# us compounders excell recurvers do not, why?



## dead eye dick (Sep 1, 2004)

ok why is it our us compound people can do so well at the worldchampionships and the recurve people do not , have we fallen that far behind everyone else in the world in recurve, and why cant we catch up , do all the good shooters just pick up compound and do that? just wondering!


----------



## rgauvin (Feb 20, 2007)

I'd be curious to know the ratio of compound shooters to recurve shooters in the US and the rest of the world. I believe that may be the root cause. Compound shooting is to the best of my knowledge dis proportionally popular in the US vs say Europe, Korea or the rest of the world. When you take that into effect it makes sense.

The same goes for hockey. Hockey is VERY popular in Canada, and despite having 1/10th the population of the US Canada produces just as many star players. Popularity directly affects how many top tier athletes your country generates.


----------



## FateAtropos (Jan 21, 2009)

Also consider the amount of funding the US gets for archery: little to none. Koreans don't pay for their equipment, and it is a paid full time job for them. I believe limbwalker posted something along these lines at some point. 

In addition, look at the major reason for archery at all in the US: hunting. For most people, compound is a much better choice, simply because you can get faster arrows and it takes less practice to be able to hunt.


----------



## dead eye dick (Sep 1, 2004)

yep all very true


----------



## sundevilarchery (May 27, 2005)

$$$$$$$$$$


----------



## Poor Shooter (Jun 25, 2008)

Dont forget that recurve shooters are holding their maximum weight while trying to aim and release the shot with FINGERS.

If you put just fingers into effect with a compound and your no# of shooters would go down too. Look at Louisville.

I am a compound shooter and have nothing but respect for the people that shoot recurves. I think recurves take more time and dedication than most people can give it causing our short fall on the grand scheme of things. My son was on the Dream Team and I think as a whole it did him alot of good but the time Coach Lee gets to spend with each of the kids is not near enough. The kids have a life outside of archery too unlike the competitors overseas.

Money has a lot to do with it. I think recurve requires that much more preparation to be world class.

I am not bashing compounders either

just my 02


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

sundevilarchery said:


> $$$$$$$$$$


several years ago I coached a girl who was the cadet slot holder on the recurve Jr USAT. She won the NFAA twice, the IFAA once, and placed second at both JOAD nationals and the NTCs. I remember NFAA Indoor where she was shooting next to a very good but not USAT level Young Adult Compound archer. Melissa asked why all the compound archers-even some she was scoring almost as high as with her recurve-had tons of sponsors all over their shirts. Its the money I told her, shops sell most of their bows to hunters who buy compound bows and in turn, they give most of their program ("National Shooting staff") slots to compound archers. (Indeed my wife's shop was a rarity-we gave 3 of our 4 program hoyts to recurve archers).

This is why America does so well in compound. Other than the olympic games, the opportunities for compounds is far far higher in the states than what is available for recurve archers. Here in ohio-for 100 years the capital of recurve target archery in the USA-we have 5-8 recurve or fita tournaments. compounds have a 3D event or three every weekend within a 45 minute drive of my house. You can get top of the line compound gear at several shops within the same distance--at one time, my wife's shop sold more FITA recurves, FITA target sights and tabs than the rest of Ohio combined and more than the entire state of Kentucky as well. 

Compounds appeal more to the American psyche as well. Hi-tech appeals to us. Its equipment oriented. People win on mental strength and nerves rather than "feel". We have the sort of gene pool where many in our population have those nerves. Plus we have dozens upon dozens of events that allows those with that will to learn to deal with the pressure.

Why does China dominate table tennis? Because they have millions of people who play it constantly. Same with the US and basketball. There are more HS kids playing basketball in Cincinnati than training seriously in recurve in the entire USA. It comes down to numbers--the more numbers the more chance of finding the talent.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Jim C said:


> Melissa asked why all the compound archers-even some she was scoring almost as high as with her recurve-had tons of sponsors all over their shirts.


I remember talking to a national barebow champion for the first time. He couldn't get a sponsorship to save his life--not even so much as an arm guard for sponsoring him, yet state compound shooters here get free bows. Oh, sure, I know all the reasons are just as you said but it is disappointing.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Warbow said:


> I remember talking to a national barebow champion for the first time. He couldn't get a sponsorship to save his life--not even so much as an arm guard for sponsoring him, yet state compound shooters here get free bows. Oh, sure, I know all the reasons are just as you said but it is disappointing.


My wife was National BB champion and I would never claim her win is the same as say what Erika Anschutz accomplishes-Erika for example is constantly competiting against 10-50 well trained ladies who show up to compete in the USAT compound events or the NFAA pro divisions while Liz is lucky to have someone else to shoot with. However, I have two JDT kids in my club and the boy who actually finished 2nd in the Cadet division (he turned down JDT for several reasons) and these three work their butts off--they train and compete and travel far more than some top compound kids who have competed in our state over the last decade or so. They are all excellent athletes who clearly would be equally accomplished in compound. Yet, their sponsors are basically me and their parents. True, a string maker picked up the two JDT kids and they got a discount in hoyt stuff from JDT but its not like what the local compound guys get at the pro shops.

Its a price you pay for pursuing the olympic dream rather than shooting the "pro tour". When I was a skeet and trap shooter, I shot ISU stuff. I was triple A in American skeet but didn't shoot the big american shoots because I was concentrating on the International circuit. You win US nationals, or US juniors in the NRA (now US shooting event) and you got a 15 dollar medal. You win the Motor City Open American event and you got a new car. I watched a marine shooting team member shoot a perfect 100 at the world cup in ISU trap and he got a 10 dollar medal. The guy who was the Ivy/Eastern Trapshooter of the year when I got the skeet award (Denny Deveauix of Dartmouth) shoots 100 at the Grand American and probably made 100K.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

....sad but all so true...except maybe in korea and even they are starting to catch up in compound!!


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

jmvargas said:


> ....sad but all so true...except maybe in korea and even they are starting to catch up in compound!!


I really don't worry about that. I understand that small countries will often pick "soft" sports and throw a ton of effort behind one or two soft sports so they can have world recognition. Archery is what-maybe the 25th most important sport in America and yet we still do OK. HOw does Korea match up to us in the glamor sports like Track? Ice Skating? Gymnastics? Swimming? basketball? Tennis? The only major sport that Korea beats the USA in is table tennis (and that is a minor sport in the USA). Golf is the only major TV sport in the USA that Korea has top players in. They don't have the gene pool to compete with us in sports where genetic advantages are key-such as the 100M dash or 6-8 guys with 45" vertical jumps (ie your average NBA shooting Guard:wink.

If the USA put as much effort into archery as korea does I suspect we'd do pretty well. Tiger Woods would make one hell of an archer. So would Venus Williams In the USA those athletes go to where the money is. That is what freedom is all about


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jim is right on. 

How is Melissa these days anyway Jim? Very nice young lady.

I think in a nutshell, it's the difference in mentality. We've been raised in the U.S. to have a rebellious, in-your-face, adrenaline-laden "boooyaaa" mentality. At least, most Americans do it seems. And those types are much more attracted to the compound than the old, traditional, slow and low-scoring recurve...

I see it over and over ad-nauseum in todays hunting shows. "Whack 'em and stack 'em" is the name of the game nowdays. Gone are the stories of tradition, perserverance, simplicity and doing things the hard way. It seems few Americans have any appreciation for doing things the hard way anymore. I think it really is sad. 

I also think the Olympics don't mean as much anymore in the U.S. as they still do around the world. We've been blessed to have very successful Olympic teams and even more successful professional athletic teams. With all that success comes complacency, and I think this has made many Olympic sports more obscure and marginalized these days. Americans want medals and they don't want to see anything less. So it becomes in Oly. sports the "have's" taking from the "have-nots" and so it goes. 

A few years ago, I watched the 2006 winter games and heard the downhill ski announcer explain how much money was wrapped up in just the downhill skiers equipment - and the maintenance of that equipment. All paid for by sponsors. It was many times what the entire budget for the U.S. archery team operated on. And that was just their darn skis! 

But I digress.

I'm grateful that our compounders are still kicking butt. My respect for them grows every year. I still prefer to do things the traditional way, but I really admire the winning attitudes I see from our compounders. I wish I saw it more in our recurvers. 

As with many things, there is no one silver bullet to fix this problem. I think we've learned that at least over the past 4 years. Our lackluster success is a product of many things. Personally, the only thing I think can change that is a strong resurgence in youth archery. We are seeing that with the NASP, ASAP and 4-H archery programs. I'm hopeful that at least a small percentage of those young archers will learn to appreciate Olympic style archery and become our future for the sport. If that doesn't happen, I don't see any other way for us to dig ourselves out of that perennial 10th place ranking...

John.


----------



## ScarletArrows (May 25, 2007)

I see that our recurvers may not win every event world wide while our compounders are doing quite well as a sign that possibly worldwide the talent pool of recurve archers is equal to our own...well minus the koreans but there are always exceptions  and that our pool of compounders is more prevelant because of the use of the compound bow as a hunting tool being so popular in the US. Besides the Koreans do you see any other country dominating in recurve archery? the Italians maybe? But they have some good compounders too... dunno just my two cents.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

About a year ago she said she was starting to train again and was starting a U of KY archery club but that was the last I heard. Lots of things to distract the attention of a bright pretty college girl


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

And yet the best USA compound outdoor FITA score is still unbeaten since 2001, and it holds the 3rd place in the world now. 1st place by a Dutch guy (Elzinga), and 2nd belongs for France's D. Genet.


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

German archers are asking a similar question: How can our archers become the top world archers again? 

The answer is simple, if impossible: Take the Koreans out of the equation!

Honestly, if you disregard the Korean archers' qualifying scores, US and German archers didn't do all that badly (gosh, I wish I were that good!).

But, we can't take the Koreans out of the equation. So what makes them *so* much better? You guys all know the answer: get close to all of your nation's youth involved in a stringent, hard core, nationally uniform training program supported with limitless government funds and private capital. Cull them out, till you get the best. Promise your top competitors that, if they bring honor to their country by winning a medal, they will never have to work for a living for the rest of their lives. 

BTW, did y'all notice that the Koreans won a medal at compound archery, too?


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

Jim C said:


> There are more HS kids playing basketball in Cincinnati than training seriously in recurve in the entire USA. It comes down to numbers--the more numbers the more chance of finding the talent.


Exactly. 

JOAD, NASP, et al, are all steps in the right direction. But, they are still diminutive steps and continue to be in need of large increases in grass roots participation and support. Achieving those increases is the central task facing USAA today, IMO.


----------



## dead eye dick (Sep 1, 2004)

yes it takes a lot more practice with a recurve to be good than with a compound ,that may play into it.i use to shoot trad for years but got lazy and didnt want to put the time into it it takes to be good,i now shoot barebow compound, but people still look at you like your a freak shooting with fingers and no sight.but to me every arrow is a adventure.it may have something to do with money why their are more good compounders than recurvers, with only 3 to 4 spots open in the olympics every 4 years its hard to justify doing that, when you can make some money shooting your compound.


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

oldreliable67 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> JOAD, NASP, et al, are all steps in the right direction. But, they are still diminutive steps and continue to be in need of large increases in grass roots participation and support. Achieving those increases is the central task facing USAA today, IMO.


The JOAD Program is still a valuable resource, and their are a lot of dedicated individuals who want to see kids move forward. Two in fact are a couple a hours away from me in Cincinnati, Jim and Liz. If it wasn't for unselfish individuals like them, working with a lot of kids, they wouldn't have a chance, or even a clue when it comes to recurve archery. 

In regards to NASP in Louisville, I always thought it was kinda ironic to see the huge posters of top compounders on posters, advertising a particular release. If I was an impressionable kid, and saw that, WOW, I'd want to shoot a compound too. I told my wife, it would be nice to see pictures of Vic or Butch or Brady, with their recurves, promoting some type of equipment on huge posters, in that hall. Never happen, and then when it's an Olympic year, and people in archery, but not FITA archery, can't understand why we have disappointing finishes. NASP is mainly to foster growth at a young age, to promote future (Matthews) compound sales.


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

rgauvin said:


> I'd be curious to know the ratio of compound shooters to recurve shooters in the US and the rest of the world. I believe that may be the root cause. Compound shooting is to the best of my knowledge dis proportionally popular in the US vs say Europe, Korea or the rest of the world. When you take that into effect it makes sense.
> 
> The same goes for hockey. Hockey is VERY popular in Canada, and despite having 1/10th the population of the US Canada produces just as many star players. Popularity directly affects how many top tier athletes your country generates.


Or soccer in Brasil, or track in Kenya, etc. There have been long discussions on this board about coaching, training, and so on, but basically your right. Top athletes tend to be reasonably good at several different sports, so whatever the national emphasis is, that's where most of your talented athletes go. Tell a young,athleticly talented inner city kid in the US to take up archery instead of basketball, and he'll probably think your crazy, especially since you can't make any kind of "real" money at it.

Compound has become popular in most of the anglo-phone world (South Afrika, Australia, New Zealand, Canada), with the exception of Great Britain. You also see it gaining popularity in countries under the US "sphere of influence" like Mexico and a number of other Central American countries. But in Europe it's the opposite situation. Here compound archery is a fringe sport within the archery community. You also don't have the financial support and sponsorships over here that you do in the US.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Few notes about Compound and Korea
1) The Korean Ladies were professionals in Ulsan. Trained several months toghether as a team, and they have lost the Gold medal just because of crazy mistakes in a change at the third end. Judge has called back one lady 3times from the line, so for the last 3 arrows they only had 41 second remaining, that meant a miss for the third one shooting. They will not do the same mistake again forever, I think. 
2) Korean men team was made by amateurs selected from clubs, not by a pro team like ladies. It is the first time Korea is opening selections of a national team to local amateurs. From the other end, if you see around Chung Jae Hyun, 2005 Recurve World Champion with countless number of other titles including 1992 Olympic silver, bearing an accreditation card with "Compound Coach" on it, it means something is moving.

Few notes about Compound Europe/US
1) Compound is not so popular in Europe, were recurve is still dominating . As a reference, in Italy we have around 60% recurve, 25% Compound and 15% bare Bow, and probably the percentages are same in France and other large countries, too. But those doing compound are 99% mainly Target compound shooters, so this is the reason why Europe is generating many top level compound archers. 
2) Compound is presently get full founds for International compettions from several major European countries, so all top compound European shooters are in same conditions at national team level as Olympic bow shooters. 
3) As the proabability to have 3 top level Compound shooters shooting for the same country in Europe is minimal by the numbers, US men team will lead for some years more, but at individual level, I think things will be much harder in future.
4) Ladies situation is already different, as comparatively US does not have so many real top level women compound archers in comparison to the rest of the world.

Few words about Recurve-Compound switch:
1) Russia and Korea are already clear example of what archers and coaches can get in the switch from Recuve to Compound. A 1250 recurve shooter is a 1350 Compound shooter just one week after, a 1350 Recurve shooter can be a 14XX compound shooter in a couple of years. If the world "Olympic" will be aded to compound bow, the numbers around will change a lot in a quite short time


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

after carefully considering all the posts it seems that it will be very difficult for any one country to dominate the sport in all its current disciplines...which is good!!...PS...i have to add,however, that the country with the best chance of ever doing it is.......korea!!....JMHO.


----------



## Welshman (Oct 5, 2002)

Where do you all of you recurvers shoot?
I have to drive 25 minutes with no traffic (probably 2 hours in LA) to shoot at a range that took away everything but 50 yards or less (I can shoot 80 meters if no one else is there). Then drive home.

I can get to a basketball hoop within 5 seconds, a tennis court in 5 minutes (walking), a golf course in 5 minutes (driving), a running track in 5 minutes (walking), an Olympic size swimming pool in 5 minutes (driving). Etc, etc,etc.

And don't give me that, "how much do you WANT it" crud. 

The best archers come from the countryside where long distances "legally" out their back door are always there (like a basketball hoop).

You want more talented U.S. recurve archers? Get more ranges offering proper shooting distances closer to the talent. That's NOT going to happen. Compounds are the rule here and most of them are happy with 20 yards. 

Just my $.02


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

Welshman said:


> Where do you all of you recurvers shoot?
> I have to drive 25 minutes with no traffic (probably 2 hours in LA) to shoot at a range that took away everything but 50 yards or less (I can shoot 80 meters if no one else is there). Then drive home.
> 
> I can get to a basketball hoop within 5 seconds, a tennis court in 5 minutes (walking), a golf course in 5 minutes (driving), a running track in 5 minutes (walking), an Olympic size swimming pool in 5 minutes (driving). Etc, etc,etc.
> ...


But the target compounders have to shoot 70m, too, so they've got to practice as well. I think it's just because a lot (okay, most) of the talented archers shoot compound. I bet some of them would be great recurve archers, if they were willing to try. But obviously, Olympic Gold is not enough of a motivator compared to the prize money in Vegas or at similar events. Plus, no one sponsors you for shooting recurve.

But look at youth programs as well. The NASP has introduced over 5 million youth to compound archery in the past 7 years. I know of no program with those kind of numbers for recurve archery, not in America and not here in Europe! So, as I was saying, the majority of the kids who find their way to archery _at all _usually end up shooting compound, and all of us tend to stick with what's familiar to us. And if you're good at it, why try to do it the _hard _way?

I'd be happy to see more FITA ranges throughout the country, but who's gonna pay for them?


----------



## Welshman (Oct 5, 2002)

Flint Hills Tex said:


> But the target compounders have to shoot 70m, too, so they've got to practice as well. I think it's just because a lot (okay, most) of the talented archers shoot compound. I bet some of them would be great recurve archers, if they were willing to try. But obviously, Olympic Gold is not enough of a motivator compared to the prize money in Vegas or at similar events. Plus, no one sponsors you for shooting recurve.
> 
> But look at youth programs as well. The NASP has introduced over 5 million youth to compound archery in the past 7 years. I know of no program with those kind of numbers for recurve archery, not in America and not here in Europe! So, as I was saying, the majority of the kids who find their way to archery _at all _usually end up shooting compound, and all of us tend to stick with what's familiar to us. And if you're good at it, why try to do it the _hard _way?
> 
> I'd be happy to see more FITA ranges throughout the country, but who's gonna pay for them?



I don't need sponsoring...I need a place close to home to shoot like all the other sports. 
Hey, Limbwalker...Where do you shoot? 

Who's gonna pay for them? That's the point.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Welshman said:


> Where do you all of you recurvers shoot?
> I have to drive 25 minutes with no traffic (probably 2 hours in LA) to shoot at a range that took away everything but 50 yards or less (I can shoot 80 meters if no one else is there). Then drive home.
> 
> I can get to a basketball hoop within 5 seconds, a tennis court in 5 minutes (walking), a golf course in 5 minutes (driving), a running track in 5 minutes (walking), an Olympic size swimming pool in 5 minutes (driving). Etc, etc,etc.
> ...


In addition to the fact that my club has 4 very experienced coaches and several parents who work hard to make sure their kids have what they need to compete, our club has the benefit of most of them living within 10 minutes of our house where all summer we leave up 10 targets (20-90 Meters) and an indoor range that they can use anytime they like

there is no doubt this helps

The top girl tennis player in the state (now playing for Ohio state) had a tennis court at her home. The top girl squash player in our city has a court on her farm. The young man who won the skeet gold medal last year -Vince Hancock--is with the army where he shoots every day-as a young man, he had a skeet range where he lived.

More archery ranges near lots of people would be a big help

So many golf courses, so few FITA ranges


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Jim C said:


> In addition to the fact that my club has 4 very experienced coaches and several parents who work hard to make sure their kids have what they need to compete, our club has the benefit of most of them living within 10 minutes of our house where all summer we leave up 10 targets (20-90 Meters) and an indoor range that they can use anytime they like
> 
> there is no doubt this helps
> 
> ...



Jim you hit on two critical success factors to the future of archery in this country. Adequate venues and access to quality coaching. If those two things are done, lots of good things can happen.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

TomB said:


> Jim you hit on two critical success factors to the future of archery in this country. Adequate venues and access to quality coaching. If those two things are done, lots of good things can happen.


Here's the catch. I'll use the prior comparison between golf and archery.

If you go to the PGA web page, the first thing you see is "How to Chose an Instructor". With some extremely simple Google-Fu, you find a page that says "Find a PGA Professional near you. Give us your zip code or city and state. We'll give you a selection of instructors close to where you live".

If you go to any of the major archery sites, you see almost nothing on that. There's no unity at all in finding an archery coach if you look at sites from the NFAA, NAA/USA Archery, ASA, IBO, and others.

Heck, even the other shooting sport (Rifles/Pistols/etc), you have one major central location for finding firearms instruction in the NRA's instructor list at the NRA web site. And finding instruction in other sub-genres (tactical, IDPA/USPSA/Cowboy Action Shooting) is relatively easy to find as well.

I know that from a local (Arizona) standpoint, the Arizona State Archery Association is having Mel Nichols compile an instructor list that will be published on both the azarchery.com and azjoad.com sites. So - there will be some compilation from one state's level as an example.

The other major thing is this. Nearly every other sport gets huge funding and promotion from various sources to get kids into their specific sport. I'll use baseball as an example since I coach that as well. 

Major League Baseball teams like the Arizona Diamondbacks and others sponsor camps that teach you methods just like what they use in the pros. They teach coaches to teach the same methods to kids. They teach these methods directly to kids. They hire minor league baseball and former collegiate softball players to specifically work with kids on technique in the off season...at a very cheap price. 

Baseball greats like Cal Ripken take careful steps to indoctrinate coaches and kids alike to play a specific way with very good success.

And then you have programs like National Youth Sports which allow your child to play a variety of sports in an inexpensive way to get the kids hooked. Then, once you get them hooked, the children have an opportunity to go from National Youth Sports (recreational) to Cal Ripken (mild competitive) to true Little League (competitive) to travel ball (extremely competitive).

With regards to archery - yes, the NASP methodologies work. They train and bring in a ton of kids through a mill to get them to know and learn the basics of archery. But where's the transition? How do you get a kid to go from success via NASP into success as an archer, over time and either on the competitive/semipro/pro level, or to Olympic level?

I will use my son's school as an example of how NASP gets a level of success and then it bites them in the rear. My son's school won it's segment at the regional NASP tournament for the 2008-2009 school year. Now that it's the 2009-2010 school year, the parents want something more. However, they can't offer more through NASP. They have learned all they can. 

So - I'm working with them (outside of both NASP and any sort of JOAD program) to develop a transition intermediate class to get the kids used to stuff outside of NASP. Get the kids to where they can shoot some FITA and get them into a JOAD program to advance their skillset. The school sees how doing a transition can help and how limiting the NASP program can be in some cases. I'll use my 7 year old son as a prime example. My son's technically too young to participate in NASP since he's in third grade, yet he's able to shoot a FITA 900 round and get 848/900. Go figure. 

I realize that there are people at the top that are attempting to provide guidance for situations similar to what I'm seeing at my son's school. However, with parents demanding more and are willing to pay the fees to get more, I'm working with the NASP level I person and forging ahead with a transition plan.

Since I'm on my soapbox, I'm going to rail on a bit more.

1) I see Rawlings, Easton, Wilson, and many others working with baseball teams on getting alternative funding for promoting their sport. I see pro teams like the Phoenix Suns and Arizona Diamondbacks and Arizona Cardinals granting money to schools and other organizations to help promote their specific sports.

Where is Bowtech, where is PSE, where is Elite, and others? Other sports realize that if they are to survive, they garner interest when the kids are young. The population that the bow companies can draw from are starting to dwindle. Baby Boom goes to Gen X and then Gen Y. There isn't enough of Gen X'ers (of which I'm an early Gen X'er) and Gen Y's to have all these bow companies survive. Frankly, these bow companies need to start throwing money into youth programs so that we can see this sport continue, grow, and flourish.

Yes, I do realize that Mathews is a heavy promoter of youth archery. But their support only goes so far. 

Easton is doing something with their ESDF program. That's not enough.

2) I realize that the NFAA and USA Archery have somewhat gotten unified with regards to instructors. However, finding an archery instructor should be as easy as Googling "archery instructor (insert city/state here)". It's not. It's actually impossible.

If I Google "golf instructor arizona", I get a ton of results straight off the bat. If I Google "archery instructor arizona", I get the ASAA web site with the plea for archery instructor to email Mel.

This *is* the internet age. If a parent can Google stuff quickly and get a response within 3 clicks, you have the parent hooked. If you can hook the mom or dad, you have an excellent chance of hooking the child up to that sport. Every other sport from Tennis to Swimming has quick Google look up capability. Archery is on the negative numbers here. And it hurts us.

-Steve


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

Great post, Steve! Thanks for your insight.

But outside of Korea, I know of no country where sponsoring/funding for archery is anywhere near what it is for other sports. Baseball is an American institution and, hence, it gets a big piece of the pie in the US. Here in Germany, it's soccer. You wouldn't believe how much money and effort are poured into the game over here, very similar to what you described for baseball. And even that gets criticized as being not enough.

I'd die for the likes of the NASP and ASAP over here! It's a start in the right direction, even if, as you noted, the transition is missing. I first heard of NASP on a visit to Ft. Myers, FL, where the Lee County Archers Club runs the program. They not only work with the schools, but offer their facilities and expertise to help the kids move on to competetive archery outside of school. You might want to check out their program (unfortunately not described on the web-site), but I'm sure if you give them a call they'd be happy to share their experience with you.

Archery became relatively popular over here in Germany after the Munich Olympics, but began to dwindle in the late 80s, early 90s. The 3D craze has been its salvation, but it has a bittersweet taste to it. Most folks who now take up archery have this neo-traditional attitude, like, "I'm Robin Hood! Whoever needs all those gadgets on their bow isn't a real archer. I just shoot instinctively." (Meaning, next to no idea of proper form, anchor, release, etc.) And this is all happening with no real organisation, but rather as a sort of private recreational activity.

What do we need in order to regain world class status? Let me sum up what's been suggested so far:

1. Adequate youth archery programs.
2. Easy access to plentiful venues.
3. Easy access to quality coaching/instruction.
4. A lot more generous sponsors/manufacturers.
5. More public awareness towards archery through:
a. Partnerships between local clubs, schools and communities.
b. Attractive, televised competitive events.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Beastmaster,
Some very good points, especially on the finding of coaches. There is a larger opportunity for improvement there. USA Archery is actually ahead of other NGB's in terms of its coaching certification program, but as you point out, finding them is problematic. I get two or three calls a month from folks that find me on the Texas State Archery Association web page. I get a lot of compound kids this way who may want to eventually bow hunt, but are willing to put the time in now to learn basic form before they ever draw on an animal.

I think the the new facility at Ben Avery is benchmark for many as to how to get kids involved in archery and more importantly, keep them.

JOAD is the best current transition from introduction of archery (NASP and 4H archery) to other forms of archery. NADA's ASAP program is a decent transition tool also. Funding is a problem but I think Easton is doing a lot already. (They helped my effort.) I am hopeful others, including local governments and manufacturers, will step up and help. I think it would be easier for them if there were a record of accomplishment first.


----------



## FITA Freak (May 4, 2009)

many of todays youth are never exposed to recurve archery(or archery in general). baseball,basketball ,tennis ,ect. are all part of our childrens education. i.e. in there P.E. classes. i coach a joad club and every summer we lose the kids we gain during the winter to other sports because they want to do what their friends are doing...other sports. we can debate all the aspects but it comes down to numbers .there arent enough archers to select the few that could truly excel . not to say our elite archers arent talented ,but we do alot better on the world scene with a larger pool to draw talent from


----------



## Mike21 (Jul 5, 2009)

dead eye dick said:


> ok why is it our us compound people can do so well at the worldchampionships and the recurve people do not , have we fallen that far behind everyone else in the world in recurve, and why cant we catch up , do all the good shooters just pick up compound and do that? just wondering!


Lemme explain the though process of both groups.

Compound user: "Gee, I hope I don't miss that spot."

Recurve user: "Gee, I hope I hit that spot."

It's the age of technology, people love how well they stay competitive with technology.

:darkbeer:


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

FITA Freak:

I'll somewhat agree to what you're saying. Where I'm at, we can do year round baseball thanks to the weather we have here in Arizona, yet I'll lose players to other sports as well, only to come back. 

One thing that I do see is that Archery does provide a good cross training for sports that have throwing involved. I see kids that do archery that can subsequently gun the baseball (accurately, no less) in a one hopper from center field to home plate. Aim small, miss small definitely applies here - if a kid is expected to hit a softball sized 10 ring at 50 meters, he sure as heck will be able to get it to the catcher since he's a much larger target. And, archers naturally square up, adding the throwing motion is nothing. The shoulder and arm durability helps too. 

But I digress....

I will put on another hat I wear to comment a bit further - I sit on the board of one of the larger Charter school systems in the Phoenix area. We specialize in the K-8 grades, so I'm gonna speak to the lack of sports in education in general. 

This will sound like a criticism of the education system in general, and it is. 

In our current day and age, we as a society do not want to emphasize personal achievement. People (specifically children) have been and are currently being forced into a cookie cutter mold. Individuality is being thrown out the window in an act to conform everyone to the same standards. 

In an act of stupid hilarity, sports is one way that a person can achieve and excel in a way that he or she can separate themselves from their peers. 

But - in our current education system, that is not allowed. It makes the kids who aren't athetically gifted "feel bad" and since it does that, sports has to be removed. 

There's been a lot of great excuses to the demise as well, ranging from No Child Left Behind to the experimental teaching methods tried out in the early 70's, sports has been a convenient excuse for elimination from the curriculum in an attempt to boost test scores to justify the school's performance. 

Yet, teaching to pass a test does a disservice to the kids. Even college grads are being put into the workforce to where they are useless to an employer and have to be trained yet again. There are some exceptions, like medical fields where hands on are required and most nurses and docs can hit the ground running. But, that's an exception to the rule. 

In the end, because of this attempt at forcing uniform conformity, kids who can excel get squashed down and put down. 

So, sports in general lose funding because the schools and districts need to justify other aspects of their existence to preserve their jobs. 

As a result, we now see kids far heavier and more drone like. 

With that being said - parents have to go outside of school for sports. Picking on baseball, softball, soccer, and volleyball, travel teams are the only chance to attract scouts to gain advancement in skillset and hopes for scholorships. 

Archery as an industry needs to change it's mindset. There is a phrase that I use - stagnate and die. Archery is a rather insular sport that does very little to promote itself outside certain circles. It's stagnate. 

Here's an oddball thought. Bear with me here on this example. 

Most children's involvement in a sport is due to the influence of one parent. Not both - one. That influence can be mom or dad. 

Archery does nothing to promote mom or dad shooting with their kids. I see kids get left behind at 3D tournaments because dad goes off with his buddies and leaves Junior to shoot in a flight with other kids and a judge. I, for one, shoot with my son when I can unless I am on a different line (due to distance). 

Archery marketing has to reinvent itself. Get staff shooters with kids to show them shooting together. Get more bow companies to actually produce lines specific for women and children to get them the performance they need to be effective and competitive. This cut down adult male bow crap doesn't work. 

Taking a cue from lead flinging sports - create spinoffs so that you garner grassroots interest. Why not get SCA archers into a transition program into OR? A lot of Cowboy Action shooters go from CAS to that newfangled 1911 transition division (Wild Bunch) to IDPA and IPSC. That offshoot garners interest that feeds into others. It then grows as a whole. 

Again - change and reinvent, or perish. Archery is doing nothing to really attract interest in garnering youth shooters. 

Frankly, if the industry as a whole doesn't step up, it will see all those shooters that are Boomers perish, and not enough replacments from Gen X, Gen Y, and their offspring will make up for it. 

Even with the proposed JOAD changes (model clubs after JDT models), we don't have enough shooters push this type of agenda. 

This is a chicken and egg scenario where we need shooters. Grassroots help but it isn't enough. NASP/ASAP isn't enough. We need more. And even if the industry wants proven programs, you have to commit to invest, even into the existing programs. Other than Easton and Mathews, I don't see the commitment. I just see the bow companies pushing an agenda where we are going to hit an R and D ceiling and end up with less buyers. 

-Steve
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## archerymom2 (Mar 28, 2008)

Beastmaster said:


> FITA Freak:
> In our current day and age, we as a society do not want to emphasize personal achievement... sports is one way that a person can achieve and excel in a way that he or she can separate themselves from their peers.
> 
> But - in our current education system, that is not allowed. It makes the kids who aren't athetically gifted "feel bad" and since it does that, sports has to be removed.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I agree. That's why I don't think we should water down our highest-level programs, like Junior Dream Team or Resident Archers (as has been suggested in previous threads). 

Yes, we need to have more training at all levels. But that doesn't mean we need to take away from these elite programs to do so, just so more kids can feel like they've succeeded. It will just lesson their desire to be in these groups. It's the very "elite-ness" of the groups that make them worth striving for.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

archerymom2 said:


> I agree. That's why I don't think we should water down our highest-level programs, like Junior Dream Team or Resident Archers (as has been suggested in previous threads).
> 
> Yes, we need to have more training at all levels. But that doesn't mean we need to take away from these elite programs to do so, just so more kids can feel like they've succeeded. It will just lesson their desire to be in these groups. It's the very "elite-ness" of the groups that make them worth striving for.


In every sport, we have an elite few. That's a good thing - they tend to be very visible billboards on what you can achieve in that specific sport. I'll definitely agree that watering down things are bad. However, if we are to succeed as a sport, we need a larger pool of candidates to draw from. On top of that, there's another thing we need to touch on, which I'll address further down the line.

Unfortunately, we are fighting against two primary issues. Three if you include funding...but that's a challenge every sport faces.

Issue number 1 - Society expects instant results. Blame this on the videogame era and other things. Nobody's willing to work for results. Even in the education gig, I see this all the time. People value the hard work only when you get instant gains. This is why you see 'roid issues and other stuff rampant in other sports but not in archery. (Gee - that would be a cool advertising thought, wouldn't it?)

Issue number 2 - We need a bigger pool of kids to draw upon, and figure a way to hook the kids quick enough to have them stay in a program.

At the shop I teach at, I see new kids all the time. We're able to generally hook the kids to where they get interested for a certain amount of time.

However, it's the long term thing that's going to hurt us. I will pick on the JOAD format of pins and skillsets, and also use my son as an example. Thanks to his coach (Eric Bennett - here's props for you, you rock as Spencer's coach!), he's shooting up to 9.42 points per arrow at age 7 (yeah, we track stats) at anywhere out to 30 meters.

What's his incentive to continue as he jumps age groups? He and other kids his age at the shop have already blown through the 9 meter pin sets, and have started all over again at the 18m indoor pin set to challenge the kids again.

However - If he's capable of doing up to 282 points for a 30 arrow round now, what's going to garner his interest in repeating the same pin sets over and over and over again as he grows? You can only rely on personal challenges so much over a certain point in time. I'm already fearful of that over the long term.

Another kid that I know (16 y/o that is also coached by Eric) has gotten himself (in a 9 month time frame) from zero to 293/300 at 18m. He joined NJROTC and signed up for their air rifle team because he knows there's minimal challenges left in archery until he works his way again at the 17-20 year old realm.

This is where evolution HAS to come into play. How do you keep the kid's interest to where they want to do JDT and/or become an RA? Parents and coaches can only do so much - goals have to be set from a national level to get and keep the kid's interest as well. And mixing things up between balloons, marshmallows, 3D, FITA, Vegas spots, and other things (like the ASA's new 8-10-12-15 paper vital target) can only go so far.

Everything evolves. In other sports, we've seen evolution. Basketball went from passing only to dribble to slam dunks and fast breaks. Football used to be a ground only game and they allow passing and kicking. Baseball went from oversized garden gloves to gloves and mitts that we see today. 

I don't see archery evolving much. My criticism about archery evolution has primarily been involving compound manufacturers pushing a speed limit that eventually will be hitting a ceiling. Unless you create a bow and arrow combination that breaks the speed of sound, we (as an industry) are spending a bunchaton of money on stuff that gives us extremely minimal gains, and in the hunting world - dead is dead, no matter if you use a 40 pound longbow or a 80# compound....it's all about shot placement and the skill of the archer, not the bow.

Again - bringing the other shooting sport into play, accuracy improvements haven't changed much over the years. Even the most dirtiest and loosest AR-15 can outshoot the shooter themselves. Manufacturers nowadays have gotten to where they spend money on promoting shooters that can help promote the sport. Guys like Jerry Michulak or Bob Munden popping balloons at 100 yards with a snubnose .38 Special, or Tom Knapp and Tim Bradley that can do wonders with long guns and shotguns - that's what gives the oohs and aahs to where people get interested.

Yes, I am talking about Television. Even bowhunting shows have gotten boring until Chris Brackett came out with his show. He evolved the average hunting show into something that rocks.

Do we need to add glitz of some sort? We sure do. I don't think the videogame mentality will go away anytime soon. So, we have to embrace it and change with it. Unfortunately, I don't see the change coming anytime soon. I know FITA's trying something with the 50m hit/miss - that will be a good start. But we need more if we are to keep the kids we already have and have any chance of bringing in more kids than we already currently do.

Finally, I will (unashamedly) compare Olympic sports against Olympic sports. I see more glitz and promos with USA Softball, USA Swimming, and even USA Weightlifting than I ever did with USA Archery. 

It's sad when I see more articles about US Weightlifters than I do about Archers. That has to change. And it's a change that has to come from up above and beyond what we have at USA Archery - it has to come from the sponsors demanding that the USOC put more visibility on the sport. If Xyence can help influence articles to be written on the weightlifters, then why can't Easton or Hoyt or Mathews do the same for our archers? There are enough female archers with sex appeal, and Brady should be able to attract women with his down home attitude.

We need our top archers to be visible. They aren't. And until we get someone who can wow the pants off of the mainstream media or get help so that someone can wow the pants off of the mainstream media, we're gonna sit here idle.

-Steve


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

steve--your posts are very enlightening..and unfortunately quite true..it's also a very similar situation in many parts of the world....
...you propose some very doable ways of improving the situation but somebody has to take the lead and it has to be the country's national sport association for that sport as they are in the best position to do so..... if only to justify their existence...
...i realize it is not an easy task but it has to be done with a lot of focus, dedication, and patience...and the support of all who love this sport...JMHO.....PS..we are trying to do this in my country and believe me it's an uphill battle all the way....and a steep hill at that!!


----------



## Sighting In (Feb 5, 2009)

Beastmaster said:


> ..... -Steve


I thought that in the past year or two our JOAD club has exploded in size! Earlier this year (around Vegas time) we had no room for ANY of our classes, not even the advanced classes. Then as I saw the other day on the score board, our numbers have decreased quite a lot recently. 

But, I think the issue is not as much about getting kids to try it as getting them to keep it up. The question is how to do that? I am not sure exactly the reasons for the decline of shooter as of late, but I don't think that it is because of the lack of challenge. Most of the kids who have stopped shooting were in the 250s or below. That is more than 1/6th of their score that they can be working for.

So, if it is not the lack of challenge, what is it? I think it could be outside influences. Towards the end of summer, I was shooting almost every day. If I was not at the range that day shooting, I was in my garage blind baling, partially because I had nothing better to do and partially because I love to shoot, no matter what at. Now with school starting recently, I barely have time to wax my bow, let alone shoot it. I get a TON of homework to do, then I need to study, then I have chores, then I have church events, etc. Then if you can imagine if I was involved with something ELSE at school, like band, football, clubs or other activities, there is no way that I would be able to make time for archery at all. I imagine that it is the same way for other kids. It is all about priorities. If I didn't really try to make time for archery, I would not get much in. I care about it much more than a lot of other kids, which might be the problem. I don't think that we can make them do archery if they don't have time for it, and I have no clue how to make time for it. 

I mentioned earlier that the real problem is keeping them, instead of getting them. That is not to say that there is no room for improvement on that. There can be a much better campaign for it out there, at schools and to the general public. I say the word archery at school, and 9/10 times I have to go "you know, the sport with a bow and an arrow". Most people don't know that people still do it, and most of those who do know it do not know that it is a competitive sport. I think that the word needs to be spread more. 

I just had an idea that would be good for all sports. In PE they could have a week or two talking about a ton of different sports. Just a quick over view of everything. Talk about things like golf, fencing, archery, and other sports that are competitive, but are not big. That would let people know about them so they can try it if desired. At least they would know that it is out there. 

Also, before I graduate I want to try and get an archery program started at my school. Not a big team or anything, just a small after school club with hay bales for targets out on an unused baseball field. I know there are a few people who would join, and once it would start it would grow more. People could try it, and if they do not like it they can quit without any problems. If they do find they enjoy it then I can recommend them to a real coach or join the JOAD club to become competitive. 

Just some things to think about.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Interspersed....and I'm glad you're chiming in...mister 295!



Sighting In said:


> I thought that in the past year or two our JOAD club has exploded in size! Earlier this year (around Vegas time) we had no room for ANY of our classes, not even the advanced classes. Then as I saw the other day on the score board, our numbers have decreased quite a lot recently.


Yep. I know that Rhonda looked at attendance and culled the board quite a bit. 



> But, I think the issue is not as much about getting kids to try it as getting them to keep it up. The question is how to do that? I am not sure exactly the reasons for the decline of shooter as of late, but I don't think that it is because of the lack of challenge. Most of the kids who have stopped shooting were in the 250s or below. That is more than 1/6th of their score that they can be working for.


Part of that is the videogame mentality. They achieve to a certain point, then that little extra is what it takes to excel versus be one of the joneses. Videogames are designed to adapt to where if you try and try and try, and don't succeed, a lot of the AI will dumb down the game so you can go forward. It's great for gameplay, but it sucks that the player is lulled into a false achievement.



> So, if it is not the lack of challenge, what is it? I think it could be outside influences. Towards the end of summer, I was shooting almost every day. If I was not at the range that day shooting, I was in my garage blind baling, partially because I had nothing better to do and partially because I love to shoot, no matter what at. Now with school starting recently, I barely have time to wax my bow, let alone shoot it. I get a TON of homework to do, then I need to study, then I have chores, then I have church events, etc. Then if you can imagine if I was involved with something ELSE at school, like band, football, clubs or other activities, there is no way that I would be able to make time for archery at all. I imagine that it is the same way for other kids. It is all about priorities.


You are correct. And this is one of the reasons why image wise, archery sucks at marketing. Everyone knows who Jennie Finch is. I know her as Casey Daigle's wife, but that's because I'm more involved in baseball and I'm an ASU Grad (Jennie Finch went to UofA...but I digress again...)

Girls who like softball have a role model that kicks some tail. And Major League Baseball recently partnered with the league that Jennie Finch pitches in to unify they marketing strategy to kids and females in general.

Because of this, if you had a girl who was faced with the choice of being like Jennie Finch or being like Khatuna Lorig, which one will the girl pick? Despite the fact that I think Khatuna's cuter, most girls will pick Jennie, because she's marketed better. Marketing changes or influences the priorities and choices.



> If I didn't really try to make time for archery, I would not get much in. I care about it much more than a lot of other kids, which might be the problem. I don't think that we can make them do archery if they don't have time for it, and I have no clue how to make time for it.


This is common for any sport. At some point in time, every parent and their kids need to make a decision on workload versus sport. When I was in your shoes, I chose football/baseball more than education and I took a lighter class workload. It got me two messed up knees and a horrid future for my mobility when I could have had two more college classes out of the way when I was a high school senior. So be very careful of the choice. You can always go back to archery....you may never be able to get the education chance back.



> I mentioned earlier that the real problem is keeping them, instead of getting them. That is not to say that there is no room for improvement on that. There can be a much better campaign for it out there, at schools and to the general public. I say the word archery at school, and 9/10 times I have to go "you know, the sport with a bow and an arrow". Most people don't know that people still do it, and most of those who do know it do not know that it is a competitive sport. I think that the word needs to be spread more.


Well, I agree with that, but unfortunately the new model proposed by USA Archery really relies on at least 2x more kids at the beginning level versus what we see now.



> I just had an idea that would be good for all sports. In PE they could have a week or two talking about a ton of different sports. Just a quick over view of everything. Talk about things like golf, fencing, archery, and other sports that are competitive, but are not big. That would let people know about them so they can try it if desired. At least they would know that it is out there.


I agree, but unless there's parent and student demand for it, even golf has a hard time being competitive in the current school budget, especially for an overview course setup.



> Also, before I graduate I want to try and get an archery program started at my school. Not a big team or anything, just a small after school club with hay bales for targets out on an unused baseball field. I know there are a few people who would join, and once it would start it would grow more. People could try it, and if they do not like it they can quit without any problems. If they do find they enjoy it then I can recommend them to a real coach or join the JOAD club to become competitive.
> 
> Just some things to think about.


This is where NASP comes into play. It's cheap, easy and Arizona Game and Fish makes it quick to implement.

Unfortunately, nearly every public school in Arizona (not Charter. mind you, just public) has this misnomer where bows and arrows are considered weapons. It's not accurate, but because of that stupid misunderstanding, you'll have a huge uphill battle.

Even schools with a JROTC program have a heck of a time with air rifles. 

See you at league? If not, tomorrow.

Oh, and for the record with everyone else that doesn't know him - Sighting In is one of Corner Archery's most accomplished shooters. He recently got his Silver Olympian pin. He's experienced a lot of what JOAD shooters go through from an indoor point of view. If we ever had a JDT candidate for compound, he's one of them.

-Steve


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

> So be very careful of the choice. You can always go back to archery....you may never be able to get the education chance back.


Truer words have never been typed.


----------



## archerymom2 (Mar 28, 2008)

I think maybe a lot of kids who currently do archery are interested in it BECAUSE it's not mainstream, not in spite of it. After all, they could have chosen other sports, but they chose one that was unusual. Popularizing archery would certainly build a larger base, but I'd bet many of those who are in the sport now would not be in it today if it was popular -- they'd move on to some other unusual sport. 

We had the same issue with our boy scout troop. My son joined a small, close-knit troop, and really liked it. But then new leadership came in, and decided they needed to build a big troop, to show that they were as successful as neighboring troops. They succeeded -- but in the process the troop lost the feel that you have with a smaller group.

Just a thought...


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

archerymom2 said:


> I think maybe a lot of kids who currently do archery are interested in it BECAUSE it's not mainstream, not in spite of it. After all, they could have chosen other sports, but they chose one that was unusual. Popularizing archery would certainly build a larger base, but I'd bet many of those who are in the sport now would not be in it today if it was popular -- they'd move on to some other unusual sport.
> 
> We had the same issue with our boy scout troop. My son joined a small, close-knit troop, and really liked it. But then new leadership came in, and decided they needed to build a big troop, to show that they were as successful as neighboring troops. They succeeded -- but in the process the troop lost the feel that you have with a smaller group.
> 
> Just a thought...


But then, that's antithetic to what USA Archery wants to do, isn't it?

Being a niche field doesn't get you more players into the game. There's this buildup to get more coaches. To justify more coaches, we need more archers. If we need more archers, then we need to get out of this hole we (as an industry) are in, adapt, and overcome to succeed. The overcome part involves things where we have to get out of being a niche field.

I know - I'm providing some oddball thoughts to this whole discussion. But, I'm looking at it from the 30,000 foot view - outside looking in, if you will. I guess it's my sales background that makes me think about this in an unusual way.

-Steve


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

jmvargas said:


> steve--your posts are very enlightening..and unfortunately quite true..it's also a very similar situation in many parts of the world....
> ...you propose some very doable ways of improving the situation but somebody has to take the lead and it has to be the country's national sport association for that sport as they are in the best position to do so..... if only to justify their existence...
> ...i realize it is not an easy task but it has to be done with a lot of focus, dedication, and patience...and the support of all who love this sport...JMHO.....PS..we are trying to do this in my country and believe me it's an uphill battle all the way....and a steep hill at that!!


It is an uphill battle. 

Frankly, in this day and age, everything revolves around marketing and glitz. 

Right now, most archery marketing is centered around speeds and feeds. How fast will this arrow go out of this bow? How light and durable is this arrow that I'm feeding into the bow?

Kids need to see the fun. The ethereal elegance of shooting a bow. Watching it hit the 10 ring. The sheer rush of mechanics where you know you executed a shot properly.

But that can't come from adults. It has to come from other kids. Despite the fact that my son has an excellent coach, he responds far better from guys like Adam (Sighting In here on AT) and the other 16 year old kid that I referred to in another post (the one that joined NJROTC).

Picking on the local JDT kids in my neck of the woods, kids like Nathan Yamaguchi and Kiley Larrick need to become very visible ambassadors for the sport to draw in more kids. 

In the NASP/JOAD transition attempt that I'm doing at my son's school, I'm even (unashamedly) using my son Spencer and another child who's participated in JOAD to be demonstration kids for the transition class. Kids always respond to kids.

The SI for Kids article that Matt Zumbo is a good start. Someone in marketing needs to flood the daylights out of everyone - ESPN, SI, USA Today, CBS Sports, NBC Sports, ABC Sports, local papers, local radio, local TV news. We need airtime. We need print time. We need visibility in front of the kids. We need visibility in front of the parents. Getting airtime as a local interest piece is something that lots of news organizations look for as filler items.

In this uncertain time globally, we need feel good stories outside of the garbage involving politics, nuclear this or that, and other stuff. 

With the uncertainty being said, there is another marketing tact that can be used as well - cost. Archery is a cost effective sport if planned out correctly. And if it's presented right with the proper backing, it can grow quite a bit - but, no one seems to capitalize on it. 

For the cost of what I pay for Baseball equipment for one child for one season, the following recommendation can equip 1.5 to 2 recurve archers with stuff that is effective for about 2 years.

I'll pick on PSE, not in a bad way, just as an example. PSE claims that they will help clubs with discounted equipment. Well, if we (collectively) could get a child a Buckeye Junior recurve (or something similar from other manufacturers), no-gloves, a cheapie quiver, and 6 arrows (even the NASP Easton arrows) for about 100 bucks, and show the cost effectiveness of that combination for X number of years, you know how many parents would jump on that? Gee - something that doesn't go obsolete. How about for 95 dollars? A sub-100 dollar package would be a huge incentive for parents. 

A target can be something as simple as a decent sized cardboard box stuffed with newspaper. How cheap is that? (Very cheap, and it's effectively free) 

On top of that - you have equipment that kids can use in JOAD effectively for a decent amount of time.

And - this fits in quite well with what USA Archery wants. You want more recurve shooters? This plan will give you more of them, cheaply and en masse. Stuff the sub-100 dollar package into Sports Authority and Dicks Sporting Goods and Big5 with a coupon for a free JOAD lesson at the closest JOAD location (searchable by going to usarchery.org), and you have your archers. Hook 'em, reel 'em, and train 'em.

And there you go - do a good marketing plan and get the industry to take a lower profit margin to move product and get more shooters - it's a win/win for all of us from a short to medium term perspective. 

Being blunt - the tooling for stuff like the PSE Buckeye and Ragim Matrix and other bows that are similar has been so paid for that every Buckeye/Matrix (and other of it's ilk) sold likely is sold for large double digit margins. And dealers likely wouldn't mind it because it's so darned simple to set up that their profit margins would be lower, but made up in volume. Very little bench time and tech work is needed.

Anyhow, just give me credit for it if it gets implemented.  Prior Art in a public forum here is now electronically present.

Sarcasm aside, again - it's more outside of the box thinking. We *have* to do stuff like this, otherwise we will lose out to other sports.

-Steve


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Beastmaster, you compare archery to baseball, but one thing you miss in your equation is that I can throw a baseball in any city in this country.......not true about an arrow. That is another obsticle that archery has unfortunately, and from some of the stupid crap I've heard of ppl doing, I'm not sure it's a bad thing. I'm paying monthly range fees for mine, plus the gas to get there. More expense.

I remember when I was a kid. My parrents found my first recurve in the attic. When I was old enough, we drove once a week to the archery shop in the city - we lived in a small town about 20 miles away. Looking back, it's a amazing I'm still doing it as an adult, although I did take those teen years off. That was not enough time to get good at it, but then again, it was in an age where you could prop a target up aginst the tree in your back yard and shoot when ever you wanted, with no one saying the least about it.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

one of the the fastest ways i know to up the popularity of a sport in any country is to have a super hero-type of role model---and market him/her well..

...tiger woods is the epitome of this for golf---- and jack nicklaus, tom watson, arnold palmer, bobby jones et al.. before him...
...similar super heros exist in baseball,basketball,hockey,football, and many of the other very popular sports...
...we have several world class billiard players in our country and our gene pool for that sport is growing because our players win WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS!!
...boxing and its development is now getting a lot of sponsorship support here because manny pacquiao is now considered by many as the WORLD'S best boxer pound for pound... 
i can cite numerous other similar examples but i think you get the point....

i realize it's still a chicken and egg situation but if you can consistently produce WORLD or OLYMPIC champions the going should get easier...


----------



## Borja1300 (Oct 12, 2007)

Talking about the US compound shooters...

Braden has just set a new world record with 120 wiht 8 X's in the semifinales of the World Cup final stage (Denmark)


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

Beastmaster said:


> Unfortunately, nearly every public school in Arizona (not Charter. mind you, just public) has this misnomer where bows and arrows are considered weapons. It's not accurate, but because of that stupid misunderstanding, you'll have a huge uphill battle.
> 
> Even schools with a JROTC program have a heck of a time with air rifles.
> 
> -Steve


That's where German laws come in handy for archers over here. According to the law, a bow is considered sporting equipment and thus exempt from the strict stipulations of gun laws. 

This is where new possibilities for funding come into play. The German Shooting Federation, under whose auspices our national archery program is run, wants to get kids into shooting sports, but they can't go into schools with weapons, for obvious reasons. Their rationale is, teach the kids archery, which is a shooting sport, then woo them over to guns. So they are perfectly willing to financially support clubs who commit to running a school archery program. They've even set up a curriculum and have online resources about how to organize and partner with school districts and local government. I even found a distributor of archery equipment who was willing to sell us the neccessary equipment at half price.

Unfortunately, I can't convince the folks at my club that this would be a good thing. They say it would be too time consuming, and wouldn't bring the desired results. I guess it will remain a dream, not to be achieved during our lifetimes. 

What I don't get is this: so many of us seem to care about promoting archery, and we all have these great ideas, so why can't we do it?


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

flint..i think all of the great ideas come those with an intimate knowledge and genuine love for the sport...they also have no other agenda other than for its development and growth...am not too sure if our sports leaders have this same focus....PS..we just have to keep on plugging on as many here seem to be doing in their own small way(thank you!!)----and hope and pray for the enlightenment for those who can influence the needed changes....short of running for these positions ourselves.....


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

jmvargas said:


> one of the the fastest ways i know to up the popularity of a sport in any country is to have a super hero-type of role model---and market him/her well..
> 
> ...tiger woods is the epitome of this for golf---- and jack nicklaus, tom watson, arnold palmer, bobby jones et al.. before him...
> ...similar super heros exist in baseball,basketball,hockey,football, and many of the other very popular sports...
> ...


We all seem to be targeting marketing. And I wholeheartedly agree. 

Again, picking on the USOC - if you can market a pothead swimmer, why not market an archer who's far cleaner? 

-Steve
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Flint Hills Tex said:


> What I don't get is this: so many of us seem to care about promoting archery, and we all have these great ideas, so why can't we do it?


This is why I feel that Archery contains a lot of elements of an insular, inbred thought process.

Again, I have a sales background. I see issues in our industry's current marketing structure. But, there's no chance in hell that even someone like me would have a chance to put my money where my mouth is. I'm not in the golden inner circle 

-Steve
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Okay. Here's another idea from the warped mind of Steve Yee.....

You want to attract archers and sponsors and TV viewership all in one fell swoop? I have two words. 

Arrow Destruction. In other words, Nock Nock.

Let's face it (pun intended), our society is always attracted to carnage. So - let's give it to them.

Do a 4 arrow end, 4 ends, alternating archers. Have Brady dust off his Mathews compound and team him up Braden, Reo, and Dave.

Have Easton or some other arrow manufacturer take a reject arrow. Put it in the center of a FITA target face. Place the face 40 meters out.

The rules?

Out of all the arrows an archer can fling, whoever destroys the most arrows wins. Destruction can be as simple as blowing the nock off, to robin hooding the arrow completely with a broadhead, to taking a low poundage recurve and arcing the thing into the shaft.

After each archer does 16 arrows, you bring the target face in to 30 meters, but the arrow you are trying to hit gets smaller.

So, you can go from trying to hit an Easton Fatboy reject arrow at 40 meters to trying to hit an ACC at 30 meters to an X10 at 20. 

Heck, you can even do a pro-am. Pair Brady with Chris Brackett. Reo with his Dad. Dave Cousins and the Nuge. So on, so forth. Or how about husband/wife teams? Or do pro sports figures paired with a JDT kid? Heck, Chipper Jones isn't the only pro sport figure that shoots arrows. Get Martin Truex Jr....he toured the PSE factory a few weeks ago. I know for a fact that Arizona Diamondbacks pitcher Clay Zavada got himself a new Bowtech. I personally worked on it....so he can be part of that too.

And, if an archer wants to use broadheads. Go for it. Dynamite tipped arrows a-la Dukes of Hazzard? Sure. (Just kidding on the Dynamite part...) Flaming napalm arrow of death? Why not? (Okay, not serious either on the flaming napalm arrow of death...)

Betcha it gets enough attention that it at least gets put on the Deuce (ESPN2).

Okay - somebody better pay up for all my brain cell usage. And again - I posted this, I get credit for it if this or any other similar variant comes to fruition. You heard it here first.

I'm outta here. Got 4 JOAD classes to help teach...

-Steve


----------



## Sighting In (Feb 5, 2009)

jmvargas said:


> one of the the fastest ways i know to up the popularity of a sport in any country is to have a super hero-type of role model---and market him/her well..
> 
> ...tiger woods is the epitome of this for golf---- and jack nicklaus, tom watson, arnold palmer, bobby jones et al.. before him...
> ...similar super heros exist in baseball,basketball,hockey,football, and many of the other very popular sports...
> ...


I think to a point Brady is already the rock star of archery. I have seen a few articles on him in magazines and such, but not nearly to the same degree that it can be.

I know that my first trip to Vegas two years ago imprinted Dave Cousins as the archer that everybody wants to be. If we could get him, Brady, maybe Reo, and probably Jamie Van Natta to do a campaign to promote archery, something might come out of it. I know they already advertise to archers: Jamie Van Natta uses a Hoyt because it is the best, you should use one to! If we could say "Jamie Van Natta is the best female archer in the world, and you could be too" that might get some more archers to try it out.

Not coming from a marketing background (still in High School) I do not know how this is going to get started. Basketball players are used in advertising, but everybody already knows about basketball. Same thing for football and other sports. How would we get the going on this in a way that people will accept? If I was not an archer and just saw a random commercial that said "Hi, I'm Brady Ellison, an Olympic Archer, you should try shooting a bow!" I would probably just change channels until the show comes back on. 

Instead of a big spokesperson, per se, maybe some cool clips of archery. Somebody could take some of the videos off of Archery TV on Youtube, take clips of people shooting and hitting the X, people waking to the podium, etc. Make it look all dramatic, set it to some intense music, and at the end have a screen that said something about the FITA organization or USA Archery or something like that. I know that a cool action video like that would make me want to try it much more than saying "Hey, Katuna Lorig is cute, I will try what she does". 

You guys do have a good point about getting it started. We need a company (Easton, Hoyt, or Mathews would be good choices) to read this and understand what needs to be done. That is a bit hard to do, though.


----------



## rpdjr45 (Jul 28, 2007)

Marketing a pothead swimmer vs. a clean archer. Hmmmmm. Okay, I'll wear a speedo if the rest of you wear one, and bet we get more coverage. Well, in my case I won't get much coverage at all. What the heck, let's all let it all hang out and see what's shaking.


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

Sighting In said:


> Instead of a big spokesperson, per se, maybe some cool clips of archery. Somebody could take some of the videos off of Archery TV on Youtube, take clips of people shooting and hitting the X, people waking to the podium, etc. Make it look all dramatic, set it to some intense music, and at the end have a screen that said something about the FITA organization or USA Archery or something like that. I know that a cool action video like that would make me want to try it much more than saying "Hey, Katuna Lorig is cute, I will try what she does".


That's exactly the kind of thing I mean. Back when I was a young teenager, I went to the movies withsome friends. There was what I thought was a movie preview. A misty forest, morning sunbeams piercing the fog, then you see peasants gathering at a medieval stone chapel, all is quiet. Scene change: dramatic music, a white stallion at full gallop, but all you see are his hooves pounding the ground. Scene change: back at the chapel, the King arrives and dismounts. The people rise as he is escorted by the priest up to the altar. The stallion draws closer, you can hear the hoofbeats through the oaken doors of the church. The stallion rears up and crashes through the doors. A knight in gleaming armour dismounts and approaches the altar, where he kneels before God and his King, offering up his sword. The king takes the sword, lowers it to the bowed knight's shoulder. Suddenly, lightning shoots between sword and armour, travels up the sword, turning it into a sabre in a white gloved hand. The camera pans out to show a US Marine in full dress uniform. A manly voice from the off says, "The Marines...we're looking for a few good men."

I'll tell you, there wasn't a boy in that movie theater that didn't want to go over to the next recruiting office and sign up! That's the kind of advertising archery needs, and we could so easily utilize Robin Hood for our own purposes!


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

And so we go back to what I call the basics of business survival - M&M. That's Marketing and Money. 

USA Archery is a business. Its a business that survives on donations and feed money from the USOC. And since the money is limited and finite, it needs to be spent wisely. 

Which brings us to the marketing end. 

There are times where I wish archery could reboot itself and get back into the mainstream. I'm not talking about doing stuff as flashy as the contortionist who shot a barebow with her feet, or that Russian viral video guy who shot his assistant in the forehead with a recurve, but - we need to have the marketing department get with the times. 
High speed, low drag commercials work. Putting it on YouTube is free. Free is good. 


-Steve
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Okay, in another fit of brain cell usage, here's another marketing ploy that USA Archery should do. 

Kids are addicted to video games. 

And, I'll pick on the resurgence that Nerf has had with their N-Strike stuff and the Wii crossover game. 

They make a pistol that can be used with either a Wiimote or a Nerf dart shooter insert. It's a dual use toy. 

Kids are able to convince the parents to spend a bunchaton of stuff with specialized controllers. So why not archery?

Again - USA Archery needs to partner with someone. Create a Wiimote stabilizer mount and a sensor on a PSE Safedraw to detect an arrow release. 

Cheap? It should technically not cost (with game) more than $120. 

The sensor calibration will allow you to match a reticle with the sight. 

If Nerf can do it, if Cabelas can do their shooting game, why not USA Archery?

-Steve
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## rpdjr45 (Jul 28, 2007)

So, this means the speedos are out, eh? Well, I tried. Probably a good thing to let it go, though.


----------



## RunsUpRiver (Jul 22, 2009)

"Marketing a pothead swimmer vs. a clean archer."


OR.....
We could get Phelps and Huish together and see where that party takes us!



Is Geena Davis still shooting?



And now if we can just get Eliza Dushku to not be overbowed while shooting on TV.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U3EBrfewR8

(Shooting starts at minute 5)

Dean


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

RunsUpRiver said:


> "Marketing a pothead swimmer vs. a clean archer."
> 
> And now if we can just get Eliza Dushku to not be overbowed while shooting on TV.....
> 
> Dean


Dean, Dean, Dean...that's not what I meant, when I said we needed more archery media presence!


----------



## Guest (Oct 2, 2009)

That was pathetic.


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

I think the answer to the original question of the OP really lies in the fact that the talent pool for compound is so much larger than for recurve in America. Why are US archers more prone to shoot compound than recurve? Well, in a similar thread from January (http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=815123), I posted my theory. Here is an excerpt:



> I think the difference is primarily cultural. Americans tend to be more the "rugged outdoorsman" type than folks in other cultures (maybe that's why compound is so popular in Australia as well).
> 
> FITA style archery is sort of a "genteel" sport, the tournaments quiet and disciplined, taking place on a manicured range (the atmosphere reminds me of golf or tennis matches).
> 
> ...


----------

