# NBC's take on the US men



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

Interesting article, accurate but rather blunt.

NBC article


----------



## JoeM (Mar 31, 2003)

I wonder who wrote it. 

The TV commentators were also very blunt during the BRAVO telecast. 

Oh Well?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

How did John Shoot against Italy? Denise constantly noted that the coach should have pulled John off the line after two shots. It was obvious to lots of people. Was it the coach who failed the Team? that is what it seemed to some.


----------



## palmer (Sep 23, 2003)

NBC definitely didn't do anything to lessen the pain that's for sure. It's just a shame that the press feeds off the negative. I'm a little biased since I consider John a friend. I just feel it's wrong to start picking out whose arrow cost what. The team should win together and the team should lose together. Analyzing this shot or that shot as being the reason for defeat or the reason for winning only divides the ranks. Also, I make no excuses for defending people I consider friends.   

I think they should be applauded for taking out Sweden and Italy. Those were 2 huge accomplishments right there.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

agreed Palmer and obviously he was trying to win and that is all one can ask. I do wonder about the coaching though given that the 6 was part of a pattern that seemed obvious to Denise Parker by the time it happened


----------



## palmer (Sep 23, 2003)

That's true. I wish I could see more of the team shooting but it seemed that alot of teams did not shoot 3, 3, 3; they broke it up a good bit and changed from end to end. I didn't know they could do that, so I learned something there.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> At times visibly shaking with his string drawn, a coach could have pulled Magera off the line and allowed him to relax while Wunderle shot


Accurate? hardly. And no mention of our upset of Italy... hmmm.

Guess I'll have to watch the video to see what they saw, since I certainly don't remember "visibly shaking." But it could have appeared that way during one or two shots where I held too long. Bad habit of mine I intend to break before next season.

No name or even initials associated with that article? Makes me wonder. But I've dealt with the media for many years, so I should know better.

There was never any discussion about varying the shooting order, and coach Thomas should not be second guessed about his decision to continue with the order. I had his unconditional support through the entire event, and still do.

I accept full responsibility for not shooting my best against Chinese Taipai, but as I see it, my only responsibility was to my teammates, Vic and Butch and no one else. Just as my responsibility in Turkey was to Joe and Scott. That's what makes a team a team. I have spoken to my teammates at length following our 4th place finish, and I also have their support, so I am at peace. 

If anything contributed to my poor performance in the afternoon matches, it was a lack of experience in those swirling winds. Attributing my errant shots to nerves demonstrates a lack of concern for the facts that I just will never understand. If those individuals knew me (or even just spoke to me), they would know better than to think that something as simple as an archery tournament would cause me to be nervous. 

I have no issue with reporting the facts. The facts are that I shot the scores I shot, plain and simple. I will never understand the need to place blame the way the media does so well these days. 

If you could have heard the heartbreaking stories I heard in the U.S. athlete's lounge from other Olympians who came so close... Like the 26 year old female discus thrower from Los Angeles that has been to two olympics, trained for many many years, and had three consecutive scratches for no score. All that effort for nothing. She was in tears for days. Or the young lady swimmer that they had to keep watch over after she had been cut from a relay team before the event, for fear she would do something rash. Very sad stuff. In fact, for every medal ceremony I saw, I heard 10 heartbreaking stories. But I guess you would have to be there to know that.

Everything is relative. And if you have no other priorities or perspective in life, I can see where it could be very upsetting to some. I have enjoyed a great deal of support from many of you here, and I do appreciate that. I have enjoyed congratulations from family and friends, and I am constantly humbled by their unconditional support. 

I am not hard to contact, and I do respond to P.M.'s, so feel free to send a message if you'd like. I doubt I will comment further, since some things posted here can be taken personally by some. 

Until later, God Bless.

John.


----------



## Jim Pruitte (May 27, 2002)

John we are very proud of you and every member of our team that represented us. You did so with dignity and fortitude. That was something the writer forgot to mention...

Jim


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

good point Jim-Italy's team featured

1) the recently crowned Olympic champion
2) the guy who most people call the best recurve archer in the world-the current world champion
3) the current World Indoor Champion

in other words, three guys who have proven they know how to compete in the highest levels of head to head pressure matches.


----------



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

I'm not jumping on anyone, just wanted to mention one thing. I went to the link GT had to read the article and the 6th paragraph down said the following:

The sixth-seeded U.S. team began the day with a 246-242 victory over No. 7 Sweden. They followed that with an upset of the fourth-ranked Italians, who had a bye in the first round. That win, over a team that included individual gold medalist Marco Galiazzo, earned the Americans a berth in the semis.

Appears the win over Italy was mentioned unless I misread Limbawalkers statement. It didn't mention the full strength of the Italian team but it did mention something.

Terry Laney


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Terry, my mistake. There was a brief mention of our earlier victories.

Going home to watch "the tape". Maybe I'll see what they saw? 

John.


----------



## Stick & String (Feb 1, 2003)

My hat is off to you John! The USA teams and individuals did a terrific job in Athens and we are very proud of you! Everyone should know better than to believe hook, line, and sinker what is printed in the news these days. It's so easy to watch and say what if and why. Too many critics out there for me. Again, congratulations on an experience of a life time! I'll glad I had a chance to watch you compete in the Olympic trials in Mason, OH. Good luck with the upcoming hunting season. Hope to meet you again someday!

Dale


----------



## Michigander (Jul 31, 2002)

I thought they did a hell of a job,especially on the win over Italy.
There's no shame in going out by 2 measly points in the semis at an event as prestigious as the Olympics.
We'll get 'em next time is all.
Jerry


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Chinese Taitpai also upset Australia who feature 3 of the worlds best shooters (past world and Olympic champion, World Bronze medalist and highest FITA score outside Korea, and 2 time World Jr Champ and Olympic bronze medallist), they were a very tough team to beat in that shoot. Most teams who lost to them did it with scores good enough to win just about any match. 

Hope you don't take some of the negativity to heart John. USA is like Australia. Stands by their winners like they created them and then throws around blame when their athletes lose like it's the end of the world. 

Great effort in your first Olympics, as I tell my students going to National and World events. First event is to learn, after that you go to win.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Thanks Marcus, and don't worry. My world doesn't revolve around archery. It's just a small, but very enjoyable part of my life. I have three kids to raise, so it's all relative 

When I do decide to compete in something, I give it all I have, but I don't let it consume me either. There are a lot more important things in life, like my family, my career and most of all my faith in the Lord. 

Who knows where I'll go with this. It certainly was a learning experience, and one I intend to put to use. I think my sights will be set on Vegas next, since I wanted to go there last year but didn't get the chance. I felt I was just getting the hang of indoor at the end of the season this spring.

I'm also thinking of working with a coach. I think I've come as far as I can by myself. Time to look for some help to get to the next level, I think. We'll see.

The only one I allow to put pressure on me is me. I just have to decide what I want, and what I have time for first...

John.


----------



## schorton (Jul 22, 2003)

John, Monday Morning Quarterbacking. Isn't it easy?

I don't think anybody is trying to criticize here. The parts they showed on TV showed the 3rd arrow from each end not being your average shot. Even spectators here at home were noticing the pattern. It is the coach's job to detect patterns and change whatever is necessary before those patterns cost the team more points.

Frank had the option of breaking the pattern. We at home don't know why he chose not to. If his strategy had worked, he would have been the hero, but it didn't, so he's not.

We thought you did amazingly well for the short time you've been shooting olympic style. Good success to you in the future.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I was just thinking. Had I had the misfortune of being a very young (17-19 year old) shooter just making the team for the first time, and lacking perspective and other accomplishments in life, this kind of press may very likely end my shooting career. 

Perhaps this has happened to some in the past that I am not aware of?

Praise the Lord I know better than to listen to the critics, and can think for myself. If nothing else, it makes for some interesting reading!  

John.


----------



## I BOW 2 (May 22, 2002)

*What for improving?*

So John now that you have had a taste, what would you change in your Olympic traing prep based on what you experienced in Athens? Ken


----------



## InKYfromSD (Feb 6, 2004)

John, it seems like you have things pretty well in order and under control. I think everyone here on AT is proud that you made the team and gave it your best. Even though the best atheletes in the world are gathered in one place, it's still called the Olympic GAMES. It's not the Olympic Life-or-death, at least let's hope not. One needs to keep perspective.

Gale Sayers pretty much hit it right on the head when he titled his autobiography "The Lord is first; my family and friends are second; and I am third."


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

InKY,

yea, it's not a problem. Especially with the overwhelming support I get from folks here, friends and family.

"Olympic Life-or-death..." ha, ha. I like that one. I often said this year, "what's there to be nervous about? They aren't shooting AT me, are they?"  

Ken, 

yours is actually a fairly easy question for me to answer, as I have given that much thought. Before my next major competition, I will do two things differently: Shoot more arrows, and work with a coach.

I had noticed a trend in my performance about a month ago, after carefully reviewing my scores from each of the tournaments I had attended. I have always spent a lot of time reviewing my scores, and the scores of others. (to me, it's all about expectations, and you have to have a reasonable expectation of your ability as well as your competition in order to stay calm and relaxed. I think that knowing your average is very important toward setting personal goals and expectations.) 

I noticed a few things right before my trip to Turkey. First, my scores generally fell off after lunch, or gradually decreased through the day. Usually, my first few ends of the day were my best. Initially I attributed this to the wind picking up later in the day, but later realized that it was only part of the reason. I think the bigger issue was that I just wasn't shooting enough arrows in practice, and fatigue was setting in. 

You see, I prepared for Texas, New Jersey, and eventually the Oly. trials by shooting whenever I could, before work in the morning, after work in the afternoon, and between kid's baseball, scouts and church on the weekends. That generally added up to about 60-70 arrows a day, and perhaps 120 per day on the weekends. It wasn't uncommon for me to go days or even a week (business trips) without being able to shoot too. So I doubt I ever shot more than 350 in a week. 

I spoke with the team coach, Frank Thomas, once I discovered this trend, and he suggested I gradually increase the number of arrows I shoot each day, but to not overdo it. Essentially, he and others advised me to "not change a thing" so I continued to approach practice as I had before the trials, increasing the number of arrows just slightly. At times, my fingers and back paid the price, needing to wrap the fingers for weeks and have neck and back massages too. 

So, I don't doubt that if I had been used to shooting for hours a day instead of 60-90 minutes, I may have been able to shoot stronger in the afternoon matches. Who knows? But I think it was a factor. There are too many facts that point to this in my earlier tournaments. Also, when you consider the heat, travel (by bus and all the walking involved) and new surroundings in Athens, shooting 50 arrows there is probably like shooting 100 or more at home. 

The other thing would be coaching. And finding and working with a good coach probably would have led to #1, shooting more arrows. Or at least shooting more on a specific schedule or regimen to avoid fatigue. I had talked to a few coaches in the spring, but by then it was too late to make any changes. The simple truth was that I couldn't afford the fees they wanted, and since I continued to make progress on my own, I decided to work alone. Again, who knows if that would have made a difference?

I did attend Guy Krueger's seminar around Christmas, and it was the only "coaching" I received before the trials. Indeed, it was the only shooting advice I could afford, and it was well worth the money. However, his training regimen just wasn't practical for someone in my situation. I simply didn't have the time to get in that number of arrows each week.

So, my short answer is that I will find a GOOD coach I can work with, and shoot more arrows. Two things I just couldn't afford to do before, and even still may have trouble fitting in. We'll see. The desire is still there, and maybe more now than ever, but I have taxed the family budget and used up a lot of vacation time during all of this. I'm sure many of you "working stiffs" like me can understand  

John.


----------



## I BOW 2 (May 22, 2002)

John thanks for the candid reply. I know exactly what you mean! Ken


----------



## bowbender7 (Jun 1, 2002)

John it sounds to me as though you have the perfect attitude to contiinue doing well at this game.

Good job! I agree with your comments about age and maturity, thats why I dont understand how those little gymnastic girls can continually allow their self esteem to be smashed by the media.

Medal or not, your story has carried a very important message to anyone competing or thinking of it.

Sean


----------



## DarrinM (May 21, 2002)

Great job John!!!!!

Your thoughtful reply should help meand many others put a lot of our own archery goals and aspirations in order. You are a great role model. Good luck with your journey for the next two years. I know that with your mind set and beliefs that success is the only option!

I would like to meet you some day. Look me up at Vegas or the team trials if you and I are there. Darrin McCutcheon


----------



## monty53 (Jun 19, 2002)

John, you made the team. WOW! That by itself is quite an accomplishment. The way I see it, there is only one winner at any competition. Second place and third are still losers to the first place winner. It does not matter if you came in second, third, fourth or fourteen. You did your best, that’s all any one can ask for. We are proud of all the team members’ accomplishments. USA, USA!!!


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

Before I make the following comments, let me say the comments I am about to make aren't intended as critical toward any individuals, but are definitely intended to question the current system. Many of the team members are personal friends of mine and I would- and have- made these comments to them in person.

Not to put a damper on all this nice talk and positive spin, but in reality, this is the absolute worst finish by any US Olympic archery team since we started sending them to the Olympic Games in 1972. 

By a lot, in fact. 

I am not aware of more than one US archer finishing below 40th in the past 30 years (there may be one or two, but I can't think of an example with this much jet-lag).

On this outing, four members of this 6 member team finished 41st, 52nd, 60th, and 61st - out of only 64 places. Not pretty. 

For context, you need to remember that at least 50% of the shooters at the Olympics (the top three from their respective nations) are not competitive with even the #8 shooter in the USA at any given time. All you need to shoot in the Olympics is a 1200 level score.

This outcome for our team is an ENORMOUS problem because of the financial consequences that will now befall USA Archery over the next four years. 

Archers might only (*appropriately*) feel responsible only to themselves and their teammates, but the truth is a lot is riding on their performances beyond their own satisfaction.

So, what can we do about it ? The next four years will certainly mean substantial changes are going to happen as a result of this really terrible outcome.

My view is that the NAA needs to reevaluate the way it selects teams, trains archers and sets expectations. It isn't enough to have someone make a team without a plan for winning.

Any thoughts ?


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

>--gt-->;

Well, I think it is a little presumptuous to simply assume that the USA will finish well in any Olympics (in any sport), just by virtue of being the USA. At the same time, there isn't any reason to think they shouldn't be as competitive as any other country. The fact is that the dynamics of the Olympics (and archery) have changed over time and there are more countries who are just as competitive as the USA. Archery is no longer just a low-cost, easy win. If a country deems to seriously support (dedicate resources) athletes in a particular sport you can bet that they will start producing high-level athletes in those sports. If countries fail to adequately support athletes in certain sports, you can bet they will fall behind competitively in relation to other countries - unless they happen to be lucky enough to have a local phenomenon for that sport. 

There are no guarantees in high-performance development, so even if you have the best-funded program you can't guarantee a medal - anything can happen in competitive sports. The USOC is good about waving the flag and throwing money (and drugs) at sports programs they consider "medal favorites", but they are just as quick to throw athletes and programs to the wolves when they don't follow through to expectations. With a "small sport" like archery I really doubt they would increase the funding allocation to create a more robust and directed program with a larger pool of funded high-level athletes. Rather, I think, they will increase the "lottery" potential payout for a medal win - and then blame the athletes and the national sporting body (NAA) if no one rises to the occasion.

...but I am grumpy today, maybe it's just me..


 

-CG


----------



## NukeArcher (Mar 23, 2003)

I would agree with george's comments. I think that it is going to suck for USA archery, and I thought entry fees were getting bad before. I think we do need to look at our trials, I think that the '92 trials were a short time period, basically one tournament. We didn't fair all that well then either. 

I think we sent some of our best archers to Athens, I mean 3 of them have been on top for the last few years, a couple on top for greater part of a decade. 

The other archers were our best archers during a 5 day period. I am not saying they didn't work, earn, or deserve making the team. I cheered for them and wished they would have done better, but am proud of their effort regardless. 

That was the way the teams were selected and they did what it took to make it, however I think the NAA will have to look at how they select, train, and award incentives to teams/archers. At least those are my thoughts.


----------



## Valkyrie (Dec 3, 2002)

GT - 

Could you maybe add to what you think the USOC will do to the NAA in terms of $$$ and support in the next 4 years?

I have an idea but I think you are more well versed on the nuances. 

Reason I ask you to is that I don't think anyone really understands what the USOC does for Olympic archery - or not does as the case may be.

Ann


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

Now George...dont be bringing honestly into this...we all need one big group hug and that will make it all go away. 
CG, it isnt about buying medals, it isnt about throwing money into smaller sports, the USOC sees $$$...how much does/did it cost us for that result. As a sport, we fight for the same $$$ as swimming, as rowing, as track...
We are compared and held to similar standards. 
It isnt about being nice, fair, or pacifying the huge archery lobby group ;( .
The NAA has got to do something in order to avoid a repeat, and chances are it will have to do more with a smaller budget. While you cant guaruntee medals, you can guaruntee you send a prepared team. A team that is focused on what it has to do. Korea somehow manages year after year, as does Italy, as do the Ukrain, etc. 
As a Canadian I have seen what has happened to our programs as our NSO has diversifyed. What limited funds it once recieved began getting spread amongst many hands. Compounds, recurves, Juniors, etc. By the time they were done, there is nothing left to run programs. While it is important to satisfy your members, it is more important to deliver the programs neccesary to bring in the $$$ to run the programs. Sending 16 Compound archers to the Junior world does nothing to grow Olympic archery(as was done in previous years)...which brings in all the money. Now, take that $35,000 and put it into programs and incentives to get those same kids shooting recurves and you will grow. 
That is something that was forgotten long ago in Canada, and over the past several years you can see the NAA going down the same road.


----------



## InKYfromSD (Feb 6, 2004)

Before any changes are made, someone needs to clarify a few things. If this was a problem at work, I would first want to know what the requirements are. What are the expectations that the USOC has for the NAA and the archers that are sent to the Olympics? What resources are then needed to fulfill that requirement? Are those resources available? If not, then the NAA needs to figure out another solution or a way to obtain the resources.

I don't expect my customers to offer solutions, nor would I want them to. What I demand of them is that they make it very clear what it is that they expect me to deliver. That in itself can get very detailed. Is it resonable for the USOC to demand that the archery teams bring home X number of medals in 2008? Are there penalties for failure to deliver. I detected a hint of repercussion in George's message. It seems to me that the archers themselves need to be made aware of what's expected of them. They're adults, I'm sure they can handle it. If they don't agree then they can be replaced.

CG is right, the rest of the world is catching up. Fast. The US doesn't have a corner on the sports market like it used to. Of the top 10 world golfers, four are American and Tiger ain't looking so hot. The rest of the world is realizing that American atheletes aren't invincible and they're coming after us hard.

So what do we do to revamp the program? Can we do it in the next four years? We'll have to figure out what "it" is first. I'm pretty sure that throwing money at "it" won't solve the problem but more money is going to be needed. How about $20 raffle tickets, win a trip to Beijing! What about the team members themselves? Do we take the highest ranked archers over a given amount of time? Do we hold a trials a month before the Games and pick then? I'm glad I'm not responsible for that decision. The latter gives the "working man/woman" a decent shot at making the team but the former will probably rule them out. The answer lies somewhere between how the Korean's are managing their progam and the way we do ours. Long wind tunnels with varying currents, noise, heat, humidity, long days of shooting, physical and mental training. Lots of commitment from both sides.

It's totally unreasonable for me to expect to ever make an Olympic team so I have no personal interest in how things turn out. I was delighted to see Stephanie and John make the teams this year. Kind of like telling your kid that they can grow up to be President someday. 

Lastly, until I can come up with a proposed solution, I'm not going to complain about it too much or hold anyone responsible for how they did or didn't perform.


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"As a Canadian I have seen what has happened to our programs as our NSO has diversifyed."

Trying to compare the the Canadian situation to the USA situation is comparing apple to oranges - they are different animals with different funding structures different goals, and a much different budget. Canada has it's own issues but they are different in scale and scope than those in the USA. Trying to make any meaningful anaology between the USOC and Sport Canada would be difficult at best.


"CG, it isnt about buying medals, it isnt about throwing money into smaller sports, the USOC sees $$$...how much does/did it cost us for that result. As a sport, we fight for the same $$$ as swimming, as rowing, as track..."

Re-read my post - I have no idea what you are responding to..

-CG


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> My view is that the NAA needs to reevaluate the way it selects teams, trains archers and sets expectations. It isn't enough to have someone make a team without a plan for winning.


George, I couldn't agree more. As I've said before, nobody was more surprised that I made the team than I was. 

As the manager of public interests for most of my career, my first reaction was "how could they (the NAA) let this happen?" I asked myself this many times on the way back from Mason last June.

One idea I've heard suggested is a selection process that identifies the "team" about a year out, so they have time to train, prepare, travel and compete together. Makes perfect sense to me. Further, this "traveling team" would consist of 5 or 6, rather than just 3, with the final 3 only being selected based on their performance from that year. Again, makes sense to me. You have to put pressure on folks to see how they will respond. Obviously the 5 day trials process put pressure on some, while none on others (me, for example...)

I'll be watching with interest. Sure hate to give up an "open" trials process in the "land of the free and home of the brave," but I do appreciate the need for a more "professional" selection and preparation process too...

InKY, I agree with most of what you wrote. Only the President makes a lot more money... ha, ha, ha.

John.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

By the way GT, do you know who wrote the article?

John.


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

John,

Not sure where you got the impression that the team results "personally offend" me as you expressed in the last part of your message (*which I see you have now edited out), unless you mean to say that I appear to be personally concerned about the impact on NAA programs for the next four years as a result of the performance in Athens. 

You're right, I am personally concerned about that, as every NAA member should be. I am certainly not "offended" by the team's performance as you put it, but I am definitely concerned about the impact on the NAA.



> One idea I've heard suggested is a selection process that identifies the "team" about a year out, so they have time to train, prepare, travel and compete together.


This is not a new idea- this is what was done in 1995 which led to the successes of 1996. It works, but is relatively expensive compared to a one-shot trials event. 

However, the cost of underperformance is considerably greater, as we will be seeing in the months and years ahead.
I don't know who wrote the article, but I am told by Joe M. and others that it closely parallels the verbal commentary by the NBC on-air team during coverage of the team round here in the US. I don't have it on tape, but I did observe the event directly and I do think it accurately reflects what happened on the field.

There were quite a few bow-jams and ginches out there on all sides, even thought it was quite calm in terms of wind for the tem rounds. That is a reaction to pressure- and it is quite human.


----------



## PastorBrian (Apr 8, 2003)

John- 
First of all, thanks for being an example of balance between high level accomplishments and humbleness. I am proud to have had you, Butch, and Vic as the USA representatives in Athens. 

I, like you, am torn after reading both sides of this issue...
Do we (USA Olympic committee NAA etc...) 
1. Go the route of other countries and develop a "professional" selection program, training etc...similar to that of USA softball and USA soccer where the team trains together...lots of availible $$ etc...
2. Continue the selection based on the trials alone and may the best man/woman win.

Since I have little knowledge in this area, but much in the track arena.. my question is this...

Do you (John and others) think that USA Archery is affected negatively by a lack of a "minor leage" or "training program" that other Olympic sports have already built in??
( track athletes are often high level collegiate champions..same with swimmers, divers, etc...Baseball player are minor leage prospects)

How else..other than creating your "traveling team" and raising expectations of training etc...could we hope to rise back up to the gold? ( I am asking out of complete respect and reverence!)

It just seems that if the uSOC desires American archers to achieve as well as other sports thay should treat it the same. 

Feel free to educate me if I am missing something!!

I, like Darrin would love to meet you someday, John, as well as the other team members, and shake the hand of an Olympian!

respectfully yours, 

Brian


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Never called it a "new" idea, GT. In fact, it was offered by someone who was on the staff in '96, so it makes sense.

That same someone has advised me to do myself a favor and stop reading this "crap", saying "THERE IS NOTHING IN WRITING TO SUPPORT THIS." [referencing the suggestion that funding will suffer due to poor finishes at the games] "AGAIN, JUST A LOT OF MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACKING BY PEOPLE ON THE FRINGE."

As I respect this person's opinion and experience immensely, I will take their suggestion and disconnect myself from this issue.

Limbwalker out...

John.


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

> That same someone has advised me to do myself a favor and stop reading this "crap"



Now, John, I seem to recall giving you that exact same advice more than a week ago in Athens...


----------



## monty53 (Jun 19, 2002)

*GT and Limbwalker*

I disagree with you guys on this one. First, this Archery Olympics results were weird. All the favorites went home early. The winners on the men side (that’s what everyone is commenting on) were dark horses. No Frangele, Barnes, Feirweather, Wonderly, Johnson or a Korean. You see what I’m getting at? What do you say to these other competitors and their corresponding countries? Let’s be sincere about it, what every one comments is the USA men’s team finish. What every one feels is “the new guy let us down”. That’s what I read between the lines. The NAA has to stop catering and training just their favorite “Pets”. They haven’t come in "first place" since Barrs. Huish was a dark horse also. You have to open it up and let the “Limbwalkers” come in. The same people keep going to the world tournaments and we win some and lose some. Winning it’s not guaranteed to the Koreans or the USA or anyone else. In the OR round, it’s the luck of the draw. You are either hot or cold. This round gives the chance to other shooters beside the favorites to sneak in and come out on top. That is what happened in Athens.


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

"There are no guarantees in high-performance development, so even if you have the best-funded program you can't guarantee a medal - anything can happen in competitive sports. The USOC is good about waving the flag and throwing money (and drugs) at sports programs they consider "medal favorites", but they are just as quick to throw athletes and programs to the wolves when they don't follow through to expectations. With a "small sport" like archery I really doubt they would increase the funding allocation to create a more robust and directed program with a larger pool of funded high-level athletes. Rather, I think, they will increase the "lottery" potential payout for a medal win - and then blame the athletes and the national sporting body (NAA) if no one rises to the occasion."

I took the above to mean that you cant guaruntee success by spending money. I took it to mean that you believe(rightly so) that the world is so competitive that on any given day there are several contenders. While I certainly agree with that, I think to blame the results on the weather, and pass them off as an anomoly is wrong. It is interesting how some countries, year after year have turned out top recurve archers. 1330+ shooters. Medal hopefulls. This used to be the case in the US as well. It isnt the case any more. Aside from Butch and Vic there are no real standouts. The odd archers breaks 1300 on a good day...but they are few and far between. There are deeper problems that will need to be addressed.
For instance, with all the money put into the California Training Center, how is it that none of the residents made the Team. How is it that a relative unknown, part time archer was able to best the NAAs Olympic hopefuls for the chance to go to Athens? If you were the USOC, would you still be inclined to throw more money at the NAA. Seeing how it was spent, and the results that were acheived, I would have a hard time justifying it.

CG,
I am well aware that the present situation that the FCA is in is vastly different than the present state of the NAA(at least financially) or wait...the FCA didnt run a defecit the last several years. The NAA hasnt been able to balance its books because I think some of its priorities have changed. I think that tomorrows archers will pay for todays mistakes, and if things arent looked at closely that they could find themselves in the same boat a we are in Canada.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

How is it that a relative unknown, part time archer was able to best the NAAs Olympic hopefuls for the chance to go to Athens
_____________________________
Here is my guess. I don't pretend to be a top archer-just another 1200 guy but I have been the equivalent of a 1330 FITA in skeet so I do have some background.

I helped run the trials and had a unique opportunity to observe people. I knew Vic was going to win, I knew Jenny Nichols was going to win but that didn't take much effort to predict that. John wasn't letting the BS and the hype get to him. I like just about everyone in recurve archery (in fact I can't think of anyone I don't like) so I won't insult anyone but some of the favorites were clearly imploding under their own expectations. Others were just plain burned out. One favorite in the ladies' competition almost seemed relieved not to make the cut.

I noted before, that the US skeet team trials used to be a one week affair and civilians like me often beat out full time pros. My mentor Brad Simmons did it as a college shooter for Yale in 76, Mike THompson did it in 84. Neither did well at the olympics and the NRA's solution was to make the trials a long drawn out affair starting in the 90's. Funny thing is that it killed off alot of the grass roots (guys like a Limbwalker who don't have 4 weeks of vacation to shoot skeet) and yet since then we have managed just one skeet-Grave's bronze in Sydney though the trap shooters are about even (Halderman won Gold in the 70's, Carlisle Bronze in 84) (the addition of double trap has gained us a few more medals)

In other words, having a one shot trials sometimes rewards someone who shoots to peak at that time versus the people who are constantly competiting and may have a problem getting up for the trials. WHen making the team is the biggest deal, sometimes they then come out flat at the games. That happened to a good friend of mine who had to come from way down to make the 96 skeet team. He then won a test event and did well in another event but was flat for Atlanta.

solution? no firm ideas-perhaps picking the team earlier so the peaks aren't so close together. HOw to judge mental toughness-hard to say


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

I dont think that how the team was chosen is the matter. I was glad to see Limbwalker make the team, and I dont mind the present trials format.
To be honest, if John didnt make the team, who would have went? Can we be assured that they would have done better? Not likely. I think the American results over the past several years have shown that, aside from Vic and Butch, there isnt a clearcut 3rd team meber. No one has stepped it up. No one else shows any consistency. I think that this speaks to the fact that things within the NAAs recruitment, training, and coaching structure must be looked at closely.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

be honest, if John didnt make the team, who would have went
_____________________
probably the third most experienced (Now I realize that Ed Eliason has more experience than anyone) top level guy 99 Pan Am gold medalist Jason Mckittrick. Jason had a bad 144 arrow effort (for him) and he narrowly missed the team


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"I took the above to mean that you cant guarantee success by spending money...I I would have a hard time justifying it."

Yep, that was what pretty much what I was saying, it just didn't scan the first time around 

"I think that tomorrows archers will pay for todays mistakes, and if things arent looked at closely that they could find themselves in the same boat a we are in Canada."

As far as the USOC goes, they have the money (through both corporate and gov't funding) to piss enough money out to fund a few hundred Archery training facilities if they wanted to. The problem is that it is quite capricious in it's decisions. The USOC *could* choose to increase funding to archery at any point; because lets face it the NAA is pretty small potatoes when you look at the funding pie. They could also *punish* the NAA for poor performance by cutting it's allowance - but considering the amount of support that the USOC provides the NAA it would just cripple the org and set back any chance of future medal wins. In all likely hood, I would bet they just keep the funding at current marginal levels - and maybe lop off a head of two in the NAA executive if it suits their mood.

The priorities of the USOC have more to do with national pride than turning a buck - so at bare minimum they want medals from the archery program to add to the medal haul at the Olympics. But what they really want is superstars to wave the red white and blue and praise mom, baseball and apple pie. If archery (NAA) could provide superstars to excite the average Joe, then you can bet they would turn up the funding and parade the results for all they were worth. If those same well funded athletes were to fail they still get their money's worth by a good public scourging, and Joe six pack gets to see the mighty fall - which is still good publicity for the machine. But if you can't build a good story/press campaign around some unknown athlete in some small sport that can't get 10 minutes coverage in the 1,000,000 hours of continuous Olympic coverage on the major networks - you couldn't even find their public knees to swing a baseball bat at when they lose. "Who Lost? In what Sport? Is that even in the Olympics? Pass another beer Marge". 

-CG


----------



## stodrette (Jun 19, 2002)

I guess now is a good time as any to mention that the Olympic Trials qualifying scores were lowered to generate a little more income for the NAA and the US Archery program.

When you invite people that really haven't qualified- let's say the same bench mark should be used for both the Olympic Trials and USAT- which still doesn't guarantee an archer a position.....then you open it up for the " dark horses" to emerge.

I'm guessing that we don't need to re-invent the wheel, but someone needs to step up and take control without the politics that surround the NAA. 

All it takes is looking around, examining programs that might resemble archery- those with athletes that have different coaches yet still must work as a team.....In the case of the men, not one of them was actually coached by Frank Thomas. Was their ample time for Frank to really get to know who these three archers were? I doubt it.

Perhaps we should look at US gymnastics and how they run their selection process. Don't be fooled....the parents and supporters of each archer are paying their way, not just the USOC and US gymnastic federation! I can guarantee you that if someone had invited me to a camp or series of camps in the last year travelling at my own expense, I would have found the money to go. And I'd bet that almost any archer would find a way to make that kind of time and money committment.....

At one time, I suggested a method for fundraising and was given all the reasons it wouldn't work.....

Or perhaps, we need to look at our past successes, and use them to our advantage. Australia figured out that the Koreans had figured out how to train for archery and hired a Korean Coach......Australia's diving coach is also an expert as he is Chinese( and no one is better this olympics at diving....)

We need to learn from history not avoid it.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

the 1200 for the men was the same score needed to shoot the world trials in 2001 Stodrette. In 2000, it was finishing top 32 at Oxford plus guys like Pace and McKinney who were given slots because they had won olympic medals.

I don't think that you had to shoot a double 1200 to finish in the top 32 of the women but I am sure that was necessary for the men.

cutting to 16 pretty much took out anyone who wasn't up to snuff including at least one lady who has shot multiple 1300 scores and had won a major international title


----------



## stodrette (Jun 19, 2002)

Jim,
That may be true, but the cut off to be considered for USAT is 1260 for women and I believe 1300 for men along with various 12 and 18 arrow match scores.

With those standards, you would have had approximately 8 women eligible.


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

Stodrette's at least partly right about this Jim. 

The 1200 score is simply the minimum IOC score requirement to allow places like Fiji and Kenya to put people in the Games on a wild card in the interest of growing the sport. 

The NAA has long required 1280 M (not 13) and 1260 F for funded adult travel teams and USAT.

However, they also generally let people try to achieve that score at the event itself, meaning it's still open participation as long as the IOC minimum has been previously met. 

The hinky thing about the trials was the NAA letting people get the qual scores at INDOOR events. That was obviously done to pump up the number of participants and while I don't think it affected the event, it lent an air of ludicrousness to the process.

Don't confuse criticism of the format with criticism of the actual event (which I know you shed blood sweat and tears to run).

The event was run great, but the selection criteria and format are subject to debate.

(This waking up at 2 AM thing is for the birds. jet lag sucks. And what's up with these Canadians telling us how they approve/disapprove of the US trials process ??? )


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Seeded #6 ended up #4.......not bad. It's too bad that more people in the US do not shoot Olympic Style archery. We have many world class archers, they just choose to shoot a compound and release trying to win a few $. No offence intended to the current US team, but I'm not sure we are getting the very best archers in this venue. I know that here in Idaho, to even shoot in an Olympic style event, I'd have to travel to at least Salt Lake City, where I can shoot a 3d or indoor target event in state almost every weekend. By the way, nice job US team and you should hold your heads very high.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> probably the third most experienced (Now I realize that Ed Eliason has more experience than anyone) top level guy 99 Pan Am gold medalist Jason Mckittrick. Jason had a bad 144 arrow effort (for him) and he narrowly missed the team


Certainly Jason has the credentials, and deserved to be there, but don't overlook Joe M., He has proven this year that he is closer to achieving the level of Vic and Butch than any of the rest of us. His rolling ranking, RR average, victory in New Jersey, and silver medal at the world field champs. are very impressive to me. 

Oops, I just posted to this thread again, dangit! Just couldn't help but bring attention to Joe's achievements for the year. Had he put together a better week at the trials, he would be the story of the year, I think.

John.


----------



## stodrette (Jun 19, 2002)

John, it's an addiction that doesn't wear off easily... 

Thank you, George, I knew I wasn't quite up to speed on the men(since I'm not one... )

Every country would love to go the an international event and win. The question stands as to how to best prepare for excellence. It is not about criticizing the present system, but offering up suggestions- that are taken seriously by the powers that be....How do we do that?

While we are not Korean, and will probably not embrace Korean practice and tournament philosophies, neverthe less, we should look at their system as well as the Australians, Italians,and the Ukranians! Obviously, they are doing something that works.

And another interesting point about competing in a ranking round for the koreans: the coach knows how many points that each archer will need to score in order to have the best seedings after the ranking round is complete. They give their archers the best chance of succeeding. Now it doesn't always work, but if you go back and look at the matches, when did the Koreans meet each other? Were they in the same brackets?

The United States will need to step up and become more saavy in order to become a world power in archery.


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

In past years, medal results suggest that the NAA has done quite a good job at serving two masters: their membership and the USOC. This year's Olympic results suggest something different. Why? One poster suggested that perhaps the rest of the world has "caught up" to the US. I tend to think that it may be that serving two masters that has caught up to the NAA.

The needs and the desires of the NAA membership seem to be quite different from those of the USOC. The membership wants programs and events for determining national champions at reasonable entry fees. For the membership, these events have a high degree of social occasion content to go along with the archery. The membership wants newsletters and other services germane to them. The identification of, the care and feeding of, and the selection of elite archers to World/Olympic teams is something that the average archer is (probably) very interested in, and they are justifiably proud of the US teams when they are successful, but these are not the services the average NAA member personally experiences and receives from the NAA.

The USOC on the other hand wants results for the dollars expended. This year, they didn't get it. Does the USOC look to the NAA for a changes, a new or revised program that will improve chances at the next World's/Olympics? Seems quite likely. We know that over a year ago, the High Performance Director position was created at the insistence of the USOC, which facilitated the position by funding it for the first year. Consequently, it is reasonable to surmise that the USOC has been seeking improvement in NAA programs since before this years relatively poor showing. Consequently, it should come as no surprise if the USOC seeks change after this year's Olympic results.

One possible course of action for the USOC: separate the NAA/USArchery membership activities from National Governing Body (NGB) responsibilities. That is, create a new organization to manage the NGB responsibilities. Leave the NAA to manage its membership activities. The division of responsibilities would go a long way toward improving manageability of both activities and as improving accoutability. 

Would separating the two activities be a difficult task? Probably. There may be lots of vested interests that would object. But would it produce more consistently higher-placing national teams? Most likely, in my opinion.

Please note that I have couched a lot of this post in terms of "probably" and "maybe" and such. Honestly, I don't know if this is the right way to go, but I think it probably would be an improvement. Please post your thoughts and feedback. What do you think would be the ramifications/implications of such a move by the USOC?

If you would rather pm or email...

[email protected]


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

Old Reliable shoots a ten !!

I was hoping someone would broach that path.


----------



## JoeM (Mar 31, 2003)

Well Wayne shoots an X.

What a topic. Two organizations one elite / one grass root.

There are many egos in the archery world that would be shattered if that were to happen. This could also be the best thing for recurve archery in the USA.

By the way:

The lack of archery medals in Athens is definitely on someone’s radar and accounting ledger in the USOC.


I'm also very surprised that there was no mandatory training after the trials for the Olympic Team. Expect for the three days of meetings and shopping following. Especially since John is a relatively new comer with little or no experience in high pressure events (international). He probably never shot a team round until Turkey which the other two members were not required to attend.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> He probably never shot a team round until Turkey which the other two members were not required to attend.


Joe, had I not entered the recreational team event at the Texas Shootout (where 16 year old Jonathan Miller explained to me how to shoot the team round about 10 minutes before we began!) I would have had absolutely no clue how to proceed. Makes me wonder why we don't have more team competitions at USAT ranking events, or other events for that matter. That informal experience in Texas (where Jonathan, Paul Winterbower and I finished 4th, ironically) was invaluable to me.

I can recall clearly the drive home from Ohio, thinking "that's it? I'm supposed to get ready for the biggest archery tournament in the world by myself now?" 

Not that Frank wasn't there for me... he was always available by phone. But I got the impression that the NAA was totally unprepared for someone like me to make the team. Not their fault, since neither was I !!!  


AAARRRGGHH, I did it again. I really gotta stop that. 

John.


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

GT....us Canadians may have a unique perspective on this, because we as a Nation haave been down the same road. We, as with the NAA are accountable to our membership, while at the same itme being repsonsible for HP programs. As we recieve little support from the COC, and what money we do get is spread thinly across them all, we have no high performance programs. We have no funds availible to prepare our Olympic athletes, we have no funds availible to cultivate our Olympic hopefuls. It seams that all we have money for is our Annual General meeting, 3-D Annual General Meeting, Presidents Meeting, Board of Directors meeting, etc. This is the result of running an organisation with priorites that are to widespread. I am sure that the USOC has no interest in Compound results...yet the NAA funded compound teams for many years using USOC money in order to satisfy its compound members. Had that money been put into recurve development programs, recruitment programs, coaching programs, would the NAA be in its present situation?(ironic that a compound shooter is questioning compound fundng isnt it)


----------



## stodrette (Jun 19, 2002)

Unfortunately, with compound archers monetary support, the recurve divisions would be going nowhere fast......

Now, GT, Joe, since oldreliable brought up the subject, why not bring us all into the light by explaining exactly how things are now, and how things could change by splitting the organizations, and why it was a bad idea to have an elite athlete branch to the egomaniacs: "There are many egos in the archery world that would be shattered if that were to happen"

Organizations should be run by business people who know the wisdom of listening to the athlete, observing the entire scene and then conducting the business of creating a successful program.

I guess we should first start off with a definition of a "successful" program....any takers?


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

If your referring to a national teams effort, there is only one definition of a successful program: consistent high finishes. Note that that definition doesnt mean always Gold (though that is the ultimate objective). There are times when expectations have to be measured relative to experience and ability. For example, it would have been absolutely fantastic for the US (and Limbwalker!) if Limbwalker had won the individual Gold, but realistically, one could not/should not have expected that result. Had Butch or Vic taken Gold, the result would have been less of a surprise due to their prior experience and demonstrated potential. One should measure results relative to realistic expectations.

Perhaps worth noting here, relative to formulating expectations, is the fact that most, if not all, countries that have demonstrated succesful, high achieving archery programs over long periods of time (defined as two or more succesive Olympics) all have some form of "national coach". It is my impression that these national coaches are instrumental (if not the sole determinants) of the methods used to select/teach/coach elite level archers. The national coach is therefore also instrumental in formulating said performance expectations. Furthermore, the national coaches appear to typically have little or no responsibilities in the membership-servicing NAA-equivalent organizations in their respective countries. 

If you are referring to the NAA, the NAA should, I think, measure its results and accomplishments on a) how well it serves its membership (via development of some appropriate metrics), b) growth in membership (including growth in adult memberships and JOAD/youth memberships), and c) success in attracting funding from external sources (via cooperation/coordination with the NAA Foundation). AT participants can probably come up with more criteria, but these high level measures/objectives come immediately to mind.

Note the differences in these two sets of goals and objectives. From a management standpoint (i.e., programs design and implementation, results measurement, accountability, etc), does it make sense for the USOC to continue to fund the NAA as the NGB for Olympic archery?


----------



## JoeM (Mar 31, 2003)

IMHO

I personally think the NAA is doing the best they can under the current circumstances. Could the NAA function better, could we wins medals in the WC's and the Olympics, if there was change? No one knows for sure. Change usually cost $$ so the NAA needs a big ticket donor.

The NAA has something like 24+ committees some are inactive covering many topics, the chair for the women’s development committee is current vacant I believe. Anyone interested?

The office has 7-8 employees to handle all the daily phone calls, e-mails, tournaments, Director meetings, budgets, international relations, mailings, merchandise, magazine, travel arrangements, website, coaches development, elite training, JOAD training, etc.

If the NAA were to be divided into distinct separate areas, one dedicated to the USOC/ elite athlete development and the other for general membership events such as USAT events, newsletter, magazine, ect. Would we see better results? It's hard to say. I due feel we need to create a stronger foundation for the archers of the future. Could this be the NAA/NASP? or something similar.

There seems to be a big problem developing talent from an early age. I believe there is a disconnect between JOAD clubs and school (HS or college). There also seems to be a disconnect after college also. 

Also there is a disconnect between the elite athletes and the NAA. I have been on national team for awhile now the only time I'll be contacted is if my rolling rank is high enough to attend a training camp. There are no training logs to submit, no phone calls or e-mails to see if there are any training needs. The NAA has no idea when I train, how I train or if I have a coach. We need a national coach or HPD with less office duties.


I have been rambling long enough, these are just some of my thoughts.


----------



## stodrette (Jun 19, 2002)

Getting funds does not necessarily take one big ticket donor. Many smaller donors would do the trick as well. Does the NAA have a person/department that concentrates soley on fundraising efforts?

Perhaps these 7-8 people doing various activities are not being utilized in the best interests of US Archery.

Ok, so some of us have defined a successful national program as "there is only one definition of a successful program: consistent high finishes."

Joe has also pointed out the lack of developing talent.....but he confines that notion to children- when archery is one of the few sports where age is _not_ a detriment! JOAD programs actually discriminate against anyone just starting out.....perhaps the program should be geared toward beginners, not just children.



> I personally think the NAA is doing the best they can under the current circumstances.


Of course it is all we have at the present. The point of the discussion is to improve upon it. It is well within our abilities to change current circumstances, whether it requires a revamping of the old organization, or the creation of a new one. (no offense, NAA )


----------



## palmer (Sep 23, 2003)

Yep, as far as I'm concerned this sort of goes full circle right back to identifying and developing talent at a young age. I often wonder to myself as I talk to my kids' friends which one of them may have olympic caliber talent that will never be discovered. In my area we are so innundated with hunting that most people don't even know what an olympic bow is let alone want to shoot one. We've had this discussion on AT before. It comes down to the size of the recurve "talent pool" that we are drawing from in this country. Is that "talent pool" growing or is it declining? Not only is it more and more difficult to find kids that are willing to put forth the effort, but it's even more difficult to find people that want to teach them. I don't have the answers that's for sure.


----------



## farms100 (Jan 16, 2003)

is it more a case of the no effective program to help get archers from say the top 20ish. Into the top 10, This may produce a lot better top 10, which would give us 4-5 Truly world class archers,both male and female on the order of Butch, Vic, and Jen Nhichols?

A big BUT is If you dilute the money too Far down the ranking list it will become ineffective. 

You also need Some way to lose the internal and external fighting, Frankly its Balkanized Archery. You also somehow need to protect potential stars from getting disgusted with the politics and walking away.



What sort of training is available to the people who can't or won't give up there home and family and job to live at they OTC? Maybe some sort of regional training facilities?

we loose are a lot of promising young archer's between college and the years right after college. How can this be fixed?


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"Canadians telling us how they approve/disapprove of the US trials process ???"

You pose a question on an Internet forum and all the "riff-raff" shows up...

   

"We know that over a year ago, the High Performance Director position was created at the insistence of the USOC, which facilitated the position by funding it for the first year. Consequently, it is reasonable to surmise that the USOC has been seeking improvement in NAA programs since before this years relatively poor showing."

The first step in creating a dedicated high-performance program would be securing the appropriate high-performance coaching and logistical staff (seeing as how the NAA already has the Chula Vista facility). Having a high-performance director is nice, but unless they have the appropriate budget and resources it may end up being more of a potential scape-goat position. Qualified high-performance staff tends to be expensive though, and I doubt that you could attract the appropriate staff without a commitment from the NAA/USOC for at least a 4-8 year commitment in funding. 

I really don't think that currently there is any problem with the depth of high-level archers or second-tier feeder athletes to grow into those roles in the USA. Most modern high-perforamce programs prove you don't need 1,000,000 "potential" athletes in a sport to develop high-performace athletes - you just need a commited few. It wouldn't hurt to have a 1,000,000 but it would require a different (more $$$) organizational structure to manage the monitoring and "sifting" of top-athletes - which would still feed into a relatively small high-performance program at the top. I think if you asked the high-level archers in the USA what they would like to see in order for them to progress to a higher level of competition they would probably answer the ability to dedicate more time to training and international competition (training allowances, equipment programs, travel funds, etc.); and more high-performance resources (coaching, facilities, logistical support, etc.).

You could re-structure the NAA into two seporate organizations - but is there going to be adaquate funding for both? I would doubt it. If results are the primary concern then increased funding on the high-performace side in-house would keep the organization alive while at the same time keeping the membership (and potential members) still involved in the process. The other option would be to create a seporate high-performance program in one of the existing USOC funded high-performance facilities, directed by a new puppet organization of the USOC or a small commitee from the USOC. Unfortunately this may create a barrier between the NAA membersip and the "elite" archers and the appearance of an open system. Of course without funding you could probably just change the NAA's initials to NFAA for the sake of efficency.

It's a easy situation to solve - it would just take an additional few million a year dedicated to a high perforamance program, guarenteed for a multi-year commitment. You would get a pool of high-level athletes who would perform consistantly International events - not neccesarily win as the USA wouldn't be the only country doing it - but the overall results might be more favourable....you would just have to convince the USOC to fund it...

-CG


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

centershot said:


> *Seeded #6 ended up #4.......not bad. It's too bad that more people in the US do not shoot Olympic Style archery. We have many world class archers, they just choose to shoot a compound and release trying to win a few $. No offence intended to the current US team, but I'm not sure we are getting the very best archers in this venue. I know that here in Idaho, to even shoot in an Olympic style event, I'd have to travel to at least Salt Lake City, where I can shoot a 3d or indoor target event in state almost every weekend. By the way, nice job US team and you should hold your heads very high. *



I used to think the same thing about skeet and trap: the guys who win the Grand American trap shoot or the NSSA world (american) skeet shoot have to beat thousands to win-making the US team in trap or skeet olympic style means beating 50 or so people who train full time but a small shallower gene pool.

Other sports bombed out this year -I am sure the USOC spends alot more on diving-0 Medals- judo got one bronze and sailing-which has tons of medals (other than track and swimming there are probably more sailing medals) we got one so far.


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

Some good points being raised by all. Lets see if we can take one or two of them a little further along.

First, let my say am not criticizing the NAA or anyone at the NAA. They have done and continue to do a great job under what I think may have become less than optimal or perhaps even acceptable conditions. Rather, it seems to have become a situation where trying to perform dual roles mean that neither is performed as well they should/could be performed individually. The structure/environment in which they must work just does not permit it. 

Paradoxically, the (relatively) poor performance of the US team this time around might turn out to be a good thing in the long run: it might force a close examination of roles and responsibilities. Such a reexamination might not result in a realignment as drastic as being discussed here, but it may nonetheless produce some beneficial changes.

CG raises the funding question. I believe he is correct in that an NGB separate and apart from the NAA will cost several million. While we can only speculate about an amount, I do believe that separating the NAA and the archery NGB will facilitate better accountability for funds raised and spent on the part of both organizations. As it is, the USOC imposes certain performance criteria/hurdles on the NAA (sometimes referred to as "markers", I believe). These so-called markers refer to various criteria that the USOC expects the NAA to meet. Is there a threat of withholding/reduction of funding if they are not met? I don't know, but I would think so, otherwise, why have them? Perhaps someone that knows more could comment?

I concur with CG on another point: we don't need a pool of 1,000,000 potential athletes from which to draw a talented few. However, I do think we more and broader participation than we have today in both adults and (especially) youth. I recall attending my first Nationals, the one held down in Florida, and overhearing someone that I shall refer to as a "veteran" archer comment to a friend, "Where are all the new people? I come to the Nationals every year and its always the same people!" Having attended every Nationals since then until this year, my observations are substantially the same. Nationals is pretty much the same folks year after year (the exceptions a la Limbwalker are too few and too far inbetween!).

For youth archery, my criteria as to the size of the talent pool is provided by swimming: you have so many young archers across the nation that archers have to qualify at the regional level just to get to the National Championships! 

If you have a friend or acquaintance involved in archery, you might e-mail them and invite their prerusal of this thread. The broader the participation, the better! And by all means, if anyone thinks that we're just all wet, say so! But if you do, please be sure and say why you think so!


----------



## stodrette (Jun 19, 2002)

The best thing about archery is that anyone, I mean anyone, can dedicate themselves to practice, get into a good coaching situation and find themselves in contention.

Yes, the youth are important, but let us learn something else from other disciplines: the youth burn out as they reach adulthood.

Yes they can come back later but.....

Our best pool of potential archers are the competitors from other disciplines. Take one former Olympic rower......she takes up archery, gets a great coach ends up within two years competing for a spot on the Olympics(makes top 8)....She's not going to quit because she has to go to college or wants to see the "fun" parts of growing up, she's already done that.

Many great former elite athletes have a hard time letting go of their "competitive" nature....what a great way to comtinue competing without the potential for great bodily injury as their former disciplines might have offered!

We must look around for imaginative ways to fill our talent pool......


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

Very interesting and possibly productive point there Stodrette.

I believe the only person ever to medal in archery at the Olympic Games who took the sport up after the age of around, say, 22, is Doreen Wilbur, 1972 Gold Medalist. At the time she was a housewife who I believe was aged around forty-two. At that time an 1150 was a world class score.

I am not aware of any other Olympic archery medalists who took the sport up in their twenties and met with high-level success, thought there might be an exception or two.

That's not to say with the right mindset, physical and mental attributes and support system in place that it can't be done though- and your point about Joy Fahrenkrog, for example, seems to me to point out that archery can be a high-level competitive sport for people who have already applied those attributes to other disciplines, who seek a path toward continued competitiveness.

That implies, though, that some degree of athletic achievement in some other area - rowing in the example you cited- was applied at an earlier time. 

I still don't think one can take a 30-year old couch potato and turn them into a top-level winning archer 

And the record seems to show that youth archery involvement is still the optimal path to adult success.

I think you and I agree about this on a fundamental level but that might be because we're both looking down that barrel of thirty or forty candles on the cake... 

(exiting stage left to this morning's IPSC match, another sport where age and treachery can overcome youthful enthusiasm...)


----------



## stodrette (Jun 19, 2002)

> And the record seems to show that youth archery involvement is still the optimal path to adult success


I wonder, if in America, that has really come to bear....

and thank you, by the way....


> I think you and I agree about this on a fundamental level but that might be because we're both looking down that barrel of thirty or forty candles on the cake...


  

There are times when you have to work with what you are given. History teaches us that youths get burned out. History also teaches us that athletes that may not make the elite level in one sport, may excel at others....Why not utilize the work of other disciplines to help make ours stronger?


----------



## Reo (May 23, 2002)

I think that there has been a lot of good points made. The biggest one that I think has been missed is were are all of the worldchampionship wins for a recurve in the US? If I'm wright there hasn't been one in a long time? I think that if you think that should win you should win you should have a reason for those thoughts. I think the guys did great over there to beat Italy was a win in my book. 

The pools to draw from have got smaller and smaller here in the US because of the compound. The best example is for you to ask a person in this sport to name a top olympic archer and they would have a hard time. If you asked the same thing about a compound archer they would name a few. This is why a young kid goes the way he does. 

The funding is the best the USOC gives a ton of money to the recurve and they send shooters to Europen shoots all summer long. The fact is that we have had no new real blood in the recurve that showed any real hope in some time. The other part about compounds takeing funding is great to the compound only get funding if they get money from the genral funds to send a recurve it is split even. 

The US is a great country but to think you should win all the time is crazy make yourselfs a top world archer and then I think you could aact this way. The trials had nothing to do with it some of the biggest sucsess the US had was with this type of trials Mr. Pace was a big part in changing it to this. The other thing with it being a year in advanced the women were not ready and it showed the had made the team and stoped shooting. There will be good and bad in booth but it wasn't the trials or the money it was we don't have the top shooters in our country wright now.

Reo


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

In summary, can we now say that the compound bow has provided a major contribution to the ruination of olympic archery progress in the United States?


----------



## InKYfromSD (Feb 6, 2004)

*I wouldn't go that far..*

At least one person, Jen Nichols, is in archery because her father bought her a compound


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2004)

I wouldn't say that it is just the recurve has just lost it's selling point. I sorry but saying you can be an olympic Champion has lost it's glory because of scandles and drugs, judging etc.

If recurve archery is to excell they must provide something tangalbe that makes wanting to shoot it over a compound, right now you only have the Olympics


The recurve archers have done more to the ruination of themselves by chastising, belittling the compound than promoting themselves in a postive way.


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

Reo…

Thanks for saying what I believed but did not feel I cold talk intelligently about..

It seems like a double edge sword. On the “why are the compounds not in the Olympic threads” everybody from around the world is always sure to mention that Compounds are only “the thing” in the US and that world wide Fita and Target archery rule, especially in the recurve area . Heck for them the Olympics IS the level many are hoping to get to someday. Not all but certainty a lot larger pool of people trying then in the US.

Why ???

In the US you can HUNT. Lets face it this is what puts a compound AND archery in many peoples hands to begin with. In the US the biggest target venue is 3-D… No Oly style there!!

With Millions and Millions of people running around with Compounds and using Compounds to introduce youth to the sport were is the talent pool going to come from. How are youth going to be home practicing 70 meters when everybody else in the sport is out hunting or shooting the 3-d’s that you can hit just about every weekend.. Think about a typical conversation with a 12 year old … Do you …

1)	Want to come to the 3-d shoot today and shoot at 40 life sized animals 
2)	Do you want to come with dad and go hunting today.
3)	Do you want to stay home and practice by yourself in hopes of being one of 4 potential people that get to go to the Olympics some day?? Oh and you may have about 4 chances in your lifetime. 

Well guess what options kids AND adults in the US are going to choose. In addition guess what options mentioned are not available to many kids worldwide?? Just seems to me if you want to grow the talent pool you have to grow interest. Why do I want to take up Olympic style archery??… Well it seems for most of the world it’s because that’s the biggest thing going… In the US it’s the smallest.. Money , Programs ,Coaches, and politics are NOT going to change that . Interest and expansion on Olympic and Fita Style archery is. Which by the way is the minority style of competition shot by compounders as well.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Centerex,

Can't say I disagree with you. You make a lot of good points. One question though...



> 2) Do you want to come with dad and go hunting today.


What does that have to do with compounds?

John.


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

Well… It wasn’t the most thought out point I admit. What I was trying to convey is that many children have got into the sport because the Father hunts. Therefore when the child shows interest a compound is put into there hands ( in most cases) and time is spent practicing and developing hunting skills with that tool. All year is spent practicing , developing and shooting 3-D’s to prepare for the hunt. The furthest thing from that Childs mentors mind is Olympic Recurve. Even if the child shows great promise and even if he ASK the father about “ Daddy how can I shoot in the Olympics someday??) I can guarantee 99% of the time in this scenario nothing will come from the Childs skill or interest. 

Why…. Because hunting is allowed and encouraged in this country ( thank goodness!!) But how do you think this same scenario is played out in many , many other countries world wide were hunting does not take place?? 

By the way what I didn’t say is what an inspiration you should consider yourself. Didn’t I hear the Recurve is a recent development for you?? Then to qualify to get on the world stage and handling your business like you did … Probably the most newbie around ( ok those Iraqis’ did look like they had been around the block to much )?? Gives person a little inspiration I think...


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

I don't think the compound has anything to do with it, afterall the technique is the same. 

I think what the US is finding is that the system of some kid shooting at home with a local coach and working his way up doesn't cut it anymore. The rest of the world is now so organised and has such good coaching programs that they have simply leaped ahead of those countries that have not changed in their development structure. 
This is in a large way a cultural problem. US idolizes the individual. The "He did it himself and got where he is on his own" mentality. That's all very romantic, but it doesn't produce top archers. Just look at your 6 archers. All different (and in a few cases biomechanically awful) technique. Now look at the rest of the world, all very similar to each other. 

What struck me from this conversation is that the US team has 6 members, all with their own coaches and coaching priorities. You are up against teams with archers who have lived and trained with each other 8 hours a day for 4 years. They would have shot dozens of world class events together before your team selection process has been decided. 

Some might say "that won't work here, that's an Asian thing". Sorry, but these are westen countries doing this with similar cultural barriers. 

The hunting excuse is rubbish. Not everyone hunts or wants to hunt. We hunt in Australia and it is quite popular. We only have around 2000 target archers in our country yet have produced quite a few top male recurve archers. This isn't by chance. 

The US has the talent pool, you just have to know how to extract and develop that talent.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> (and in a few cases biomechanically awful) technique.


Hey, Marcus, wait a minute... I resemble that remark!!!  

Honestly, I think what Centerex is talking about is EXPOSURE. At least, that's what it came down to for me. I had been shooting hunting bows (and occasionally daydreaming about Olympic archery) for 23 years before I walked into Mark Williams' shop and saw my first Olympic bow. I had never met anyone (to my knowledge) that even shot one, and knew almost nothing about true "target" archery (I didn't even know what a 5 spot target was used for!). So, that's where it started for me. At least for my son and daughter, they had the exposure through JOAD at an early age. Between JOAD and 4-H, lots and lots of kids are getting the introduction to Olympic bows that they need. At some point, it's up to them and their parents to decide how seriously they want to pursue their Olympic dream. At least in the case of our JOAD program, most, if not all of the younger boys (all the girls shot recurve anyway) switched from the compound to the recurve after a year or so. I think that was due to the gentle encouragement of their coach, Amy Williams, and the example set by Mark. They really look up to those two.

Now, the harsh reality is that at least in the U.S., we've had a grand total of 13 men on Olympic teams since archery was re-introduced in '72. The chances of making the team are so slim, that many kids, and juniors, will give up prematurely before they develop fully the mental toughness it takes to prevail. Everyone on the U.S. men's side knew that there would only be one spot available on this year's team. The other two were pretty well locks (and will probably remain so for the next go-round). Same on the women's side, all the ladies were really shooting for 2 spots. I think the chances of becoming a professional baseball player are probably better, I don't know. Not much hope for those who need a little hope to carry on... 

All that really leaves you with are those that love the sport so much, they aren't willing to jump ship and pursue other options. And I think that's why our talent pool is so shallow. At least, that's one theory I have. I could be (and have been) totally wrong about these things...  

John.


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

Marcus is dead on. An X for Marcus. Not that there weren't some other good points from others; there were. But the bottom line is this: the rest of world has progressed in coaching and the management of national programs and the US hasn't. We're still basically doing what we did years ago. Was it Rick McKinney who said something about beating the other guys because they kept on doing "what they always did" on or words to that effect?

It seems that one possible apporoach might be for the USOC and the NAA to form a task force of knowledgeable archery people and explore the whys and hows of this year's US Olympic results and how to go forward. If the USOC doesn't want to participate or if the NAA doesn't want to participate, then these two organizations should engage in some serious soul searching about their roles. Given the failure thus far of the various approaches to improving women's results and now the less than desirable results from the men, how could they not participate?

Now, I loathe commitees and "task forces" , but the situation seems to demand this approach. (But if you have a better suggestion, then by all means, please, lets hear it!) The central question to be addressed by this task force might be, "What form of organization will be most effective in producing consistently high placing US National archery teams in the future?" A significant task for such a group would be to formulate benchmarks, intermediate goals, and corollaries to the central question. One important corollary might be, "Whatever the form of organization, it must not impede, hinder or otherwise diminish the role or capabilities of the NAA in promoting archery as a lifelong sport in the US." 

Given the above corollary, an attendant corollary might be, "Whatever the form of organization, it must facilitate interaction and cooperation with the NAA in the identification of promising archers." Whatever the form of organization, one thing that must not happen is a fragmentation of the sport. 

The bottom line is, "How does U.S. archery (the sport, not the organization) get the biggest bang for its buck?" If an informed analysis concludes that the current form of organization is likely to provide the biggest return per dollar, then so be it. If on the other hand, (as I suspect) an analysis suggests than accountability and management (and therefore results) would most likely be enhanced by separating the NGB function from the NAA, then why not go for it?

It is not an easy question to answer. Do we have people in the sport that are willing to ask the hard questions?


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2004)

Actually it is a very easy question to answer it is as simple as asking why should a person shoot a Olympic recurve over all others, what does it offer that the others don't. If the answer is the Olympics then you are in more trouble than you are willing to admit. As it sits now I don't see how anyone with a real job/family/bills etc. has the time to dedicate themselves to the time requiered to be an Olympic archer of any real contention, so you are left with people with no job,bills etc and lots of free time. That leaves the young archers or rich archers and asuming they have the full support network in place you can develop a pool from there.


----------



## Welshman (Oct 5, 2002)

All of you talk as if getting more people interested in Olympic Archery is the only problem.
The main problem is that unless you live in the country on a farm, there is NO PLACE to shoot 90 METERS. Unless you want to get arrested.
I've asked many land owners if I could use some of their land to practice and have always been turned down.
Here I'm someone who LOVES Olympic Archery and wants to practice but can't find a place to do it. Shooting 60 yards dosen't prepare you for 70-90 meters.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

I'd hardly agree that finding a place to shoot 90M is the "main" problem. Not every area has a FITA archery range, but then again, not every area has a 50M pool, 10M diving platform, 2000M rowing venue, Olympic-equipped gym, bobsled run, speed-skating oval, velodrome, or white-water kayak run, yet people do well in those sports.

And the problem is not just numbers and getting lots and lots of people interested in Olympic archery so we have a large "base of the pyramid". Again, many other sports produce world class athletes from a small pool. 

Sure, there are many rifle shooters in the US, and everyone does at least a tiny bit of track in high school, but how many RECREATIONAL wrestlers, ski-jumpers, scullers, showjumpers, and javelin throwers are there to develop a base from?

Lots of people ski, bicycle, run, sail, shoot, box, wrestle, do gymnastics, swim, etc - but what percentage do it under Olympic rules? Lots of people shoot arrows, but what percentage do it under Olympic rules?

You don't need a big base of everyone performing the sport under exactly the same rules to get top performers in a specific form of that sport. We have plenty of archers as a base - we don't need plenty of Olympic style archers.

No, the issue is not simply funding, or coaches or any one thing being more important than the other. The issue starts with the DESIRE and the NEED to compete. If an individual has that in ANY sport, they will do what needs to be done to make themselves into Olympic caliber athletes.

Look how many athletes from other countries leave their families and lives to train in the US. Why is it a one-way thing? If it's that important to them, why can't archers go to Korea to train? If it's NOT that important to them, too bad - you lose. 

Welcome to Sport in the 21st century.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Welshman said:


> *Shooting 60 yards dosen't prepare you for 70-90 meters. *


 Mathamatically 50m on a 80cm face is the same as 70m on a 122cm face and given that you only shoot 70m at the Olympics why train for anything else. 

That leads to another point. Was a 144 arrow FITA round used in the US selection process? Why bother when it's not used at the Olympics, sounds like a foolish thing to base the selection on. 

Your technique looks pretty good limbwalker, at least from what I saw on TV.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Marcus, It'll get better... stay tuned.  

We shot a 144 arrow ranking round the first day of the trials, but it was a double 70 meter round, not a FITA. 144 scored arrows at 70 meters in one day... not something I'll soon forget!

John.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Look forward to having a look in Beijing John  
Glad to hear the 144 arrow round was at 70m. 

Stash's last post was bang on, good call.


----------



## stodrette (Jun 19, 2002)

> That leads to another point. Was a 144 arrow FITA round used in the US selection process? Why bother when it's not used at the Olympics, sounds like a foolish thing to base the selection on.


Well, Marcus, this was the one of the things they actually did right. In 2004, all of the major FITA's were in the 70m only format. 

To those complaining about somewhere to shoot long distances, I'm afraid you just haven't looked far enough, or hard enough! Off the top of my head I can think of ranges all across the country that can handle 90m....You tell me where you live and I'll be happy to point out a range in the vicinity. And if you are ever in the New Orleans area, feel free to stop by 
In Tucson, there is PSE's range, In Phoenix, either Papago or Ben Avery, in Spooner, WI there is a great new *indoor* 90m range, Terry Wunderle uses his back yard, in Central Illinios, I'll be the club in Cinncinati has a place, in North Carolina the "OBT HIlton" would love to set up a target.....and if you happen to be in Homestead, Fl...they have a practice range as well.....the list goes on and on....

So let's stay on point, eh?



> The issue starts with the DESIRE and the NEED to compete. If an individual has that in ANY sport, they will do what needs to be done to make themselves into Olympic caliber athletes


Actually, the problem stems from the disintegration of the family unit and lack of true communication within that family. We have become a generation that has put the burden of raising children on to the schools instead of taking responsibilty ourselves. Therefore, at least two things are happening:
1. Kids never see their parents, and are never encouraged to do the things their parents did when they were kids- like archery...
2. Kids believe that getting payment for a job well done is the status quo, and therefore are not interested in sports just for the feeling of pride of doing that sport well.
3. This is why you see NASP, and the Genesis program doing well.....

Will this lead to more Olympic Archers? I doubt, but it will lead to more bows sales- probably....which is what Mathews wants.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Hmm, well that discussion can take us all over the place...

I still think it comes down to exposure... I mean, if more Olympic style archers were to show up at, say, a big IBO shoot and just allow folks to see what an Olympic bow looks and shoots like??? I'm sure at least a few of those kids, and some adults too, might just take it up. I'd be willing to do some demonstrations at big 3-D shoots if I thought it would bring a few top level compounders into the recurve scene. My guess is that they just haven't ever seen an Olympic bow, much less anyone shoot one.

John.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Hmm, on second thought, I don't recall any big crowds of compounders forming behind Butch Johnson at the NFAA indoor nationals last spring, even though he was an Olympic Gold Medalist and shot two perfect 300's that weekend (averaging over 50 x's, I think). So maybe exposure isn't the answer either...

John.


----------



## stodrette (Jun 19, 2002)

John,
I believe that your kids will grow up loving to shoot and may choose to shoot Olympic style......We have seen what happens when families that shoot archery....Take Stephanie for example, either one of them, Miller or Arnold-White

If we look at who's shooting, how many of them had parents that were somehow involved in archery?

I can tell you that the ASA tried to get some "mileage" out of Rob White's Gold Medal by having him visit schools in Alabama before the Classic in 2002. While the kids from that private school were in awe of the medal....they were not in awe of archery.


----------



## Welshman (Oct 5, 2002)

So you are saying that now your 1280 NAA qualifying score doesn't have to include 90 meters anymore?
Stodrette, I live in Kansas City.
I'll keep looking for a place to shoot long range because it's ALOT of fun to see that arrow fly a long way.


----------



## stodrette (Jun 19, 2002)

Welshman, the range out in Blue Springs can get you out to at least 80 yds....it is an NFAA club.


----------



## MerlinApexDylan (Oct 14, 2002)

Stash said:


> *No, the issue is not simply funding, or coaches or any one thing being more important than the other. The issue starts with the DESIRE and the NEED to compete. If an individual has that in ANY sport, they will do what needs to be done to make themselves into Olympic caliber athletes.
> 
> Look how many athletes from other countries leave their families and lives to train in the US. Why is it a one-way thing? If it's that important to them, why can't archers go to Korea to train? If it's NOT that important to them, too bad - you lose.
> 
> Welcome to Sport in the 21st century. *


The issue is simply funding. How is an athelete going to afford a stay in Korea without funding? ***** themselves? I mean honestly.. what comes without money these days?

Atheletes in other countries like Australia, imported a coach and have a central training centre that is still in their country, funded by their country. So you've lost me where funding from your home country and coaching from your own country isn't the way to go about being competitive in archery. Tim Cuddihy sure looked in top form when he shot that 115 in the semi finals at the games. He didn't have to leave his country to get that kind of performance.

Unfortunately, desire and need don't get you far without funding and the direction of a coach. 

Thats my thoughts until later. Gotta go. 

Dylan


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"No, the issue is not simply funding, or coaches or any one thing being more important than the other. The issue starts with the DESIRE and the NEED to compete. If an individual has that in ANY sport, they will do what needs to be done to make themselves into Olympic caliber athletes."

You can have all the desire in the world when it comes to wanting to compete in the Olympics, but you won't get far without the proper support resources. A well-funded high-performance program is critical as well as having other similarly qualified athletes to train and shoot against - especially when all your top competitors have the same advantage. 

I agree you need motivated athletes, but most high caliber athletes are pretty motivated considering they have to dedicate at least 4-8 years of their lives to the pursuit of a goal. Often the just being in a high-performance environment is enough to motivate intermediate athletes to perform at a higher level. This is one reason why many countries setup multi-sport training center programs - because often athletes are inspired by the culture and environment that develops around those centers. It doesn't take much to instill the dedication required to train and compete at a high level in athletes as long as they have a somewhat clear path to follow and help to guide them along the way. As well any decent high-performance program also has checks and balances built-in to it for setting and monitoring performance goals - if those goals aren't met changes are made.

-CG


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

Several recent posts have mentioned funding. Some say that funding is not the key: those with sufficient desire will find a way. Others maintain that funding is the essential ingredient for a successful program. In some respects, both are correct.

Individuals with the "fire in the belly" to compete at the Olympic level will do whatever it takes to find a way. Unfortunately, some of those with the fire in the belly may find their way so difficult and burdensome that they are inhibited from "being all that they could be" (to coin a phrase).

A successful national teams program would remove the "structural" factors that inhibit those with the fire in the belly from being successful, meaning that for motivated archers, their success or failure would depend on their talent and its development instead of their success or failure at finding a way to make it happen. For example, does anyone doubt that the "rolling rankings" are more important to motivated archers than are the NAA standings?

Does the USOC want the US to have such a program? Of course (as long as archery is an Olympic sport, that is - but that is another discussion). It seems clear that sufficient funding is absolutely a necessary ingredient for the creation of a national teams program that produces consistently high finishes. A harder question is, "What or how much is 'sufficient' funding?"

That can only be estimated by drawing up a top-to-bottom business plan, one that would include a mission statement, staffing requirements, sources and uses of funds, facilities planning, etc. Comparisons can then be made to the current arrangement and costs vs benefits debated and hopefully resolved.

What do you think? Is anyone working on such a thing?


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"Does the USOC want the US to have such a program? Of course (as long as archery is an Olympic sport, that is - but that is another discussion). It seems clear that sufficient funding is absolutely a necessary ingredient for the creation of a national teams program that produces consistently high finishes. A harder question is, "What or how much is 'sufficient' funding?""

I wouldn't be so convinced of that. The USOC targets funding as *it* deems appropriate - and it funds a lot of sports. If *it* doesn't think archery is a priority then archery will remain a relative non-priority. It is a big bureaucracy with many vested interests by a many different players. Clearly higher profile sports get more resources, but in order to keep the medal count high they need to do well in as many sports as possible. Some committee (ad hoc or not) somewhere sits down and asks what is archery worth to us - and they decide an allotment.

"That can only be estimated by drawing up a top-to-bottom business plan, one that would include a mission statement, staffing requirements, sources and uses of funds, facilities planning, etc."

You could waste a lot of time doing that considering it isn't a business. If you are given the appropriate budget you can plan and build - if you aren't given the appropriate budget (or the budget is reduced) you follow the status quo or make cuts. Increasing the interest and influence of archery within the USOC is probably the more viable short term avenue for increased funding.

-CG


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

CG,

Your points are well made and offer the opportunity to expand the discussion a bit. Clearly, the USOC must, of necessity, use some criteria in allocating funds to the various sports they support. Nonetheless, within the context of funding US Olympic archery by some X amount as determined by the USOC by whatever methodology they employ, there still has to be a process whereby the expected best usage of that X amount of funding is determined. 

I submit that one cannot do that without (1) a fairly detailed examination of where funds are currently being spent and what the results of that spending have been and just as important, what results can be expected in the future. This is a process that I would imagine the USOC does on a relatively frequent basis. In consulting, this is often referred to as the "steady state" environment. (2) After priorities are identified and translated into goals, the desired "future state" can be mapped. Clearly, there is always the battle between unlimited wants and scarce resources to be reconciled. (3) Finally, a comparison of the steady state and the desired future state, taking into consideration all of the various constraints (funding availability, primary goals and corollaries, etc.) produces the steps necessary to get from where you are to where you want to be. 

All that remains then, is to translate the identified steps into a sound project plan and go and execute it! Yeah, right! Much easier said than done!


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"This is a process that I would imagine the USOC does on a relatively frequent basis."

From what I understand they do planning on a number of time frames but a lot of the "operational" planning generally 4 year plans (OG to OG). The end of an OG is when some of the steering planning takes place, and consulting with the repective sports bodies as concerns performance, goals and budget.

The actual sporting bodies can come up with their own plans (more extensive multi-year plans) and submit for approval to the USOC - but it's a lot like submiting a plan in the at UN - it involves more backroom politics than brilliant planning..



-CG


----------



## Miika (Jun 29, 2003)

>--gt--> said:


> *
> The 1200 score is simply the minimum IOC score requirement to allow places like Fiji and Kenya to put people in the Games on a wild card in the interest of growing the sport. *


Fiji qualified in the CQT.


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

Miika,

My bad. I should have used an actual 2004 tripartite appointment slot in my example. 

How about Laos ?

Apologies to any irritated Fijian archers


----------



## Miika (Jun 29, 2003)

He's quite happy actually, it was a great experience. Bhutanese Team did well with their Wild Cards.


----------



## MerlinApexDylan (Oct 14, 2002)

oldreliable67 said:


> *Several recent posts have mentioned funding. Some say that funding is not the key: those with sufficient desire will find a way. Others maintain that funding is the essential ingredient for a successful program. In some respects, both are correct.
> *


Funding is an essential ingredient, as is a proper training programe that isn't flip flop. I may not no from experience. But the numbers speak for themselves. For example Canada vs Australia on the basis of funding, athletic programing and performance when it counts. Australia funds their atheletes and their programs at a rate.. lets say guestimating 55% higher then here in Canada. In Sydney and now here in Athens, Australia's performance has shown through over Canada's meager showing by roughly the same marginal difference as the funding. 

I'm proud as heck of our atheletes and proud to be a Canadian. However, we sorely lack the funding and the programs to build a vastly talented Olympic team, that is going to medal at the rate of other more well funded countries. Especially in archery, being where it stands on the totem.

This goes for any country in the same boat. This goes for any sport, not just archery. 

Marcus talked about the training theme that has been adopted by many countries in europe and australasia that are producing world performing archers. Those programs are all great and good, but they aren't going to last long without the correct monetary support. So two main ingredients come into play.. A strong programe for the sport and the monetary support for that programing and the atheletes in that sport. Then are found, the atheletes with the talent, desire and heart to win an Olympic medal. 

Atheletics have one good thing going for them, especially the Olympics. It has a unifying affect, rather then seperating. 
Dylan


----------



## stickshooter (Sep 1, 2003)

Being that I know very little about FITA competition (heck, I just learned how to pronounce "FITA" - see other thread), please educate me about something pertaining to this thread.

If:

Against Taipei, one of Butch's 8's would have been a 9, or one of John's 8's would have been a 9, or one of Vic's 9's would have been 10, and

against Ukraine, one of Butch's 8's would have been a 9, and one of Vic's 8's would have been 9,

Then:

Wouldn't we be talking about what's right with USA olympic archery instead of what's wrong with it? Three arrows over two matches determined Gold from no medal and we're talking about what a shambles USA olympic archery is in?

O.K., I'm ready to be straightened out.


----------



## Footsteps (Jan 20, 2003)

*Very Interesting Thread*

Some great points are being discussed on this thread. GT, thanks for kicking it off and limbwalker, CONGRATULATIONS! 

I want to toss some more things out. 

Exposure - the lack of exposure for Olympic Style Archery is a problem. Yes, kids will shoot it if they see it being shot. Unfortunately we do not have organized archery in schools outside a few colleges. If kids see it and have access to it they will try it. If all they see is a compound and release, then that is what they will try and want to shoot. It is unfortunate that more universities do not have archery programs. They can have a major impact on the quality of archers, especially recurve archers, coming out of an area. Example in point. When Arizona State had an archery program the Phoenix area was a hot bed of Olympic Style archers. Texas A & M was becoming the same type of program and now it is dead as well. How can we change this? Mathews is doing a great job with archery in schools but it is not helping one bit for exposure to recurve archery. I remember in the early ninties, all the Olympic Gold Medal men's archers showed up in Sacramento California and gave an archery demo at a range. Hundreds of people showed up. They signed autographs and got some great press for the sport. We need more of that. Unfortunatley, the recent pool of gold medalist archers is dry. I wish the funding was available to send some members of the this years Olympic Team around the country visiting Archery Clubs and Joad programs on the weekends. You want to fire a kid up to shoot a recurve bow, have an Olympian with his or her uniform on give a demo and sign autographs. The NAA needs to act like a presidential politician and do a circut. Again the problem is funding.

I would love to see the Olympic Team get more exposure. Don't you all think it would be great to see some of the Olympic Team show up at the JOAD Nationals and offer a demo, question and answer session and autographs for a part day. Don't you think that may inspire even just one of those young archers to dedicate themselves to making a future team. I do.

I coach a young lady who won the JOAD National Outdoor Championships and US Open this summer in her class. This young lady is dedicated to make the next team. She shoots before school, after school and anytime she can inbetween. She watched the blip of the archery competition and was inspired by the Korean Women. She spent a couple of hours after the TV broadcast in her basement shooting and beating the Korean Women and let me tell you, she was beating them any way you want to look at it. Go girl.

Inspration can come in many ways. We need to use our Olympians to help inspire even one or our future archers to become the next gold medalist.


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

> Sure, there are many rifle shooters in the US, and everyone does at least a tiny bit of track in high school, but how many RECREATIONAL wrestlers, ski-jumpers, scullers, showjumpers, and javelin throwers are there to develop a base from?


 .


> Lots of people ski, bicycle, run, sail, shoot, box, wrestle, do gymnastics, swim, etc - but what percentage do it under Olympic rules? Lots of people shoot arrows, but what percentage do it under Olympic rules


But there is a difference in many of these sports….

Track is introduced in grade school and practiced and available with coaches and facilities through out college in mass… Is archery??

Ski , bicycle, sail , shoot, box.. If you’re the best in these sports you’re the best because you know you are through competitions. You compete because there are opportunities for you to do so. All you need to do on an Olympic year is read up on the rules and practice your skill under those guidelines. PRACTICE ALREADY DEVELOPED SKILLS!!. 

Olympic archery don’t work that way.. There is no nation wide regular availability of such an extensive network as through track. Families are not taking there Vacations at an “archery resort” as they are with Skiing. Name one good competitive skier who did not get that way because either they “A’ lived in a region were skiing is was a way of life. Or “B” there familily went ever year and instilled a love for it to the children.

Boxing.. Not a lot of inter city youth flocking to the local “archery club” were the 1st thing they need is a $1,000.00 worth of gear. Gloves off the wall and a $1.99 mouth piece to see if they are any good ….

Well these are just a few examples…Lets face it there are thousands more participants in any of these sports compared to Olympic Archery now ask yourself the real reasons why?? I can guarantee you in 80% of the answers the participant was exposed to the sport and thought it was either fun OR they were good at it ( hopefully both) What your talking about is the 20% that just stumble into the sport on there own, Think if a person is even interest in Olympic style archery what they have to overcome…

1)	Try it
2)	Buy it
3)	Learn it
4)	Practice it 
5)	Compete with it

Who’s are they going to try?? Who’s going to buy it for them?? Who’s going to teach them?? Some might be fortunate to have a Coach or even somebody who does that form of archery close . However, lets face it most will need to travel. Who’s going to take them, pay for it?? Accompany them ??? Same thing when it comes to tornaments… 
Now ask yourself the same questions when it comes to Compounds?? All the sudden the answers become much clearer


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Yep and if one of Tim Cuddihy's 9's had been a 10 against Yammamoto and then he shot all 10's in the finals he'ld have the gold which basically means he's practically a gold medalist. 

Then in the WOmens Basketball if Australia shot more 3's and stop the US scoring more we would have won then too. 

And then what if........


3 points is heaps in Olympic Archery, they may have shot 7's instead of 8's. No point saying What If cause It Didn't. 




stickshooter said:


> *Being that I know very little about FITA competition (heck, I just learned how to pronounce "FITA" - see other thread), please educate me about something pertaining to this thread.
> 
> If:
> 
> ...


----------



## MerlinApexDylan (Oct 14, 2002)

know... not no. I must have been tired typing that. LOL


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> No point saying What If cause It Didn't.


Marcus, you're right about that. Gotta move on...

How's the Aussie's feeling about their program/performance? I would have picked the men's team to finish top 3 for sure. In fact, if any team had a chance to knock off Korea, I would have thought it was Tim, David and Simon.

Sure hope those boys, or the ladies for that matter, aren't getting any grief. Those ladies sure are a nice bunch too. Melissa has a great sense of humor, and Joanna is downright nice!

John.


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

> How's the Aussie's feeling about their program/performance?


They're feeling fine about it. After all, they brought home a medal for their second consecutive Olympic Games after decades without one.


----------



## InKYfromSD (Feb 6, 2004)

*ouch!*

There's that "M" word again...


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> *How's the Aussie's feeling about their program/performance? I would have picked the men's team to finish top 3 for sure. In fact, if any team had a chance to knock off Korea, I would have thought it was Tim, David and Simon.
> *


Good question. 
From a total community feel GT is right, we are all feeling pretty good about it and very happy for Tim. 
We are also disappointed for Dave and Simon after all the work they put in to come up short, I'm sure they were hoping things would work out differently. 

As a program we did not have medal expectations this year so it has been a bonus. Chinese Teipai shot awesome in their match against AUS so thee was little we could do. 

Everyone is really proud of them and no one that I have seen has given them any grief. We are lucky enough that our archery program is very young, had we been winning medlas every year for so long we would have different expectations. Guess the US not winning archery medals would be like AUS not winning swimming medals. 

Now it's back to work developing new talent. We have a couple of excellent up and coming archers who could do very well in Beijing.


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

This thread seems to be missing one important ingredient. The spirit of the Olympic games to begin with.

In our 21st century $$$ influenced world, archery seems to be one of, if not the only Olympic sport that "normal" people can aspire to.

John is a perfect example of living that American dream in a sport where regular folks have a chance to compete against their hero's side by side.

None of us are ever going to be competing side by side against the dream team or run a 100m dash in the same race as the Olympic champion.

We will never play a round of golf next to Tiger Woods, race Tyler Hamilton or swim against Michael Phelps.

Archery is one sport where you can shoulder up against a world champion who actually say's with a smile "hello, hows it going today".

All the money in the world that the USOC can give the NAA is a pittance vs. the experience that many of us get when competing alongside many of the top shooters.

Olympic Archery is not about how many medals the USA won or lack there of, but about the Spirit of the Games.

Make archery in the USA a thing of money and selection from and early age and you kill the soul of a sport that will never be prime time. 

Anyone who sees the funding or $$$ in our sport before the soul of archery have very different values than I.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## palmer (Sep 23, 2003)

Pete, you make a very good point. Too much emphasis is put on money, medals, and performance, unfortunately, it's the world in which we are forced to live in.  It's all about expectations; expectations of the athlete, expectations of their country, expectations of the USOC. Look at so many of the medal ceremonies throughout the games. You have those that won silver and are crying tears of defeat because in their mind they "lost" the gold. Meanwhile, the person next to them is overjoyed in winning a bronze. Then the guy that finishes dead last and is still happy that he even got to experience the olympic competition. Expectations.

Look at Korea and it's expectations of their archers. Denise Parker even said it during the broadcast. Korea wants nothing short of excellence and expects it of those that compete in the games. I've heard of their training program and what it actually takes to make their team. My question is, is it worth it? And to who's expense? The archer's? What is lost in the romance and spirit of archery in order to get to that level of consistent performance? Are we willing to give that up? Just maybe there's a middle ground somewhere. I think there is. I try to find it everytime I compete.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Marcus, that's good to hear. I have a lot of respect for those guys. Tim and Dave are very nice young men.

Indeed, everything in life is about expectations...

You can set yourself up for dissapointment, or success. Your choice...

John.


----------



## plucksalot (Sep 1, 2004)

Why dosn't the USA just hire a Korean Coach?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

interesting question given that in the last three olympics the USA has had more men on the individual medal stand than Koreans. Who do you think the Koreans copied when they decided to get good?

the fact remains (and as the coach of the oldest JOAD club in the USA) I can't get 500 kids to show up at our first meeting of the year and tell them that for a year, they are going to mimic shooting a bow before I actually let them shoot one arrow. I can't tell them that if they show any flaws, mentally or physically, they are DONE with archery and can never shoot again. I can't tell them that if they don't shoot hundreds of arrows a week, I won't coach them. I can't promise them that if they are the best, some university will give them a full ride and after that, some rich corporation will give them a decent job where they will have all the time they need to train full time.

I far prefer a nation where any one can walk off the street, into my -and hundreds of other ranges, and enjoy archery. Our country has done rather well in this sport despite not using such draconian methods and the last I checked, we came within two points of being guranteed at least a silver medal in the team event and another two points of having Vic in the medal round.

face it, Korea decided this was a sport they could win at. They don't have the gene pool to say sweep the 200 or 400M races-athletic events that all the training in the world can't compensate for lack of talent in. They can do well in highly disciplined disciplines such as archery or "softer" sports such as tae kwan do along with their national sport of table tennis (where their #1 upset the greatest legend in the sport and the Chinese #1 seed) (BTW I had a korean coach in table tennis and the stuff they do in archery was a carryover from other sports-500 backhands without a miss or you didn't get lunch )


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Nice post, Jim.

Here is a quote from Theodore Roosevelt that I found interesting:

_"The amateur, and not the professional, is the desirable citizen, the man who should be encouraged. Our object is to get as many of our people as possible to take part in manly, healthy, vigorous pastimes, which will benefit the whole nation; it is not to produce a limited class of athletes who shall make it the business of their lives to do battle with one another for the popular amusement..."_ 

And another that I take to heart:

_"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat..." 
_ 

John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

excellent quotes John. Its like marksmanship in China-China won (helped by Matt Eamon shooting the wrong target) more shooting medals than the USA but I would rather have a nation where all citizens (except those living in say NYC or parts of Detroit and DC  ) can go to a range and shoot some skeet or bullseye than what they have in China where most aren't allowed to own any guns but those who are selected are trained from early childhood to win olympic shooting medals

the best 10 chinese rifle shooters might well beat the best 10 US rifle shooters but even with their large population-the best 10,000 us rifle shooters easily wins against the best 10,000 chinese marksman.


----------



## Jim Pruitte (May 27, 2002)

Nice quotes there John.  

Here is one that I use with my students and that I myself try to live by..

Archery like life is a journey.... not a destination....


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

I am a real fan of TR. (In fact I'll be at the annual Gunsite Reunion and Theodore Roosevelt Memorial at the NRA's Whittington Center this fall.)

And one of my favorite TR lines is:

"If you could kick the person in the pants responsible for most of your trouble, you wouldn't sit for a month. "


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Ha, ha...Good one GT. I haven't seen that one before, but it is very true.

So who can tell me the connection between T.R. and the blue goose I was wearing on my chest protector at the Olympics... ???

Anyone?

John.


----------



## scooby3xs (Dec 3, 2002)

A century ago, on March 14, 1903, Theodore Roosevelt established Pelican Island as the first National Wildlife Refuge and I think you work in the Wildlife field, right??? The blue goose is on the National Wildlife Refuge Assoc. "Blue Goose Flyer".

~Scoobs~


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Bravo, Scoobs! And it didn't take you long.

The blue goose was created by J.N. "Ding" Darling in the 1930's as the logo for the National Wildlife Refuge System, a system created by T.R. himself. It graces the boundary signs of all of our national refuges, and also hung from the balcony of the archery team's 2nd story apartment at the Olympic Village. Since we weren't allowed to hang the U.S. flag, I hung my refuge's blue goose flag instead. You should have seen the looks it got from other countries, as well as our own athletes!

John.


----------



## Geek-Qualizer (Nov 27, 2003)

Power of Google.
While looking for info on The Blue Goose...

http://refuges.fws.gov/centennial/

and it seems John is everywhere these days.

http://refuges.fws.gov/


----------



## Heyhillsy (Sep 1, 2004)

Back to the organizational thing ...
Aren't there some lessons NAA could take from other NGBs? Not that I think any of them have it completely figured out and there are differences based on the relative "size" of sports, but it seems some parallels and lessons could be gleaned from the experiences of others. Organizations evolve and matching NAA's current state with the growth curves of others may show us some next steps, or save us from missteps.
I grew up in alpine skiing as a junior competitor and coach, then employee of the U.S. Ski Team and USSA. While they've had and continue to have their own travails, they also have been through some of questions posed here: recreational membership vs. competitor membership, two separate organizations or one with internal, departmental controls to separate USOC funding, etc. I only cite skiing because of my own familiarity but I'm sure there must be other NGBs from which we could learn.
I came to archery late, through my daughters' involvement in JOAD. I volunteered some time as a member of the NAA JOAD committee, although I had to bow out due to family circumstances (and I apologize for not being able to better serve the West). Coming into the sport, I had a couple of observations/questions that continue to niggle:
1) Why do we have two national associations? There are lots of archers in the U.S., why not one big umbrella? In our own area (Seattle) we have a mix of compound and recurve, NAA, NFAA shooters as well as hunter groups and unaffiliated archers. We have recurve shooters trying compound, hunters intrigued by Olympic bows... but then we all go off to our own separate organization's competitions. Back to the skiing analogy, it kind of reminds me off skiing and snowboarding a decade or more ago. It was the Hatfields and McCoys. Sometimes you still see it characterized that way but on the hill, and more importantly to the manufacturers, the rule is cross-over, not crossing swords. If you go to the USSA/USST websites, you find different portals leading to essentially the same place and all Olympic snowsports represented. I understand some of the core problems of a unified archery association, such as USOC money potentially supporting non-Olympic events (that's why God invented accountants), and long-standing turf battles but the positions I hear stated from the top are not the ones I hear on the shooting line.
2) This one is a little more specific but there seemed to be a disconnect between JOAD and USAT. Yes, most Olympic team members are older but JOAD is the feeder program for youth and, if I use our own area as an example, for adults (There is no organized adult FITA-style program in the area, we just practice before/with/after the kids; whatever is appropriate.). Going back to skiing, when I worked there, USST was at one end of the hall and USSA junior programs at the other. We were all friends, until it came to budget time. Now, USST/USSA is a melded organization that controls the pipeline to the Olympic team, Again, I know they have their own struggles, I'm just pointing out the evolvement and potential example.

Jim


----------



## shootist (Aug 28, 2003)

GT wrote this when talking about how the Aussie's felt after the olympics. 

"They're feeling fine about it. After all, they brought home a medal for their second consecutive Olympic Games after decades without one."

So, if Vic had won another couple matches and medaled, then all would be hunky dory? 

If this mystical person third archer that you feel should have been on the team couldn't handle the pressure of the trials, I doubt they would have faired too well in Athens.


----------



## monty53 (Jun 19, 2002)

shootist

I kind of agree with you. I finally got to watch the bronze medal round and heard all the comments being made about John Magera’s third arrow. On the final end, Magera shot two golds and an eight. Vic shot one nine and “two eights”. Haven’t heard any one blame Vic!


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

> So, if Vic had won another couple matches and medaled, then all would be hunky dory?


Well, as a matter of fact, yes. It would be. 

Hey, if you want to go down this road, then you need to talk about sixes and sevens from other people. 

No need to dredge this up, I think most people understand this topic has evolved into a good discussion about the system and not the individual. 

The individual most concerned with this seems to understand what this is really about. Too bad you don't, it was evolving into a pretty productive discussion.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> No need to dredge this up...The individual most concerned with this seems to understand what this is really about


Agreed. I for one am ready to move on. It was just an archery tournament, not life or death. There will be more archery tournaments, more winners and more who didn't win. 

I think everyone here, regardless of how they choose to express themselves, wants what's best for US Archery. 

However, I doubt that anything we have to share about this topic on this forum will really amount to anything more than an interesting discussion. Decisions are being made, things will happen, and we will observe and react. It is up to each of us to decide how to deal with the changes that transpire, or lack thereof. I will be watching with interest... 

John.


----------



## shootist (Aug 28, 2003)

GT,

It just seems to me that you need to step back and look at what you are saying. We preach and teach to children that it isn't about winning and losing, but it is about competition and the love of the sport and all of the other cliche's. But you are saying the only thing of importance here is whether or not the U.S. gets a medal in the olympics. Well guess what, If Vic had caught a couple liners in the match he lost, then Italy wouldn't have the ind. gold medal. If a gust hadn't blown one of John's arrows into the six, but rather into the nine, the US men would have medaled. I'm sure if they could move their arrows a total of an inch, they could have caught several lines. 

My point here is that on one hand, you say that the system in the US is a terrible selection format, and you insinuate that the US competitors competed terribly as well, and yet if luck had fallen on their side, then they would have medaled, and all would be fine. It is safe to say that this terrible team (as you have insinuated numerous times) missed winning an olympic medal by less than an inch. If that is the case, then maybe they should only tweak the selection process, or not change it at all. 

I personally think Vic's accomplishment of coming in 8th in the olympics is a great feat. I think the fact that the men's team finished 4th is equally impressive. 

Congratulations to all of the archers on the 2004 olympic team!


----------



## shootist (Aug 28, 2003)

Just for the record I was in no way indicating that Vic should be blamed for anything. I was attempting to point out that if Vic, on an individual level, had caught a couple breaks and ended up with yet another olympic medal, then all would be well with the team selection in some of your eyes.


----------



## stodrette (Jun 19, 2002)

Settle down there, Shootist!!

While GT is not the best ambassador, he is trying to keep this conversation on track....do not be offended!!!

John,
I'm not quite sure I can agree with you that someone reading this post might not do something about the state of Olympic Archery in America...

We all have to start somewhere....


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

You might be right, stodrette.

I just don't know how many "movers and shakers" are really taking stock of what's being written here. I do find it interesting, and I've learned a lot, but I suspect (and hope, in fact) that those in positions to affect significant change aren't lurking about on an archery message board...

John.


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

> I suspect (and hope, in fact) that those in positions to affect significant change aren't lurking about on an archery message board...


John,

I daresay that's better then having "those in positions to affect significant change" sitting behind closed doors changing things with no outside discussion.

Besides which, you might be surprised what some of the participants here can affect in terms of change...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Okay, I'll take your word for it...

At this point, the "powers that be" are still rather cryptic to me. And so far the more I learn, the less I want to know... 

John.


----------



## Geek-Qualizer (Nov 27, 2003)

Just stirring things up....

One of the first threads in this FITA forum.
olympic training center training

If the person that started the thread in the above link is the person I think it is... Then I want to say how sad it is that someone of such young age pointed this out... or that he/she felt this way upon leaving the facility.

I am by no means an expert in these matters. I just fling arrows on occasion, however... If this is the impression the youth have regardless of validity in the linked above thread then I totally agree that something needs to change.


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

Heyhillsy brings up a relevant point. While it is not axiomatic that archery should exactly and precisely emulate, copy or otherwise duplicate the organization and structure of any other NGB, one cannot help but wonder how the others were organized. 

Consequently, a year or two ago, I examined the US Skiing and Snowboarding website along with a couple of the other NGB websites. The skiiing/snowsports NGB seems particulary well organized including a very active and productive juniors program. The foundation appears to be very active, with links on the website and several donation programs available. Nothing like this is evident from the NAA.

Other NGBs that appear to have productive and well-managed programs (at least from my admittedly limited ability to examine) include U S Swimming and U S Softball. Is the medal success in these programs a reflection of the efficiency and talent running the programs and in an organizational structure that facilitates the ability to manage the program and accountability for results and dollars expended? One would have to think so.


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"Other NGBs that appear to have productive and well-managed programs (at least from my admittedly limited ability to examine) include U S Swimming and U S Softball. Is the medal success in these programs a reflection of the efficiency and talent running the programs and in an organizational structure that facilitates the ability to manage the program and accountability for results and dollars expended? One would have to think so."

You can't get around $$$ as the primary issue as concerns developing high performance programs. You can't attract the kind of quality resources (coaches, trainers, logistics staff, etc.) if they see a poorly funded program - or a program that has spotty funding at best ("bake-sale" programs). These people have lives and if they are serious (and a lot of the better high-performance staff have PH.D.'s these days) about their jobs they demand good wages, and if they don't see it in one sport/organization they move to another. The issue is further compounded by the number of such staff that might be employed, all that G&A adds up. You can buy a lot of shiney new equipment and build a new training center - but without the high-performance staff to guide the athletes it really doesn't get you far. At the same time if you are going to spend on the appropriate resource staff - you don't want to limit the athletes with lack of proper training equipment. Then you have to look at the athletes - it's pointless to have all the training resources in place and then have the athletes unable to dedicate the neccessary training time, so you then have to look at allowances and burseries for athletes. When you add it all up it becomes quite an expensive proposition.

And there is no guarentee for medals. Even if you fully fund a program like I outlined, you still are competing against simular programs from other countries - so there is no absolute advantage to be had. Then you have to look at the reality of these high-performance programs - regardless of the quality of the staff, the abilities of the athletes and the nifty equipment/facilities - often the actual performace of the programs varies or cycles over time. As an example look at the Alpine Canada program, they probably have 20 times the funding of the NAA, world class training facilities, world class coaches, one of the best winter athlete pools for the sports involved, full funding for travel to international competitions (Europe) - and yet over the last 15 years they have been doing progressively worse in terms of over all results. It isn't that they are terrible, but the level of competition internationally is so high, and the margin between winning and losing is so narrow that good athetes put in good performances and still don't medal. There is also issue of culture in these high-performance programs - you can have all the right components needed (athletes, coaching, facilities, travel, funding, etc.) and still the program doesn't gel. This is why many high-performance programs (like say the AIS) head-hunts high-performance coaches and directors from other countries that have a proven track record in that sport - not that it always works.

Whether the USOC thinks it should invest more in archery is the precursor question that would really need to be addressed. Because it isn't what the USOC can do for the NAA - it's what the NAA can do for the USOC...

-CG


----------



## Heyhillsy (Sep 1, 2004)

clever_guy said:


> * Whether the USOC thinks it should invest more in archery is the precursor question that would really need to be addressed. Because it isn't what the USOC can do for the NAA - it's what the NAA can do for the USOC...
> 
> -CG *


You're absolutley right about "it's what NAA can do for USOC."
But, USSA/USST didn't get more budget by asking first, then spending. They worked hard over the past 20 years with what they had, with definite ups and downs. They tried different organizational structures (They moved from Utah, to Colorado Springs, back to Utah ..., different approaches for directors, drafting from corporate America, then insiders ...) Right now, they've found a structure and personnel that seems to be working. Lately, they've shown professionalism, consistency in approach, promising results, a few really good athletes (even allow them to work outside the system as long as they perform) and USOC and corporate types respond to that. In a way, it's really just about good business. If you've got a good small businesss - solid plan, watch expenses, good return on investment - the bank will help you grow.

Jim


----------

