shot Leagues and my handicap had me sitting out as my handicap added yards to the team's would have been yardage to shoot (league handicap in play). At club level the handicap was figured on your 16 yard score of 50 targets. Total 16 yard score divided by 2. 1/2 yard shot the shorter yard. 50 broke, 25 yard line.
> 
> 3 classes in ATA, 16 yard (different divisions), handicap (first timer adult male shoots from the 20 yard line) and Doubles shot from the 16 yard line (different divisions). There is no division of firearms. Okay, a $100 yard sale 12 ga heads up the against best Trap gun Perazzi has to offer.
> 
> So what would like me to compare it to or "say why?", Bob? NFAA, IBO or ASA? Every organization has it's rules. Go by them or don't compete. Pretty simple.


Don't need to say anything else there. What you said seems to be the consensus of a lot of archery shooters and appears to mirror modern society.


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

...and Bob delivers the kill shot. 

Winning is about being the best, not bringing the best down to your level so you feel like you can compete.


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

But is that universally the “it factor”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

Mahly said:


> But is that universally the “it factor”?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I'm gonna paraphrase a good old movie...City Slickers:

Curly: Do you know what the secret of archery is? [points index finger skyward] This.
Mitch: Your finger?
Curly: One thing. Just one thing. You stick to that and the rest don’t mean poop.
Mitch: But, what is the “one thing?”
Curly: [smiles and points his finger at Mitch] That’s what you have to find out.


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

Mahly said:


> But is that universally the “it factor”?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


The top is where it stops. Everything below that is the pathway to the top. Where you get off is certainly your decision or limitation, but it doesn’t change where the top is.

We are still talking about competition right? Like winners and losers competition? Or is this just the mechanics and theory forum?


----------



## "TheBlindArcher" (Jan 27, 2015)

I would say it depends on what you consider "it" to represent, and for many it's being the best... While not a popular view that "it" isn't "it" for me... I consider it to be the drive and determination to make the journey, not necessarily where you end up. When it represents a win, part of that is the person's natural talent, part of it is preparation, part of it is luck, and part of it is what the other person has done to prepare; some of that is simply out of that person's control. To me, the person who has a lot of natural talent, doesn't truly have to dig in and fight to win, has far less of what I consider "it" to be than the person who has to truly overcome the odds, fight for [in the case of archery] every point, and does absolutely everything she/he can to be the best she/he can be- and if that best is last place, they still have more of "it" to me for the preparation they put into themselves than for someone who is at the top but didn't have to put the same work in to get to their respective places. 

So, shared this with an ATer the other day- will post it up here now... I've essentially been off my feet for seven months now, and the other day through working my butt off in and out of PT, I was able to walk up a flight of stairs, far sooner than friends, family, doctors, PTs expected it to happen. Big deal, probably 6 billion people do this every day, but to those who know me in real life treat this feat as an "it" moment. . A proud moment for myself, and in my current state, my current condition, my current situation, an it moment for those who have traveled this path with me.


----------



## erdman41 (May 6, 2009)

"part of it is natural talent"

That phrase just makes my skin crawl. Might as well just say it's my excuse why anyone is better than me.

Always seems the ones that work the hardest and smartest always seem to have that natural talent bs.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## nochance (Nov 27, 2008)

erdman41 said:


> "part of it is natural talent"
> 
> That phrase just makes my skin crawl. Might as well just say it's my excuse why anyone is better than me.
> 
> ...


Bingo!

I knew the "Natural talent" topic would resurface


----------



## "TheBlindArcher" (Jan 27, 2015)

So you believe that Tiger worked harder than absolutely everyone when he was at the top of the PGA; Or Rio or Levi train harder than every other archer out there; Tom Bradey is the hardest working QB in the NFL; Michael Phelps trained harder than anyone else in the pool? Some archers really have to train hard and practice to deal with target panic, others never do because they never get TP- Those who need to make excuses for their performance may use natural talent as that excuse, but you can't deny that of two people following the same training regime, regardless of the competition, the one with the greater natural talent is most likely to win out. Talent isn't the only factor, but it is a contributing factor, only those with an external loci of control will blame their results on the abilities of others.


----------



## erdman41 (May 6, 2009)

Absolutely

Their teammates and people they compete against even say so.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

I personally doubt that how hard you train is the determining factor.

Some people naturally have better coordination, or a mind better suited for a certain activity, or any number of other variables.

Those who train very hard AND very smart will move their way up, but on any given day, anyone can be beat.

If Reo doesn’t win a match, I don’t look at him as having lost “it” he just lost that day.

I look at a guy like Dee Wilde and I say that he has “it”. He isn’t as good as he once was, but he has “it”.
Dave Cousins has “it”, but he doesn’t win Vegas very often. I don’t think it’s because he is sitting on the couch instead of working at it.

Again, that’s what “it” is for me... the guys who have awesome ability, and don’t need to try to be better than they are at a match.
No one is perfect, everyone drops an X or a point here and there. Winning is just doing that less than the guy your are shooting against at that moment.

If all “it” is is winning, we all have it from time to time, and we lose it the second someone posts a better score.


----------



## erdman41 (May 6, 2009)

Charles Barkley thought he worked hard until he was teamed up with Jordan on the Dream team. He said he had no idea that an individual would be that dedicated.

He learned what it took and became league MVP after that in his 9th season.

Hard work and dedication is always mistaken for natural talent.

There's a book called Talent is Overrated good read.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

"TheBlindArcher" said:


> So you believe that Tiger worked harder than absolutely everyone when he was at the top of the PGA; Or Rio or Levi train harder than every other archer out there; Tom Bradey is the hardest working QB in the NFL; Michael Phelps trained harder than anyone else in the pool? Some archers really have to train hard and practice to deal with target panic, others never do because they never get TP- Those who need to make excuses for their performance may use natural talent as that excuse, but you can't deny that of two people following the same training regime, regardless of the competition, the one with the greater natural talent is most likely to win out. Talent isn't the only factor, but it is a contributing factor, only those with an external loci of control will blame their results on the abilities of others.


Tiger at 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxPmzIKBris

Tiger at 5: https://www.today.com/video/5-year-...s-golf-skills-on-today-1204369475773?v=railb&

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYG8obqQkmg

Levi:


> I grew up in the small town of Rosman, NC. One red light kinda town and if you didn’t like to hunt or fish there just wasn’t much to do. Maybe thats the reason i grew to love archery so much at a young age. My dad was a big bowhunter so naturally i would shoot and spend time outdoors with him. He started taking me to local club shoots when i was 5 years old, and i won pretty much all of them.
> 
> From there he noticed something in me i guess and he took me to my first world shoot when i was only 6. I took first runner up in my age division. I was in love with competition and the bow and arrow. I continued on through my youth competing in ASA and IBO events and winning most that I entered.


Reo, well, we all know he grew up with a National/World champ in the house so it's easy to see he had an early start as well. 

Tom Brady, while athletic do you really think that 32 teams passed on his "talent" 5 times before being picked 199th. How could that many people whose job it is to assess talent be so wrong so many times. You think that might have motivated him?

What every single one of those guys have is an incomprehensible drive and need to win. They used that drive to develop their talent and mental strength to train and compete.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

erdman41 said:


> There's a book called Talent is Overrated good read.


Pick up The Talent Code while you're at it.


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

*The &quot;IT&quot; Factor*



Bobmuley said:


> Levi:
> 
> Reo, well, we all know he grew up with a National/World champ in the house so it's easy to see he had an early start as well.
> 
> ...


While not debating the above being true, the world is full of people that work amazingly hard at getting great, and you never know most of their names.

Hard work, dedication, drive.... all pieces of the puzzle. But there is something more.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

Mahly said:


> Hard work, dedication, drive.... all pieces of the puzzle. But there is something more.


RIGHT! What is "IT"? Been kinda the point of the whole thread.


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

So “IT” is natural talent. :lol:


----------



## erdman41 (May 6, 2009)

Bobmuley said:


> Pick up The Talent Code while you're at it.


just ordered it

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

Mahly said:


> I personally doubt that how hard you train is the determining factor.
> 
> Some people naturally have better coordination, or a mind better suited for a certain activity, or any number of other variables.
> 
> Those who train very hard AND very smart will move their way up, but on any given day, anyone can be beat.


Do you think there’s a ceiling related to this talent?

Do you believe there’s a maximum built into your ability?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

SonnyThomas said:


> Basically, *levels the field *in Handicap class and no other class. Top shooters usually still win. Never shot registered ATA enough to see where my 23 handicap helped me. Shot Leagues and my handicap had me sitting out as my handicap added yards to the team's would have been yardage to shoot (league handicap in play). At club level the handicap was figured on your 16 yard score of 50 targets. Total 16 yard score divided by 2. 1/2 yard shot the shorter yard. 50 broke, 25 yard line.
> 
> 3 classes in ATA, 16 yard (different divisions), handicap (first timer adult male shoots from the 20 yard line) and Doubles shot from the 16 yard line (different divisions). There is no division of firearms. Okay, a $100 yard sale 12 ga heads up the against best Trap gun Perazzi has to offer.
> 
> So what would like me to compare it to or "say why?", Bob? NFAA, IBO or ASA? Every organization has it's rules. Go by them or don't compete. Pretty simple.





Bobmuley said:


> Don't need to say anything else there. What you said seems to be the consensus of a lot of archery shooters and appears to mirror modern society.


If the handicapper places, wins (or some times number of competitors) he goes back anywhere from 1/2 to 1 1/2 yards - maybe 2 yards. So something like if you want to keep winning you gotta get gooder (loved my English teacher). 

Of course there is the NFAA Handicap. Worded to be the same as that of the ATA. NFAA Constitution and By-Laws; My book is old, June 1, 1999 - May 31, 2000. You have to buy last I knew - was free to the club. "Article V. A-1 Handicapping is the great equalizer among sportsmen of differing abilities."


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

SonnyThomas said:


> If the handicapper places, wins (or some times number of competitors) he goes back anywhere from 1/2 to 1 1/2 yards - maybe 2 yards. So something like if you want to keep winning you gotta get gooder (loved my English teacher).
> 
> Of course there is the NFAA Handicap. Worded to be the same as that of the ATA. NFAA Constitution and By-Laws; My book is old, June 1, 1999 - May 31, 2000. You have to buy last I knew - was free to the club. "Article V. A-1 Handicapping is the great equalizer among sportsmen of differing abilities."


Short of local leagues, I’ve not ran into even a state-level handicapped tournament since 1976. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Bobmuley said:


> Short of local leagues, I’ve not ran into even a state-level handicapped tournament since 1976.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I've never ran into it either, but it's in the book.

ATA Handicap is like a grooming thing. You start at the bottom and work your way up. If you don't get better you're just adding someone else's pay check.
Really no different than the ASA's Open C, B, and A. They are all the same, Free Style. Differing from the NFAA if any one in Open C, B, or A wins out they will be moved out or up. Same for Semi Pro. In the NFAA one in Adult Free Style can shoot 60X forever and never be required to move out or up. But then the NFAA has 1st, 2nd and 3rd in whatever number flights within a class. This is to make one feel better? Outsiders don't see this or sees the difference; "X" takes 2nd in Championship Flight A and "Y" who takes 1st in Flight C.


----------



## RB3 (Feb 22, 2017)

It has been my observation throughout my life that there are two characteristics that are required to become a virtuoso (the "it factor") at any endeavor. First, you need to have a natural ability for the task at hand. Second, you need to have a compulsive/obsessive personality in order to make the necessary commitments and exercise the appropriate amount discipline required to become a world class virtuoso.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

https://youtu.be/PJCiP12lNFY?t=592


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

Meant to start that at 9:50. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## erdman41 (May 6, 2009)

Reo's Facebook post


----------



## TNMAN (Oct 6, 2009)

^^^Reo has a great attitude. There may be a little more to be learned from his answers to the comments. https://www.facebook.com/pg/reowildearchery/posts/

Thanks for posting. You made me look.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

Cool thing is...a lot of those other ITsters are getting in the same work!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

Bobmuley said:


> Cool thing is...a lot of those other ITsters are getting in the same work!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That’s one reason that they are also “ITsters”.

To that point though, it is more than just how hard you work. If it was, we wouldn’t need to shoot, just hand in your training log and we can pick a winner.

How smart you train, and how well you train your mind are more important than the numbers of arrows launched. There is SOME natural ability as well, but I think it is a much smaller factor than many make it out to be.


----------

