# USA Archery Book



## Steven Cornell (Mar 22, 2003)

I was looking to see what archery books that were offered on Barns and Nobel website.
Look what I found.








Comes out December 14th.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/archery-usa-archery/1112958222?ean=9781450420204

Interesting


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

The USAA marketing team has experienced an epic failure. Why would the membership not know about this book until one of us finds it on B&N? I've always found it more difficult to get people to buy things they've never heard of.


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

Based on my experience with marketing and digital products, this might be a placeholder date. Meaning that in order to secure a spot with B&N they might have been required to give a release date, even if its not final. I would hope that we'd get more than 2 months notice, but hey maybe they wanted it to be 'Hey guess what! There's a new book available today by USAA. Buy it now!'

Also, might this be the equivalent of KSL's coaching version of Inside the Archer that was promised?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Can't wait to see who helped write the compound and barebow chapters. 

Oh, wait. Barebow? Do we do that? LOL.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Can't wait to see who helped write the compound and barebow chapters.
> 
> Oh, wait. Barebow? Do we do that? LOL.


John,
If you go to the link and read the publishers summary you can actually find the answers to those questions:
Table of Contents

Chapter 1 Becoming a Competitive Archer

Denise Parker



Chapter 2 Equipment and Tuning Tips

Mel Nichols



Chapter 3 Developing the Athlete’s Shot Sequence

Guy Krueger



Chapter 4 Recurve Shooting: Setting Up

KiSik Lee



Chapter 5 Recurve Shooting: Drawing the Shot

KiSik Lee



Chapter 6 Recurve Shooting: Completing the Shot

KiSik Lee



Chapter 7 Compound Shooting: Setting Up and Completing the Shot

Mel Nichols



Chapter 8 Making Practice More Effective

KiSik Lee



Chapter 9 Nutrition and Physical Training for Archers

Guy Krueger



Chapter 10 Mental Training for Archers

KiSik Lee



Chapter 11 Planning to Win

Denise Parker



Chapter 12 Preparing and Peaking for Competition

Sheri Rhodes



Chapter 13 Developing Young Archers

Diane Watson



Chapter 14 Developing an Athlete’s Support Team

Robby K. Beyer


----------



## dmassphoto (Feb 8, 2010)

Sounds like it might be a decent book. And the price is pretty good to boot.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Nice find Tom. Thanks!

Don't see "Chapter 8 - Barebow Archery, S. Trafford - 

Looks pretty thorough otherwise though!


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Mulcade said:


> The USAA marketing team has experienced an epic failure. Why would the membership not know about this book until one of us finds it on B&N? I've always found it more difficult to get people to buy things they've never heard of.


Well, looks like they've finally done what should have been done a long time ago. So I'm looking forward to seeing what they've come up with, and what you all think about it. At the high end I can't always tell the cult of personality KoolAid from the evidence based form and technique.

It would have been nice for USA Archery to pimp the project in advance. But, on the other hand, then we might all be complaining that the project hadn't come out yet.

What I can say, though, is that I think they should put this book up, on-line as a PDF. They can still sell physical copies for those folks who want one. To me, USA Archery's mission is to promote archery rather than write books for a profit (though USA Archery does need money) so I think on-line PDFs plus for profit book sales are a good and reasonable compromise between its mission and financial needs.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Nice find Tom. Thanks!
> 
> Don't see "Chapter 8 - Barebow Archery, S. Trafford -


Can we put together a fundraiser to get an addendum written? How are your writing skills?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Warbow said:


> Can we put together a fundraiser to get an addendum written? How are your writing skills?


Seriously? After 6,390 posts here? LOL!

Skip or Ty Pelfry would be the guys to write that chapter, as they have competed with barebow in many types of competitions around the world. My barebow experience pales by comparison.

John


----------



## Steven Cornell (Mar 22, 2003)

Warbow said:


> What I can say, though, is that I think they should put this book up, on-line as a PDF.


That would be a 248 page PDF file.
If you publish a book, I do not think you can just give it away.

The Publisher is Human Kinetics Publishers so thee are costs to putting this out. They are probably the ones that released the book to the various stores alike BN, Amazon and others.
The costs are across the board. BN is the cheapest so far at $15.95. Some are selling it for $23.95.

I am happy that they are going to sell a book and I am looking forward to it.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Steven Cornell said:


> That would be a 248 page PDF file.
> If you publish a book, I do not think you can just give it away.
> 
> The Publisher is Human Kinetics Publishers so thee are costs to putting this out. They are probably the ones that released the book to the various stores alike BN, Amazon and others.
> ...


Yes, you totally can publish a book *and* just give it away. FITA does. We can do anything FITA can.

And giving away a book as a PDF can actually increase sales through promotion. As you point out, its a big book, and it isn't convenient or cost effective to run out a copy on your inkjet printer, so plenty of people will want a physical copy, and more will want a physical copy if more hear about it, and free PDFs are one way to promote the book, and its contents.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> And giving away a book as a PDF can actually increase sales through promotion. As you point out, its a big book, and it isn't convenient or cost effective to run out a copy on your inkjet printer, so plenty of people will want a physical copy, and more will want a physical copy if more hear about it, and free PDFs are one way to promote the book, and its contents.


Agreed.  Plenty enough folks are going to want a copy on thier coffee table or at the range.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Agreed. Plenty enough folks are going to want a copy on thier coffee table or at the range.


Exactly, and as an instructor I'll want a physical copy (I'll have to have a copy), but I'd also like a PDF on my electronic devices without having to pay over and over again, and I'd like to be able to refer our students (and even the folks who ask questions here in the forum) to a free version on-line for reference, reference that will likely turn into a number physical book sales, possibly more for being able to get interested in the book by freely reading it on line. Not a guarantee that there will be more physical sales if there is a free version, mind you (there are no guarantees in business), but there are a number of case histories where that is exactly what happens. And, for me, it is a matter of principle. I think USA Archery should be disseminating this information as far and as wide as they can, and putting the info on-line, for free is more effective than just publishing a niche book.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Let's ask our resident authors how they would feel about putting their books up in PDF format for free downloading. 

Rick? Tony?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> Let's ask our resident authors how they would feel about putting their books up in PDF format for free downloading.
> 
> Rick? Tony?


It could work for them--Tony practically gives away his book at the price he charges compared to the cost of short run printing/print on demand printing. On the other hand, they don't work for a charitable organization with a strategic mission to:


> "Provide the necessary resources to foster strong athlete participation, competition and training in the sport of archery."


–USA Archery is. And that is one of their published mission statements.

Putting the NTS on-line as a free resource very much fits into that mission statement.


----------



## m013690 (Sep 3, 2011)

I also have done my share of writing. Two novels to be exact. Now, they're not reference material, but I still gave them away, electronically and otherwise. Notice I said GAVE, not "would give" or something else hypothetical. Personally, I wrote them for the fun of it, and to share some stories I thought were fun and worth sharing. Each one was dedicated to one of my kids, as a special gift. I made no money off the venture. That said, I tend to agree with Warbow -- USA Archery is an organization dedicated to advancing knowledge within a sport they advocate and manage. I would think that would lend them even more toward the sentiment I just expressed -- sharing an idea that's worth sharing.

I recognize I'm probably in the minority amongst those who want to be paid for their work, so this is just my two-cents worth.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Warbow said:


> It could work for them--Tony practically gives away his book at the price he charges compared to the cost of short run printing/print on demand printing. On the other hand, they don't work for a charitable organization with a strategic mission to:
> 
> –USA Archery is. And that is one of their published mission statements.
> 
> Putting the NTS on-line as a free resource very much fits into that mission statement.


Playing devil's advocate here (and I'll explain my personal position afterwards), I will say this.

This statement:
"Provide the necessary resources to foster strong athlete participation, competition and training in the sport of archery." 

does not necessarily state that it has to be given away for free.

Now, here's my personal position.

1) If I buy a book, I should be able to own it in every possible form. Audio, PDF/E-Reader, and dead tree.

2) Keeping the book in dead tree form (ahem, paper) just restricts the possibility of being able to use it when you need it, how you need it.

3) Non Digital Rights Management E-books have proven that removing the restrictions actually helps drive sales instead of ******ing it. Famed Sci-Fi author David Weber has said many times in various conventions that he originally got angry when Baen Books gave one of his books away as a freebie E-book, until he started seeing the residual checks come in...for the same books that were given away.

4) I'm extremely surprised that there is a distinct LACK of promotion anywhere regarding this book. Except this discussion and on Coach Cornell's Facebook page, I would have NEVER heard of it.

-Steve


----------



## Steven Cornell (Mar 22, 2003)

Wow, all I did was let people know that the book was coming out.
Now you want USAA to give it away. I get the Family Handyman in paper form but do not get it in E-book form.
When I look at books on B&N or Amazon, I may get a few pages, but I still have to buy the book.

Why does everyone want it for free.
I am now sorry I even post anything.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

I'm glad you did post it. Mainly since I never would have known about it if you didn't. And yes, I have a copy on pre-order thanks to your posting!

It would have been nice to have the book as an E-Book as well as paper. But, the fact that the effort was put forth by USA Archery to create something is very nice.

As for "something for free", it brings into the discussion this topic as well as the one about charging for training coaches.

Free is nice. Free can be good. However, what is "free" always has a cost associated with it. Someone, somewhere, has to bear the cost.

I would much rather bear the cost up front and now, than have some sort of sock full of sand surprise me later on down the line.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I am now sorry I even post anything.


Shame on you Steve, for trying to contribute. You should know better. LOL!


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Steven Cornell said:


> I am now sorry I even post anything.


Let no good deed go unpunished.

TAO


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

kshet26 said:


> Based on my experience with marketing and digital products, this might be a placeholder date.


They are holding a Level 4 course in November and an NTS certification course in December in Chula Vista. They might be planning to roll it out for those events before the general public.

TAO


----------



## pilotmill (Dec 10, 2008)

the threads never cease to amaze me where they go after the author gives some information. Sorry to see barebow isnt a chapter but not surprised, anyway will be springing for a copy, would love a book signing at the Nats, alot of fun for all. Gar.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Steven Cornell said:


> Wow, all I did was let people know that the book was coming out.
> Now you want USAA to give it away. I get the Family Handyman in paper form but do not get it in E-book form.
> When I look at books on B&N or Amazon, I may get a few pages, but I still have to buy the book.
> 
> Why does everyone want it for free.


If the mission statement of USA Archery was:



> To hoard information and sell it for a profit in book form.


Then I think you'd have strong case. However, USA Archery isn't an old media book company. It doesn't exist for the purpose of selling books. USA Archery is a registered charity formed to promote archery as a sport in the US as widely as possible.

I'm not making the argument here that all books should be free. I've even said I'll be buying a physical copy. The issue is that this is fundamental information about the USA Archery National Training System, the core of a system they want to as ubiquitous as possible, and one of the USA Archery mission statements is this:



> "Provide the necessary resources to foster strong athlete participation, competition and training in the sport of archery."


Putting up information for free on the internet has without a doubt helped spread that information further and wider than any dead tree book can. That applies to information from USA Archery as well. Posting the information for free on the USA Archery website is more consistent with their stated mission than not doing so. And they not only can still sell physical books and may even sell ***more*** physical books by doing so. So even if you take a strict capitalist argument, giving away stuff can still **increase** your profits. 

If USA Archery wants NTS to be a truly national standard they should post the information for free, on-line, in addition to selling a physical book. The physical book will sell, at most, in the thousands, either way. The internet reaches a much wider audience that printed niche market books.




Steven Cornell said:


> I am now sorry I even post anything.


In archery do you regret going to a competition if people give you some _competition_? I expect the answer is no, and that the opposite is true, you want competition. _Think of this discussion as a competition of ideas._ I, personally, welcome competition of ideas. So, I'm glad you posted the OP. It is clear there is a lot of interest in the book, and having various discussions inspired by the OP only serves to keep the post at the top, helping to tell even more people about the book (though not as many, I think, as would if it were to be posted on line for free).


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

We have truly seen a proliferation of archery books since coach Lee seemingly popularized the movement. Now we have several editions of his book, the Frangilli's "Heretic Archer," Larry Skinner's "Archery Shot Execution," Anthony Camera's "Shooting the stickbow" and this, the latest volume from the USArchery brain trust. There is no shortage of books on target archery. Just look at Lancasters selection, and you'll see a dozen or more, just on technique and equipment.

I've been asked (and told) many times that I need to write a book about archery. My response is usually that it's all been covered before and there really is no need in stealing the thunder of previous contributors like Ruth Rowe, or those I cited above.

There will really need to be something new and something useful in this book for it to be relevant, rather than just a simple "state of the sport" documentary. The layout appears to be more of a all-inclusive reference guide for USArchery coaches and archers, and I would assume the purpose will be to get everyone on the "same page" so to speak. 

For those that enjoy the "lock step" mentality, that would look like progress, I suppose.

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> For those that enjoy the "lock step" mentality, that would look like progress, I suppose.
> 
> John


If nothing else the book should provide a clearer picture of what the NTS is supposed to be, which should give you a more concrete model to disagree with 

Actually, I'm serious about that. The KSL Shot Cycle/BEST Method/NTS has been a continuously moving target which USA Archery has never held still long enough to write it down, which has made dubious the claim that it is in anyway a national standard. This book should help establish the NTS as a unified standard by, hopefully, finally defining what it is supposed to be. And once we have that it should be easier to define what areas different people disagree with the NTS. So, perhaps it will be a great tool for many people, especially if we can get comments from you and others about what parts you like and what parts you don't. (Maybe a MST 3000/RiffTrax commentary :dontknow:  )


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

So now you're asking me to BUY a book and READ it too? LOL! 

I think I'll wait for the pdf file. 

This is starting to remind me of golf instruction. Every few years, someone "reinvents" the golf swing, when in reality, it was well documented nearly 100 years ago.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> So now you're asking me to BUY a book and READ it too? LOL!
> 
> I think I'll wait for the pdf file.
> 
> This is starting to remind me of golf instruction. Every few years, someone "reinvents" the golf swing, when in reality, it was well documented nearly 100 years ago.


If it will get insightful commentary from you I'll send you my copy after I've read it


----------



## dmassphoto (Feb 8, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> So now you're asking me to BUY a book and READ it too? LOL!
> 
> I think I'll wait for the pdf file.
> 
> This is starting to remind me of golf instruction. Every few years, someone "reinvents" the golf swing, when in reality, it was well documented nearly 100 years ago.


Or, in my recent experience, parenting advice columns.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Okay warbow, I'll take you up on that one. 

Actually, in all fairness, I'll probably buy a copy just so I know what all those "informed" JOAD parents are talking about... ha, ha.

Gotta keep up with the scuttlebutt, you know 

Why is it that us humans seem to always want to make everything so complicated?

Now we need plans and schedules and coaches on top of coaches. Reminds me of the NFL. Used to be a head coach and the quarterback called the plays on the field. But now we have to have coordinators and sky box coaches and head sets, because apparently quarterbacks just aren't as capable as they used to be. LOL! Our little 'ol 3A high school now has SEVEN football coaches. 30 years ago, they had one. 

We're becoming a nation of over-instructed youth, I think. Kinda sucks the fun right out of sport if you ask me.

Archery is not a complicated thing. There are no plays to learn or defenses to figure out. You just pull the string back, aim and let go. Its amazing to me how hard it is for some people to boil it down to only what's really necessary. Archery is such a mental game, you'd think that removing as much background noise as possible would be a top priority to achieve success.

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Archery is not a complicated thing. There are no plays to learn or defenses to figure out. You just pull the string back, aim and let go. Its amazing to me how hard it is for some people to boil it down to only what's really necessary.
> 
> John


That's what I love about your posts. You always manage to bring us back to the basics. If only it was always easy for me to see the difference between what really is fundamental and what merely sounds convincing and sciency.


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

I'll wait for the audio version.:music1:


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

I'm looking for unified presentations for JOAD training & Instructor certification, iseems that everybody rolls his own.I made up my own JOAD handouts but it would be more professional if we had "official" Power Point presentations and handouts. One of may things I'm goint to inquire about.

TAO


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TheAncientOne said:


> I'm looking for unified presentations for JOAD training & Instructor certification, iseems that everybody rolls his own.I made up my own JOAD handouts but it would be more professional if we had "official" Power Point presentations and handouts. One of may things I'm goint to inquire about.
> 
> TAO


Yes, this is absolutely the case. Some professionally created training materials would be usefull--and I don't mean a CD of random crap downloaded from the internet like I got with one of the USAA classes, but purpose built stuff. Depending on how good the book is it could be a valuable tool for students.

What would a list of coaching aids include?

For me, it would include:

* A PDF or handout and weblink with clear photos all the basic steps in the NTS form.

* A video exemplar of NTS form from different angles and with some close ups. This needs to be based on the **model**, the idealized version, of the form. Not just some random videos of Brady or someone doing *their* version of the form, customized to them.

For some instructors some Power Point resources might be useful. And good powerpoints are about photos and other visuals, not text. If you use powerpoints with text you just split the audience's focus and reduce their retention of the material, whereas photos and other visuals can provide quick insight that increases understanding of concepts and retention.

What else would be useful? If USA Archery has just done this book than it is quite likely they have electronic files of photos and graphics they have produced that could be re-purposed for the these kinds of things. If they aren't already working on this then perhaps we can give them some ideas?


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

If we come up with a wish list I will present it to Coach Lee and his staff in Chula Vista in December.

TAO


----------



## hdracer (Aug 8, 2007)

On the B&N website you can request that the book be made into an e-book format. If enough of us request it then maybe it will happen. I prefer my ebook right now. I've read more books from it in the last year than I have regular books in the last 5.

As for getting the book free, I don't think that will happen. Maybe at a reduced price thru the JOAD program but not free. UArcheryry needs the money to fund their operations and send our archers to competitions. This book is just like the t-shirts they sell at their events...another way to put $$$ in the coffers.


----------



## azl (Mar 4, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> Why is it that us humans seem to always want to make everything so complicated?
> 
> Now we need plans and schedules and coaches on top of coaches. Reminds me of the NFL. Used to be a head coach and the quarterback called the plays on the field. But now we have to have coordinators and sky box coaches and head sets, because apparently quarterbacks just aren't as capable as they used to be. LOL! Our little 'ol 3A high school now has SEVEN football coaches. 30 years ago, they had one.
> 
> We're becoming a nation of over-instructed youth, I think. Kinda sucks the fun right out of sport if you ask me.


Unfortunately, the complication is the result of putting so much money in the sport. Same thing happened in motorsports. In the 70's .and 80's, a team showed up in a tractor trailer rig with the driver and five or six guys. The five or six guys fixed the car at the shop and served as the pit crew on the road. One of the five was the crew chief. Then along came bigger sponsorship and the need to to show results for the investment. Now teams have a 100 folks. The five guys who went over the wall and then fixed the car at the shop? Now they are ex-college athletes that do nothing but work the pits. Back at the shop, they only train at their pit jobs. Workouts in the morning and pit work in the afternoon. The crew chief is a manager who never gets their hands dirty. This is the result of the multi million dollar sponsorship. This result has a trickle down effect. 

Is there a high school team with one coach that has won a championship recently?

The beauty of archery is its simplicity but we too make it complicated because of all of the choices. In the year I've been doing archery, I've learned to just get bow and some arrows and shoot. As long as the bow is decent, you'll shoot to your level.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Is there a high school team with one coach that has won a championship recently?


I'm sure there is somewhere. Who knows.

Look, we can make this as complicated or as simple as we wish. Archery has only been around for, oh I don't know, 10,000 years or more. 

Still one person pulling one bow with their fingers and releasing one arrow at one target. 

I'm afraid we've paralyzed some potentially great archers with too much instruction. Nowdays we have parents and their kids who are scared to death that they won't be able to compete unless they get the best instruction from the best coaches and have the best equipment. And if things aren't quite working out, all too often I see archers looking around for the cause of the problem instead of just focusing on what they need to do. 

We've become a nation of dependency. Personal responsibility is no longer in fashion, and I'm afraid the idea that you must have a great deal of "help" has crept into our sport.

I was listening to Nick Faldo, former professional golfer and superb golf announcer the other day, and he was describing how touring pros now often have an entourage that accompanies them. A trainer, coach, dietician, sports psych, etc. Back in his day, guys just hit the range and worked it out themselves. 

You said it. There is more money thrown at sport these days than ever before. I guess it's got to go somewhere, huh?

Just imagine if we devoted the same financial resources to education that we so freely give to play games.

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

hdracer said:


> On the B&N website you can request that the book be made into an e-book format. If enough of us request it then maybe it will happen. I prefer my ebook right now. I've read more books from it in the last year than I have regular books in the last 5.
> 
> As for getting the book free, I don't think that will happen. Maybe at a reduced price thru the JOAD program but not free. UArcheryry needs the money to fund their operations and send our archers to competitions. This book is just like the t-shirts they sell at their events...another way to put $$$ in the coffers.


I gotta say I'm kind of dumfounded that there isn't an ebook version. I hope that is an oversight that will be corrected before the release date. It would be, IMO, profoundly stupid in this day and age not to release an ebook version. Not to do so is a way to reduce sales and to *not* serve their audience.

As to needing the money, I don't think people are getting the counter-intuitive fact that giving away free, electronic versions of a book can **increase** sales and profits, as Beastmaster confirmed. So even if USA Archery needs the money, giving away a version for free and/or posting versions of the material as a website can still help them with that goal as well as help them with their mission statement:



> "Provide the necessary resources to foster strong athlete participation, competition and training in the sport of archery."


Putting the information on-line for free, in addition to selling physical copies of the book, is more consistent with that mission than not doing so.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Warbow said:


> (snip)As to needing the money, I don't think people are getting the counter-intuitive fact that giving away free, electronic versions of a book can **increase** sales and profits. (snip)


Using SciFi Author David Weber's example - Baen Books (the publisher) gave away some of his books for free. The catch? The books were already for sale in dead tree form for a LONG time before they were released as a freebie. Baen got their return on investment.

Yes, they gave away some of his books in electronic form. But they got an ROI on the title long before the book was given away. They used the giveaway to bolster existing titles that have long been stagnant. In doing so, they boost profits and sales of titles that aren't moving. Moving dead inventory, if you will.

Giving the book away for free before an ROI occurs is not a good business decision, nor does sales trends in general prove that it's a successful method. 

Making an electronic version available to people to purchase is a wise decision, either by download or by including a CD of the title in the book purchase (which Baen does for their hardcovers). But giving away an electronic version sans purchase before an ROI occurs is just plain bad.

This is what we all forget sometimes. Archery is not only a sport, it's a business. We want to grow the sport, but at what cost to ourselves and others?

I still want to point out that at some point in time; someone, somewhere, somebody has to eventually pay up. Free is always at the expense of someone else.

So - at what stage does someone freely give things away, and at what magical well do we draw from to automagically pay for all of this?

I am neither defending USA Archery nor condoning what they do sometimes. But - expecting something for nothing for a specialized book title is going to induce nothing but piracy. This isn't a Tom Clancy novel in which a giveaway of "Hunt for Red October" will stimulate sales of his upcoming book "Threat Vector". There's no followup book to give a lost leader towards in this case.

-Steve


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Beastmaster said:


> Using SciFi Author David Weber's example - Baen Books (the publisher) gave away some of his books for free. The catch? The books were already for sale in dead tree form for a LONG time before they were released as a freebie. Baen got their return on investment.
> 
> Yes, they gave away some of his books in electronic form. But they got an ROI on the title long before the book was given away. They used the giveaway to bolster existing titles that have long been stagnant. In doing so, they boost profits and sales of titles that aren't moving. Moving dead inventory, if you will.
> 
> ...


Steve, as a paid up member of USA Archery member I'm not expecting something for nothing–I plan on buying a physical copy of the book–rather, I'm stating what I think the multimillion dollar registered charity, USA Archery, not an individual independent author, should do to further its stated mission to: "Provide the necessary resources to foster strong athlete participation, competition and training in the sport of archery." Providing free, online versions of this material furthers that goal; is, I think, the right thing to do as part of USA Archery's core mission; makes piracy impossible through preemption; and can promote sales and increase profits, as a number of case studies other than the Baen Books instance have shown.

If you or USA Archery are worried that this book will be pirated, then preempt the pirates by putting out an official free version to promote the book--take a disadvantage and turn it into and advantage. JK Rowling refused to release her books as ebooks because she was paranoid about piracy, but pirates scanned her books and posted them on line anyway, and by not offering ebooks because of her paranoia she made no money from ebook sales to people who wanted ebooks during that period. Now she has finally gotten over her irrational fears and offered DRM-free ebooks. Now she is making money from ebooks and the ebook sales have increased physical book sales (no, she isn't giving away ebooks books for free, there are nuances in these issues rather than just black and white, and not a single answer for all circumstances.)

The reason giving away electronic version can increase sales is, as you note, about promotion. Archery is a niche sport. "Archery" by USA Archery is a niche book in a niche sport. Archery books sell in the thousands. They are never best sellers--never the next "Harry Potter". So promotion, I'd say, is likely to help USA Archery from the start. But, that is an opinion. It is hard to do a controlled experiment and get hard data on individual instances. The example of Weber's books at Baen Books being given away isn't proof that you can't make money by giving away current titles as promotion, rather it is cited because it is a case where existing old stock title sales figures could be easily compared before and after release of the free versions. It is not proof that promotion doesn't help in some markets from the get go.

Regardless, I'm delighted that USA Archery has edited this book. Its something I've been hoping they would do for a while. It is something I think they've needed to do. And now they have. I think it is a step in the right direction--now if they can just keep moving along on that journey.


----------



## mcullumber (Jul 31, 2006)

Maybe they should tie an electronic version to membership. Join USA Archery and get a free version with your membership. Already a member, go on-line with your membership number and get your copy. Want to purchase a hard version. Members also get a discount on that.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

mcullumber said:


> Maybe they should tie an electronic version to membership. Join USA Archery and get a free version with your membership. Already a member, go on-line with your membership number and get your copy. Want to purchase a hard version. Members also get a discount on that.


Yes, something like that could work. It is strategic thinking, a way to leverage the electronic version in a way that helps USA Archery and archers.

People are thinking too inside the box, do directly and inflexibly, thinking "It is a book. Books are things you sell for money. Period." Instead, there are lots of ways to use this training info strategically that help USA Archery, and its mission, better. For instance, people come to websites for content. One type of content that USA Archery's website is utterly missing is any kind of how tos. Posting some information from the book can increase traffic to USA Archery, especially traffic from interested beginners, potential recruits to USA Archery. That can result in more membership and more revenue for USA Archery, even more physical book sales, but it isn't something that is obvious to some folks. So, there are a lot of things that USA Archery can co. We shouldn't limit USA Archery to the obvious at the expense of strategic thinking.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

mcullumber said:


> Maybe they should tie an electronic version to membership. Join USA Archery and get a free version with your membership. Already a member, go on-line with your membership number and get your copy. Want to purchase a hard version. Members also get a discount on that.


That's pretty brilliant.


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

mcullumber said:


> Maybe they should tie an electronic version to membership. Join USA Archery and get a free version with your membership. Already a member, go on-line with your membership number and get your copy. Want to purchase a hard version. Members also get a discount on that.



Absolutely a great idea, except getting the staff to do anything for the general membership, aside from letting them print their own generic membership card.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

mcullumber said:


> Maybe they should tie an electronic version to membership. Join USA Archery and get a free version with your membership. Already a member, go on-line with your membership number and get your copy. Want to purchase a hard version. Members also get a discount on that.


Practical solution 101! However, I would still charge for the book, discounted like you suggest, but regardless of new or renewal. I would also offer the book for sale at "$" and pay "$" more and get the CD version along with the book. And by discount, I'm only talking about 10% max.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> Practical solution 101! However, I would still charge for the book, discounted like you suggest, but regardless of new or renewal. I would also offer the book for sale at "$" and pay "$" more and get the CD version along with the book. And by discount, I'm only talking about 10% max.


The CD version? There's our difference right there, you are still thinking in the 80's. 

Anyway, there are lots of potential ways to go. I think a 10% discount is to wimpy to have much value, though. Ooooooohh, 10% off. The physical book is 32% off at Amazon, so offering a measly 10% for getting a membership is more of an increase in price than a discount. It would be more "*&$! You" than "Thank You."


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Warbow said:


> The CD version? There's our difference right there, you are still thinking in the 80's.
> 
> Anyway, there are lots of potential ways to go. I think a 10% discount is to wimpy to have much value, though. Ooooooohh, 10% off. The physical book is 32% off at Amazon, so offering a measly 10% for getting a membership is more of an increase in price than a discount.


Ha! I go much farther back than the 80's! I still like the CD idea because it doesn't give away a free version which I don't think has been shown to provide any advantage on a new release. And with 32% off already, no further discount necessary... but order now and get a special deal on the CD! .


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> Ha! I go much farther back than the 80's! I still like the CD idea because it doesn't give away a free version which I don't think has been shown to provide any advantage on a new release. And with 32% off already, no further discount necessary... but order now and get a special deal on the CD! .


Well, just to be pedantic, I'd say there shouldn't be any CD. Electronic books are now downloaded through the internet to people's computers, tablets, phones, iPod Touches and dedicated ebook readers. CD-ROMs went out in the 90's.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

My CD (DVD) player on my computer gets used so rarely that the tray is stuck closed.

I'm afraid Warbow is right on this one Seattle. Even that shiny new technology know as a "compact disc" is now obsolete. 

Oh, I feel so old. ha, ha.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> My CD (DVD) player on my computer gets used so rarely that the tray is stuck closed.
> 
> I'm afraid Warbow is right on this one Seattle. Even that shiny new technology know as a "compact disc" is now obsolete.
> 
> Oh, I feel so old. ha, ha.


Yeah but vinyl records are making a come back. One of my local box stores has a section devoted to them. In another 20 years cd's will be retro enough to be cool again.

TAO


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Well, that's encouraging. LOL!

I'm still trying to figure out where this "cloud" thing is... ha, ha.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

Forgot CD's they are just a fad, I am going straight back to 8-track.
ECL


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Warbow said:


> Well, just to be pedantic, I'd say there shouldn't be any CD. Electronic books are now downloaded through the internet to people's computers, tablets, phones, iPod Touches and dedicated ebook readers. CD-ROMs went out in the 90's.


What is this evil "I-pod" of which you speak? Lt. Ripley...RUN!



limbwalker said:


> My CD (DVD) player on my computer gets used so rarely that the tray is stuck closed.
> 
> I'm afraid Warbow is right on this one Seattle. Even that shiny new technology know as a "compact disc" is now obsolete.
> 
> Oh, I feel so old. ha, ha.


Ok, so charge for the download. Omg I said "download"...I feel so...dirty.  

(Psst, USAA, if you offer a "bonus" CD I'm good for an extra $10)


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bobnikon said:


> Forgot CD's they are just a fad, I am going straight back to 8-track.
> ECL


How about punch cards? You only need about 40,000 punch cards for a 3 minute mp3... 

http://boingboing.net/2005/08/01/one-3-min-mp3-59-hig.html

Or if you want to go really retro, go for vaccuum tubes, like Adam Savage has.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hQWcIkoqXwg


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> Or if you want to go really retro, go for vaccuum tubes, like Adam Savage has.


Now I need one for my vacuum tube collection.

TAO


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Just a few more days until the scheduled release of the USA Archery book, "Archery".

Turns out there *will* be an electronic version, a DRMed PDF. However, no ebook is listed on Amazon. I guess their PDF will not be sold through amazon.

http://www.humankinetics.com//products/all-products/Archery-eBook

Though I see the PDF at $23.95 is currently priced exactly the same as the physical book the publisher has to have printed, warehoused for the duration of the print run and physically shipped to retailers. Not sure what so, so publisher Human Kinetics is thinking with their pricing scheme. However, e-book or physical copy, the book is still significantly cheaper than Kisik Lee and Tyler's privately published, $60 a copy "Inside the Archer".

However, there should be some good info in the book:



> Chapter 1 Becoming a Competitive Archer
> Butch Johnson
> 
> Chapter 2 Equipment and Tuning Tips
> ...


----------



## Matt Z (Jul 22, 2003)

When this book was found online and the negative opinions of how USA Archery has not marketed it emerged, I asked about it in a discussion with some USAA staff. Turns out a third party book publisher is heading up the project and simply asked USAA to be a content provider and editor, thus the various contributors.

When the book was listed online, USAA had no idea and was as puzzled as everyone else. Also, I believe USAA makes no money off book sales and turns on the book publisher had it's own distribution plan and didn't keep anyone in the loop.

Regardless, looks like it could be a good one to have on the shelf!


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Matt Z said:


> When this book was found online and the negative opinions of how USA Archery has not marketed it emerged, I asked about it in a discussion with some USAA staff. Turns out a third party book publisher is heading up the project and simply asked USAA to be a content provider and editor, thus the various contributors.
> 
> When the book was listed online, USAA had no idea and was as puzzled as everyone else. Also, I believe USAA makes no money off book sales and turns on the book publisher had it's own distribution plan and didn't keep anyone in the loop.
> 
> Regardless, looks like it could be a good one to have on the shelf!


Hmm...

So, does that mean that the book represents the official party line of USA Archery or not? They are the listed editor, so I assume it does regardless of whether they have any control over the distribution. I will buy a copy. There is no question of that. I want to know the contents. But I'm not a big fan of Human Kinetics publishing, not after reading that very so so Human Kinetics archery book by former NADA head Doug Engh, "Archery Fundamentals". (He implied in a post at AT that the issues with the book with his name were the fault of the publisher, or some such. I think they are both responsible.) The meh quality of that book tempers any enthusiasm I might have for the USA Archery book.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

What this world needs is another archery book...

Let's see. A quick scan of Lancaster's website and I see 51 books and 83 DVD's. 

Good grief. You'd think the rules, equipment and format was changing every 2 years at this rate. I wonder if swimming and rugby and badmiton have 51 books and 83 DVD's. I KNOW that golf has probably 10X that many.

Last time I checked, the greatest Olympic style archer to ever live learned on a field somewhere in Ohio, probably before any of these current books were even written.

I don't see how there could be anything new under the sun, unless we're just using new terminology for the same old concepts.

It's no wonder new archers don't know which way to turn these days.

When there is no "one" best way, then that opens the door for 51+ interpretations, I guess.

John


----------



## cc46 (Jan 22, 2005)

Well, I have only 3 archery books, and I re-read them often. 2 are interesting to me and the other I am realizing I can't do. 

I think the premise that all bodies and minds are similar and can be trained or molded the same way is wrong.

If I were 14 and not 54 I bet I could mold to any idea, but now I think it's a hybrid of forms and techniques around personal physical abilities and available time. 

All said, more theories, thoughts, books and videos and applications are good things. Not sure I will try and buy this one but sounds like a good line up of contributers. 

Look forward to the reviews.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Ordered it yesterday, $14 and change from Amazon. I'll let you know if it was worth it.

TAO


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

You can download the ebook version from amazon right now. I've been reading it, and so far its pretty good. The tuning section is pretty light on detailed info, but the section on the shot cycle and the in-depth information by KSL on the more-misunderstood aspects definitely build on what's written on Inside the Archer. It's already clarified some points that I've had problems understanding from ITA.


----------



## TwilightSea (Apr 16, 2012)

I wonder if there's a Kindle version.....


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

There is! And from amazon its only $10.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

kshet26 said:


> There is! And from amazon its only $10.


Yea! 

http://www.amazon.com/Archery-ebook/dp/B00AMLD8YW/


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

Overall I say this is a very nice companion to ITA as it goes in depth into some of the areas that ITA touches on. It also explains in a different way the techniques as well. They do a good job of calling out things that new shooters should be aware of or should feel.


----------



## TwilightSea (Apr 16, 2012)

Freaking sweet! thanks for the link.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Beware of the archer with only one book.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

TwilightSea said:


> I wonder if there's a Kindle version.....


Am I the only one whos still buys hard copies? I really am Ancient! LOL.

TAO


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

What's a kindle? 

LOL 

No, you're not the only one TAO.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> What's a kindle?
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you're not the only one TAO.





TheAncientOne said:


> Am I the only one whos still buys hard copies? I really am Ancient! LOL.
> 
> TAO


Nope. I pre-ordered the hard copy as well.

This morning I get a notification from B/N that the release date has now been delayed..


----------



## williamskg6 (Dec 21, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Beware of the archer with only one book.


Uh, oh! What about the archer that has no books? Does the Easton Tuning guide count?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

williamskg6 said:


> Uh, oh! What about the archer that has no books? Does the Easton Tuning guide count?


Yea, that may even be better. And if you only have ONE book, either the Easton tuning guide or Murray Elliott's archer's reference would be the one to have.

We're suffering right now from a period of "overcoaching" in archery. Golf has been going through this for some time now. 

I enjoy following golf, and play my fair share. It's pretty common for the golfers with the "textbook" swings to never win a big event. Meanwhile, someone with a homemade swing that they REALLY know well, usually hoists the check at the end of the day. This has remained true even through this last 20 years of celebrity golf coaches, and it will be true also through this period of celebrity archery coaches.

John


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Yea, that may even be better. And if you only have ONE book, either the Easton tuning guide or Murray Elliott's archer's reference would be the one to have.
> 
> We're suffering right now from a period of "overcoaching" in archery. Golf has been going through this for some time now.
> 
> John


So I should stop work on my Magnum Opus "NTS for the Rest of Us"?

TAO


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

thumbs up on the ebook.

this is the book to get before inside the archer.

it does a good job of setting things up for a beginner.

overhead pictures of "setup" and 'barrel of the gun" are great.

description of feeling between shoulder blades/connectedness is good.

definitely worth the 9bucks and its definitely showing things that other books/information is not.


TAO.. yeah this is pretty much a good book and starting point for NTS for the rest of us..


if i were being critical i would once again say that someone with more functional anatomy needs to be involved as there are descriptive inaccuracies (as there were in ITA) when using basic, established, movement mechanic terms.
.. for example in one section they refer to the correct position of the bow arm by telling you to pronate the elbow.. i dont even know what that means.. pronation and supination are terms used to describe movement of the wrist/hand unit in relation to the humerus. its a medial or internal rotation of the humerus combined with simultaneous supination(not pronation) of the WRIST that puts the arm/elbow/wrist unit in its proper place for archery.. not pronating the elbow.. regardless the pic is correct ,no matter how its labeled, and worth many attempts at picking random terms from an established vocabulary/system).

also the pics of some of the movement exercises need to be addressed: the obvious lumbar flexion (rounding your back) when doing the "hamstring stretch" is not needed and in fact not a good idea at all. some other nit picky things but overall a really good start and much more accessible for the beginner to intermediate archer than ITA.

it was also nice to see the updates of "extra set" along with a few other things. this is great for poor sods like me who dont have easy access to coaching.

hopefully updates will continue as the system evolves and/or easier ways of explaining things come about.

VIDEO EXAMPLES OF THESE BASIC FORM ELEMENTS AND TECHNIQUES WOULD BE A BIG PLUS.


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

someone Pm'd me..

I apologise if i offended anyone as that wasnt my intention. I am very greatful for the book as I am any great archery knowledge i come across. I was just trying to be critical, i didnt mean to seem flippant. Im still sticking to my guns about the use of nomenclature and that it could be made more effective in its usage as related to these techniques. Its hard enough to describe archery techniques using technical terms so every effort should be made to have the terminology correct (or have a lot of pictures/video to make up for it). Describing these dynamic techniques is difficult enough and we arent even considering degrees of co-contraction and relaxations across muscle groups (this is where describing things in feelings actually works out pretty good..) or individualized techniques/recruitment patterns and mental focuses that can differ hugely from athlete to athlete.. so confusing this already easily muddled talk by using incorrect or even incomplete terms is worth criticism imo. 
any how, great book. i appreciate the effort and ive already used some of the knowledge tonight.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

ryan b. said:


> someone Pm'd me..
> 
> I apologise if i offended anyone as that wasnt my intention.


Not sure about the specifics of the PM you got, but I don't see how anybody could reasonably have seen your post as an insult rather than as a legitimate, constructive criticism, something USA Archery has need of. The Book deserves kudos, and anyone who cares about archery should also be in favor of improving the book, something that can't happen if criticism of the book is falsely designated as insult.

I found your knowledgeable, anatomy specific points to be extremely helpful. If the book uses anatomical terms in an uninformed or incorrect manner it will teach the rest of us to do so as well, and as instructors and fellow archers we will then teach that false information to our students and colleges. That, I think, is a bad thing. The bit about "elbow pronation" is something I wouldn't have known about but for your helpful post. I might have confidently used that term on archers and told people it is the correct way to refer to the elbow position, when, it seems, it is not. The error should be corrected, and I welcome all of your posts regarding anatomy-related errors in the book and I hope you will post all the ones you see to help us from learning, and subsequently teaching, false information. USA Archery should have used only accurate anatomical terms, or used made up terms clearly labeled as made up. Using existing terms in inaccurate ways is unacceptable and only serves to suggest, rightly or wrongly, that USA Archery doesn't know archery anatomy well enough to even use the correct terms let alone actually understand the anatomy, and further suggests that NTS may not have the full scientific base it has been implied to have.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

ryan b. said:


> thumbs up on the ebook.
> 
> this is the book to get before inside the archer.
> 
> ...


I'm guessing you are not a runner/jogger. Most who have would know the terms pronate or supinate are often applied to the turning or rolling in or out, respectively, of the foot when running. Common sense would then tell you that pronating the elbow simply means turning or rotating it toward the inside. Maybe he should have used the term "pigeon-toe".


----------



## Acehero (Nov 2, 2007)

I'm neither a runner, jogger nor an anatomist - I'm an archer  I have no idea about pronations and supinations but I found the ebook to be very good. It expands upon and simplifies some of the explanations in Inside the Archer. Plus all the other stuff about training plans, goal setting and other physical training (all of which has been well covered in other books of course, but its good to be in here too) make the book a good buy IMO.


----------



## TwilightSea (Apr 16, 2012)

ryan b. said:


> .
> 
> VIDEO EXAMPLES OF THESE BASIC FORM ELEMENTS AND TECHNIQUES WOULD BE A BIG PLUS.


I'd *love* to see a video example of the shot cycle phase since reading it can only get you so far. Some people can learn better through visual demonstrations.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TwilightSea said:


> I'd *love* to see a video example of the shot cycle phase since reading it can only get you so far. Some people can learn better through visual demonstrations.


I think that is most of us. It is hard to learn motion from still pictures.


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

Seattlepop said:


> I'm guessing you are not a runner/jogger. Most who have would know the terms pronate or supinate are often applied to the turning or rolling in or out, respectively, of the foot when running. Common sense would then tell you that pronating the elbow simply means turning or rotating it toward the inside. Maybe he should have used the term "pigeon-toe".


Seattlepop,
You are making my point, brilliantly, even though i dont think its your intention. "Common sense" can tell you a lot of things that might seem simple but a lot of the time common sense is wrong. We dont need to "borrow" terms from other realms to define what is going on when we already have perfectly defined and useable terms available. We just use the system that already exists and possibly expand on it , as youll almost always have to give an "in relation to" descriptor when dealing with complex and dynamic movements (degrees of movement and rotation could also be identified within an actual numerical range as well).

Back to the common sense approach: Pronate and Supinate ,as commonly used in running, are also usually incorrect! prontate and supinate define a complex movement and are something your foot does in relation to your ankle. Eversion and Inversion define the "roll" of your foot from medial to lateral (imagine your instep falling flat and then imagine standing on the outside edge of your feet). "Pigeon toed" runners generally have an internal/medial rotation of their FEMUR which causes the entire leg to rotate medially (inwards), thus making them appear to be "pigeon toed".. it has nothing to do with your ankle, your foot or especially your elbow. its just a term bstradized and misunderstood by a lot of people (even if they are expert runners), so dear god, lets not use it to describe an archery movement of the elbow. This may seem wordy, i know, but like most im sure you werent looking at femur rotation which is really where the movement is coming from. Im not picking on you or trying to be mean, again just making a point and i appreciate the dialog.

Whats going on here is akin to someone taking up rebuilding race cars (lets say they are a brilliant self-taught mechanic) but not knowing the nomenclature already present in the automotive/industrial/electronic industry. there is no need to borrow expressions from judo or birdwatching to explain, in gross detail, how to repair an engine as the technical jargon already exists. just because you say its a scientific way of rebuilding race car engines, doenst make it so. as a matter of fact it makes it look inadequate to someone who knows better or to the very uninitiated, who might be referencing an ACTUAL scientific manual, wondering what youre talking about..as the points just dont seem to line up. Im actually amazed that none of the archers, authors or coaches involved with these books and frequenting the OTC have approached a good physical therapist or exercise scientist of some sort (as there must be one or two of them around) to help with the definitions in all of these books.

video, video, video


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

complaints and nitpicking aside the book is super and i would have gladly paid twice the amount for it. its really a great and helpful effort.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

ryan b. said:


> it was also nice to see the updates of "extra set" along with a few other things.


Coach Lee doesn't stress extra set anymore. He deals with it as a fine tuning of the set position.

TAO


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

ryan b. said:


> Seattlepop,
> You are making my point, brilliantly, even though i dont think its your intention. "Common sense" can tell you a lot of things that might seem simple but a lot of the time common sense is wrong. We dont need to "borrow" terms from other realms to define what is going on when we already have perfectly defined and useable terms available. We just use the system that already exists and possibly expand on it , as youll almost always have to give an "in relation to" descriptor when dealing with complex and dynamic movements (degrees of movement and rotation could also be identified within an actual numerical range as well).
> 
> Back to the common sense approach: Pronate and Supinate ,as commonly used in running, are also usually incorrect! prontate and supinate define a complex movement and are something your foot does in relation to your ankle. Eversion and Inversion define the "roll" of your foot from medial to lateral (imagine your instep falling flat and then imagine standing on the outside edge of your feet). "Pigeon toed" runners generally have an internal/medial rotation of their FEMUR which causes the entire leg to rotate medially (inwards), thus making them appear to be "pigeon toed".. it has nothing to do with your ankle, your foot or especially your elbow. its just a term bstradized and misunderstood by a lot of people (even if they are expert runners), so dear god, lets not use it to describe an archery movement of the elbow. This may seem wordy, i know, but like most im sure you werent looking at femur rotation which is really where the movement is coming from. Im not picking on you or trying to be mean, again just making a point and i appreciate the dialog.
> ...


Interesting for sure. I can see that I should have referred to the ankle rolling in and not the foot. You are correct about that. However, most examples show that pronation involves rotating inward, especially if you examine your example of the ulna/radius which is certainly more proximate and thus relevant to the elbow: "pronation and supination are terms used to describe movement of the wrist/hand unit in relation to the humerus. its a medial or *internal rotation *of the humerus...". 

So, if the pronation of the forearm/wrist is rotating to the inside, and supination of the forearm/wrist is a rotation to the outside, common sense, again, can only tell us that a pronation of the elbow also means a rotation inward. I also think you knew that. 

Hypercritical snit picking of all things USAA; we see too much of it around here, frankly.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> Hypercritical snit picking of all things USAA; we see too much of it around here, frankly.


Perhaps, and there may also be hypersensitive reaction to legitimate criticism of USA Archery. Like all orgs, there are good and bad things about it. And the things that can be improved will never be improved if defenders declare that USA Archery should not be subject to criticism.


----------



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

TheAncientOne said:


> Coach Lee doesn't stress extra set anymore. He deals with it as a fine tuning of the set position.
> 
> TAO


I think you may have been talking about "Setup" and not "Set". 

Terry


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

*My nit-picky first impressions of Archery by USA Archery (ed.)*

So far I'm only three chapters in plus some skimming ahead. So far it is a mixed bag. At its core it is filled with key info about the NTS System, with extra bits tacked on. It is an advanced book but it also tries to lay foundations for new archers, but it does so without enough detail for newbie. The Equipment and Tuning Tips chapter is a welcome addition that fills in some of the gaps left by specialty books like the _Total Archery_ and _Inside the Archer_, but a quick chapter just isn't enough. And I'd say that a tuning section that doesn't start off by telling you how to select properly spined arrows, but does tell you how to tune the bow, has its priories backwards, a failing found in many archery books (So far I can think of only of one book, the self-published archery book “Shooting the Stickbow,” that gives actual, concrete recommendations for arrow spine and shafts.) I imagine skipping over how to select arrows was done because it is complicated, which is why the book _should_ include it. It is one of the most common question by new archers, and one of the most common faults in archers who didn't know to ask before buying arrows.

*Chapter 1: “Becoming a Competitive Archer” by Butch Johnson *
General but good. It gives broad, insightful advice on what it takes to be a competitive archer, how to decide what kind of coach is right for you, how to set priorities and goals and what good a supportive attitude from others looks like. Hint: it isn't when parents or coaches get upset over a particular score. A great first chapter for the book.

*Chapter 2 “Equipment and Tuning Tips” by Mel Nichols. *
This chapter tries to describe recurve and compound bow selection, set up and tuning in a very short amount of time without so much as a diagram of basic bow parts. There is great advice, but it gets lost in a muddled mess as Nichols switches back and forth between compounds and recurves giving both vague and specific advice that is both too much and too little. For instance, Nichols advises selecting a recuve by getting a length that has the “least amount of finger pinch” without describing what finger pinch is, or that it is the product of the string angle at full draw—something he knows and most of us here in the forum know but isn't necessarily obvious to a newbie to recurve, the audience to whom advice on what length of recurve to buy is for. The rest of the chapter is filled with similar vagaries. What spine arrows should you buy? You won't find it here even though buying the right spine arrows to start with is more important than how to tune a bow. You can't tune a bow to the arrow if the arrow is multiple spine groups off from the needed spine. The lack of detail on how to choose arrows is a major oversight

In addition to being vague, Nichols also swaps back and forth between compounds and recurves talking about different kinds of sights without mentioning that they are often specific to compound and recurve. He talks about scopes without first saying what a scope is, and he doesn't mention that scopes aren't used on recurves. Nor, when stating that good “movable sights” have a 3-D axis adjustment does he mention that recurves don't use 3d axis adjustments. It's a mess.

As to tuning he mentions three kinds. Paper, bareshaft and “line” tuning. Line tuning has me confused. For recurve he shoots from 50 or 70m at a horizontal line of“ about three inches long of one-and-a-half-inch blue painter’s tape” (doesn't sound like much of a horizontal line). “If he arrows hit the target like a C facing up” or “C facing down” adjust your nock point accordingly. I'm a bit baffled as to why the arrows at the left, right or center of the line should be any different based on nocking point. All the same? Sure but making a horizontal “C” pattern? I don't understand. I don't get how the arrows at the sides know they are at the sides :dontknow: Anyone know how this works? I can't tell from the description.

Overall I'd say chapter two is a mess. A knowledgeable coach with good info in a bad format. The chapter is too simplistic. It tries to cover too much area in too little detail with too few illustrations. I suspect this is the fault of Human Kinetics since this same problem plagued their mediocre book Archery Fundamentals by Doug Engh.

*Chapter 3: “Developing Your Shot Sequence” by Guy Krueger*
A useful overview of the NTS shot sequence , which is subsequently broken down in detail in later chapters. Krueger touts how NTS is biomechanically efficient and developed by world renowned archery coach Kisik Lee. 

I do have some quibbles about Krueger's' section. For instance, he loses me almost immediately when he attempts to invoke Newtonian mechanics to bolster his reasoning:

“For example, the force the bow applies on you, pulling you forward during the shot and after the release, can be described by Newton’s Third Law of Motion. The Third Law of Motion states that every force has an equal and opposite force reacting to it. As you continue to draw the bow back the bow continues to exert a force on you, pulling you forward.”

Er, no. The bow does not pull me forward as I draw it back—my arm yes, but not me a whole. I would be pulled forward if the riser was bolted to a wall or some such rather than held in my other hand. Nor does the bow pull me forward “after the release.” I'm not sure what this kind of sloppy invocation of physics is supposed to add to the book.

And there is one of my pet peeves. LAN 2. The sciency term LAN 2 is invoked without noting that it is not an anatomical term. That might not seem important but we take knowledge we use in one area and use it others. If you don't know that LAN 2 is made up you might use it, falsely, in other contexts, so it is important to know it is specific to Kisik Lee not anatomy. However, it isn't that big a deal. Likely just me overreacting to a pet peeve.

As to stance, Krueger notes that “It is extremely important for you to use an open stance from day one.” Why? That is the kind of claim that should be backed up with a reason. From what I've seen posted here in the FITA forum the Koreans would disagree that open stance is a requirement, even getting Dennis to shoot T stance instead of open stance to fix his form, T-stance being more intuitively repeatable. I can see that the open stance works for a lot of archers, but why is it “extremely important” to use it vs. other successful stances? This is typical of the book, where we are expected to accept what is claimed as proven. In the Butch Johnson opening chapter I was inclined to believe what was written, and generally so with chapter 2 on tuning. But as we get into the Kool Aid I find myself wanting some proof that the claims are demonstrably true, that NTS is provably better than other systems as claims are thrown about. Let me skip ahead and add one from a chapter by Kisik Lee, who is writing about head position:

Fig 5.14 “The head should be turned toward the target so that the irises are close to the center of the eye openings. In this photo, the irises are too far to the edge of the eye openings, and thus the stance is less aggressive and neurological strength is decreased.”

Rrrr? Is this the science that NTS is built on? Is this actualy based on sound science? Or is it common sense head positioning described using utter nonsense? I get that it is useful to have our heads turned far enough towards the target so we can see clearly, but how does this relate in a factual manner to “aggression” and “neurological strength”? What does that even mean? That his Chi is blocked? :dontknow:

Well, back to Krueger. In his section he is the first in the book to use the anatomy terminology that Ryan B noted: “your bow-arm elbow should be slightly pronated” Not sure what this is supposed to mean. How many archery newbies know what pronated means, especially as relates to elbows? I certainly don't. From fencing I thought pronated just meant palm down since that is what is meant by a pronated parry in fencing. But as Ryan B and Wikipedia point out, there is more to pronation than that.

Do they mean that the outside elbow should point slightly downward rather than horizontal, or that it should be horizontal? Later on the the book Kisik Lee goes into more detail, but still uses “pronation” to describe the positioning in a way that still can be a bit confusing.

“Aiming too early will lead to linear drawing, which can increase the probability of a shoulder injury.“

Is there clinical proof that linear drawing causes more injuries than the raising the bow under tension (semi-swing draw) and angular draw dictated by NTS? Actual proof rather than speculation based on presumptions of biomechanical efficiency? I'd like endnotes that link to actual studies when it comes to claims about things as significant as claims of which technique can lead to career ending injury.

“Expansion is in the same direction of movement as transfer, but it will be a smaller, more internal movement.“

Not sure what that means. If it isn't external then there will be no expansion through the clicker. Internal movement of what? Muscles, bone? What is moving “internally”? Is it really more internal, or is it just not easily perceptible as external motion?

“The cleaner your execution, the more momentum (since momentum is directional) the arrow will have in the direction of the center of the target.“

Well, actually, the initial vector is in the direction above the center of target. It is only when the external forces of gravity and friction act on the arrow that the arrow is turned down to the center of the target. Oh, sure, I'm being pedantic, but so is Krueger, just not in an entirely accurate way.

*Chapter 4:“Recurve Shooting: Setting Up” by KiSik Lee*
String illustration seems wrong:









That looks like the string position for a deep hook, whereas the text says this:

“The string should rest just before the first joint of your index finger, just behind the first joint of your middle finger, and just before the first joint of your ring finger.”

Those don't seem to match. Perhaps I'm not understanding what “behind” means in the context of finger joints?

What is up with the “barrel of the gun” term, which is used to describe the straight alignment of back and bow arm, the arm which *does not* point in line with the target. The analogous line to the barrel of a gun would be in line with the *arrow*, the projectile, not at an angle to it. Calling the bow arm at an angle "the barrel of the gun" seems like a malformed analogy made by someone who doesn't shoot guns :dontknow: 

Well, that is as far as I've gotten. It is a picky list of complaints, but I think some of the issues are significant. Overall there is much to be happy about with the release of the book and I look forward to finishing it.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

bownut-tl. said:


> I think you may have been talking about "Setup" and not "Set".
> 
> Terry


You are correct. There should a spell check for what you meant to say. 

TAO


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> Fig 5.14 “The head should be turned toward the target so that the irises are close to the center of the eye openings. In this photo, the irises are too far to the edge of the eye openings, and thus the stance is less aggressive and neurological strength is decreased.”
> 
> Rrrr? Is this the science that NTS is built on? Is this actualy based on sound science? Or is it common sense head positioning described using utter nonsense? I get that it is useful to have our heads turned far enough towards the target so we can see clearly, but how does this relate in a factual manner to “aggression” and “neurological strength”? What does that even mean? That his Chi is blocked?


Warbow I participated in a great demonstration of this! I stood with my arms straight out to my sides facing one of the coaches and looking him straight in the eyes. He exerted almost his entire body weight before he could force my arms down. From the same position with me looking as far to the side as I could move my eyes - without turning my head, he was able to force my arms down with just 2 fingers. We did it several times. I also tried it with some of my buddies with the same result. It seems that there is a neurological connection between the eyes and arms.

It's a shame that the book doesn't mention this quick test.

TAO


----------



## TwilightSea (Apr 16, 2012)

I'm wondering what in the world is 'angular drawing?" I can get linear drawing, pulling the string back in a line, but angular? Is that where I pull it in a half circle to my anchor point?  I also wonder how I'm suppose to hook my bowstring properly with that method if my tab covers my hand, not giving me a visual clue it's in the proper place. 

Is it just me or does it seem like your anchor point ALWAYS has to be on the center of your nose and lip from those images? I don't have a centered nose, my nose is angled to the right and one thing I noticed yesterday is when I tried to put the anchor point on the center of my nose, my shots were always inaccurate and to the left. I would have my sight cranked all the way to the left and it would STILL shoot left. But when I used the right side of my nose like Scott Barrett suggested, my groups shrunk to a cluster of 'you could have gotten a robin hood!'


----------



## Casualfoto (Mar 10, 2009)

Amazon has still not shipped. Anyone know when this book will ship?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

*Pseudo-science being taught at the OTC and in USA Archery book "Archery"?*



TheAncientOne said:


> Warbow I participated in a great demonstration of this! I stood with my arms straight out to my sides facing one of the coaches and looking him straight in the eyes. He exerted almost his entire body weight before he could force my arms down. From the same position with me looking as far to the side as I could move my eyes - without turning my head, he was able to force my arms down with just 2 fingers. We did it several times. I also tried it with some of my buddies with the same result. It seems that there is a neurological connection between the eyes and arms.
> 
> It's a shame that the book doesn't mention this quick test.
> 
> TAO


I'm certainly interested in the details, but the test you mentioned sounds to be identical to a classic pseudo-scientific diagnostic method used in the quackery known as "Applied Kinesiology" (not to be confused with the similar sounding scientific field of kinesiology). The pushing down on the arm test is a test that seems real but is actually controlled consciously or unconsciously by the belief of the participants. AK practitioners claim to diagnose all sorts of things including allergies this way, by putting substance on your tongue (or just holding it near you in a jar) and pushing down on your arm to see if you are "allergic" to the substance. This form of nonsense diagnosis is fairly common among chiropractors who have added AK to their range of pseudo-scientific practices.

This same nonsense test was used to "prove" that Power Balance bracelets magically increase strength and balance:





Psychologist Ray Hyman visited with a group of AK chiropractic practitioners who showed that they didn't understand how science works (via Skepdic):



> Some years ago I participated in a test of applied kinesiology at Dr. Wallace Sampson's medical office in Mountain View, California. A team of chiropractors came to demonstrate the procedure. Several physician observers and the chiropractors had agreed that chiropractors would first be free to illustrate applied kinesiology in whatever manner they chose. Afterward, we would try some double-blind tests of their claims.
> 
> The chiropractors presented as their major example a demonstration they believed showed that the human body could respond to the difference between glucose (a "bad" sugar) and fructose (a "good" sugar). The differential sensitivity was a truism among "alternative healers," though there was no scientific warrant for it. The chiropractors had volunteers lie on their backs and raise one arm vertically. They then would put a drop of glucose (in a solution of water) on the volunteer's tongue. The chiropractor then tried to push the volunteer's upraised arm down to a horizontal position while the volunteer tried to resist. In almost every case, the volunteer could not resist. The chiropractors stated the volunteer's body recognized glucose as a "bad" sugar. After the volunteer's mouth was rinsed out and a drop of fructose was placed on the tongue, the volunteer, in just about every test, resisted movement to the horizontal position. The body had recognized fructose as a "good" sugar.
> 
> ...


It sounds to me from the language "the irises are too far to the edge of the eye openings, and thus the stance is less aggressive and neurological strength is decreased.” and your confirmatory anecdote about AK-style testing "proving" this claim that pseudo-scientific nonsense is being taught at the highest levels at USA Archery. I'd like to be wrong on that, but I rather suspect a double blind test would show there is no physiological basis for the claim of that having your irises too far to the edge of your "eye openings" leads to a less aggressive stance which reduces "neurological strength". And if pseudo-science is being taught from the very top at the OTC it calls into question all of the "scientific" claims that NTS supposedly has.


----------



## DK Lieu (Apr 6, 2011)

Warbow said:


> I'm certainly interested in the details, but the test you mentioned sounds to be identical to a classic pseudo-scientific diagnostic method used in the quackery known as "Applied Kinesiology" (not to be confused with the similar sounding scientific field of kinesiology). The pushing down on the arm test is a test that seems real but is actually controlled consciously or unconsciously by the belief of the participants. AK practitioners claim to diagnose all sorts of things including allergies this way, by putting substance on your tongue (or just holding it near you in a jar) and pushing down on your arm to see if you are "allergic" to the substance. This form of nonsense diagnosis is fairly common among chiropractors who have added AK to their range of pseudo-scientific practices.
> 
> This same nonsense test was used to "prove" that Power Balance bracelets magically increase strength and balance:
> 
> ...


Probably the most interesting bit of info I've come across all year.


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

Seattlepop said:


> So, if the pronation of the forearm/wrist is rotating to the inside, and supination of the forearm/wrist is a rotation to the outside, common sense, again, can only tell us that a pronation of the elbow also means a rotation inward. I also think you knew that.
> 
> Hypercritical snit picking of all things USAA; we see too much of it around here, frankly.


right, but i think you are only viewing this from an archery-bow-arm perspective and possibly misusing the terms. your wrist can "twist" back and forth irrespective of the position of the rest of your upper arm . pronate/supinate is how the radius and ulna are moving and affecting the position of the wrist/hand unit. you can also move the position of your hand/wrist in space by rotating (medially or laterally) your humerus from various positions but still maintain a fixed position with your lower arm (you could be neutral, pronated or supinated). 

if i hold my bow arm up toward the target like im holding my bow but have my elbow pointing towards the ground and twisting my hand so my palm is facing up towards the sky, my hand is in a supinated position. now if i hold/lock that position of my radius and ulna and simply internally/medially rotate my humerus(in an attempt to face my elbow towards the sky/normal shooting position) the palm of my hand is now facing the ground. although my hand has "rotated inwards" so to speak (via movement from the humerus rotating), it is still in a supinated position. to say that ive pronated is not correct. my hand is clearly in a supinated position (dictated by the forearm bones), regardless of the way the rest of my upper arm is oriented in space. i think youre using pronation/supination to define the hand position relative to the rest of the body when the term is used to define the orientation of the hand, via the position of the radius and ulna, to the humerus. gleno-humeral (shoulder joint) movement has no bearing on the definition of pronate/supinate within the lower arm. the terms pronate/supinate are not synonymous with internal/external or medial/lateral. in your definition it is the orientation of the elbow, via the rotation of the humerus, that you are using to lay the definition of pronate/supinate upon and that is incorrect. you woulndt say pronate or supinate when referring to spinal movements;there are other more accurrate terms to use..its the same thing here.

again, i appreciate the endevour but i dont think its being hypercritical. if they want to use purely laymans terms and then define the terms with pics then thats great but dont use a term that means something else or isnt appropriate for the describing the movement.


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

*Originally Posted by Seattlepop 

So, if the pronation of the forearm/wrist is rotating to the inside, and supination of the forearm/wrist is a rotation to the outside,*

thats the thing.. its not.

pronation of the foremarm/wrist is only rotating to the "inside" in certain humeral positions relative to the rest of your body. in some instances pronation might not give the same visual image. put your hand behind your back like your getting handcuffed. now rotate your wrist. if you pronate your thumb appears to be sticking out of your back and your palm faces the ground. if you supinate then your thumb digs into your back as your palm faces up towards the sky. neither of these movements are moving "inside" or "outside" but you are supinating and pronating never the less.


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

i think we are the only 2 having this conversation and i do think its worth having but for the most part we know what the other guy means(i think) so if you want to take the discussion to pms im down with that  otherwise i will be done here.
good thread!


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> It sounds to me from the language "the irises are too far to the edge of the eye openings, and thus the stance is less aggressive and neurological strength is decreased.” and your confirmatory anecdote about AK-style testing "proving" this claim that pseudo-scientific nonsense is being taught at the highest levels at USA Archery. I'd like to be wrong on that, but I rather suspect a double blind test would show there is no physiological basis for the claim of that having your irises too far to the edge of your "eye openings" leads to a less aggressive stance which reduces "neurological strength". And if pseudo-science is being taught from the very top at the OTC it calls into question all of the "scientific" claims that NTS supposedly has.


Warbow, you hurt my feelings! LOL

I had them do it several times to me and then I tried it on some of my friends just to be sure. I am interested in finding out at just what eye angle that the process kicks in. 

Try it yourself if you don't believe me.

TAO


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

DK Lieu said:


> Probably the most interesting bit of info I've come across all year.


It was worth going to the Olympic Training center to see NTS demonstrated and seeing demonstrations of this type. I'm sure that they are going to repeat this class next December, you should try to make it!

TAO


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> I'm certainly interested in the details, but the test you mentioned sounds to be identical to a classic used in the quackery known as AK practitioners claim to diagnose all sorts of things including allergies this way, by putting substance on your tongue (or just holding it near you in a jar) and pushing down on your arm to see if you are "allergic" to the substance.


We're not diagnosing anything here just stating experiences. I put this in the same class as patella tendon (kneee jerk) refex, just another weird evolutionary leftover.

TAO


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TheAncientOne said:


> Warbow, you hurt my feelings! LOL


Doh! :mg:



TheAncientOne said:


> I had them do it several times to me and then I tried it on some of my friends just to be sure. I am interested in finding out at just what eye angle that the process kicks in.
> 
> Try it yourself if you don't believe me.
> 
> TAO


Check out the video and links I posted. The arm strength test is a very convincing pseudo-scientific test that can prove **anything** causes muscle weakness. It is a classic example of the ideomotor effect, a known psychological affect that affects us without our conscious knowledge.



TheAncientOne said:


> We're not diagnosing anything here just stating experiences. I put this in the same class as patella tendon (kneee jerk) refex, just another weird evolutionary leftover.
> 
> TAO


You are using the same pseudo-scientific test that AK does. It does not provide sound results--instead it is **known** to provide convincing but utterly misleading results based on the expectation of the participants. That the test superficially resembles a sound physiological test like a reflex test is part why it **seems** so believable, but if this dramatic connection between eye position were true it would be the most significant effect in all of sports for **every** sport. The test you recall gave the appearance that eye position affects strength by orders of magnitude and not some subtle percentage that could just give a performance edge. Such a strong correlation, if true, would mean that people all over the world would collapse every time they so much as flicked their gaze to the side. But they don't. And it would be a huge safety issue in sports, industry and the military. It isn't because it is likely nonsense.

To properly blind the test to reduce the strong effects of subconscious human bias neither the tester nor the subjects can know the outcome expected of the hypothesis--loss of strength when the eyes look to the side--so I can't test it on myself. Instead you need to test a group of people who haven't heard of the claim in a way that the tester doesn't know which way the subjects are looking. A bit tricky to do, but not impossible.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> To properly blind the test to reduce the strong effects of subconscious human bias neither the tester nor the subjects can know the outcome expected of the hypothesis--loss of strength when the eyes look to the side--so I can't test it on myself. Instead you need to test a group of people who haven't heard of the claim in a way that the tester doesn't know which way the subjects are looking. A bit tricky to do, but not impossible.


Oh ye of little faith.

TAO


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

ryan b. said:


> *Originally Posted by Seattlepop
> 
> So, if the pronation of the forearm/wrist is rotating to the inside, and supination of the forearm/wrist is a rotation to the outside,*
> 
> ...



Its not? Of course it is: http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?_adv_prop=image&fr=yfp-t-701-s&va=wrist+pronation

Sorry, Ryan, but you are being silly with all this. Do you really want to go with "handcuffed" to make a point about pronating the bow arm elbow? Seriously? We are discussing whether pronation, as a movement, can be used in achieving the recommended bow arm elbow position, not "certain" other positions of other parts of the body, certainly not while handcuffed lol, but hey, I love it when you talk dirty . 

As an instruction, pronating the bow arm elbow applied here to mean rotate to the inside, works just fine. Promote common sense, not confusion. And don't forget the handcuffs


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TheAncientOne said:


> Oh ye of little faith.
> 
> TAO


Oh, I have plenty of faith that people are suggestible  Even smart, capable people.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> Oh, I have plenty of faith that people are suggestible  Even smart, capable people.


Is that why I ended up married when I don't actually remember proposing?

TAO


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TheAncientOne said:


> Is that why I ended up married when I don't actually remember proposing?
> 
> TAO


You must have flicked your eyes too far to the side of your "eye openings" which weakened the "neurological strength" in your knees, leaving you kneeling. From there I imaging asking for her hand in marriage was a reflex :embara: :tongue:


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> You must have flicked our eyes too far to the side of your "eye openings" which weakened the "neurological strength" in your knees, leaving you kneeling. From there I imaging asking for her hand in marriage was a reflex :embara: :tongue:


That's_ exactly _what happened!

TAO


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

Seattlepop said:


> Its not? Of course it is: http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?_adv_prop=image&fr=yfp-t-701-s&va=wrist+pronation
> 
> Sorry, Ryan, but you are being silly with all this. Do you really want to go with "handcuffed" to make a point about pronating the bow arm elbow? Seriously? We are discussing whether pronation, as a movement, can be used in achieving the recommended bow arm elbow position, not "certain" other positions of other parts of the body, certainly not while handcuffed lol, but hey, I love it when you talk dirty .
> 
> As an instruction, pronating the bow arm elbow applied here to mean rotate to the inside, works just fine. Promote common sense, not confusion. And don't forget the handcuffs




well, its still not

.. even though you posted a link to a bunch of pronation/supination images.

youre obviously not getting it.

i went with "handcuffed" to precisely illustrate that pronation/supination has nothing to do with how your upper arm is oriented. i think you are plainly confusing movement of the shoulder joint. 

so to answer your above question "NO, pronation, as a movement, can NOT be used in the acheiving the recommended bow arm position BECAUSE YOURE NOT PRONATING". 

youre literally calling it something its not and then saying "just go with it".


if you want to call it pronation go ahead but its not. as a matter of fact your hand/wrist is not pronated. if your elbow is facing towards the outside (normal elbow position for a right handed shooter) and your hand was pronatedj much then your thumb would be pointing at the ground. 

pronate doesnt mean what youre saying it means. im not promoting confusion. using terms that mean something else is promoting confusion. if you want to agree that your wrong answer is right then go ahead but its still wrong. 


ill give you a backdoor here in that it could be somewhat relative as to the position.. is it neutral, pronated or supinated? the correct answer would be to define it with the degree of rotation. also, you would define if you are moving towards pronation or supination and where you started from. using the incorrect nomenclature: pronating" via movement of your shoulder (which is what you are saying is pronate/supinate.. but its not..) is independant of movement in your lower arm. i know you see this but i cant figure out why youre insisting on saying its correct.

"well, you know, im just gonna call a microwave a stove because they both cook food and i think its pretty common sense knowledge that if you are going to cook something and i tell you to put it in the microwave then it really means the stove.. because im agreeing with myself that a microwave is a stove" (insert linked images of microwaves and stoves here)

imagine yourself in the hadcuffed position again, baby ! now go ahead and move your hand into a fully pronated position with your thumb pointing out away from your back. you are now in a pronated position. but if i tell you to begin to supinate (and head back towards twisting your hand "up" so your thumb pokes into your back) then you are technically supinating even though you are beginning the movement in a pronated position. this is where the confusion can arise and why it needs to be clearly defined. i doubt you would have brought this up but i thought id throw it out there just so i could talk about handcuffing you again


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

*just for fun*

so..

youre not pronating because thats not the correct term and in addition to that, even if you were using the right term for the right movement with the relevant body part(which youre not), YOURE STILL NOT PRONATING ANYTHING. nothing is being pronated. there is no pronation in your shoulder because your shoulder doesnt pronate. there is no pronation as you are defining it because thats not the definition. and finally, there is no pronation of the hand because its not pronated;its neutral or supinated (which is the opposite of pronated).


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

TwilightSea said:


> I'm wondering what in the world is 'angular drawing?" I can get linear drawing, pulling the string back in a line, but angular? Is that where I pull it in a half circle to my anchor point?


Your draw arm elbow describes an arc around your spine that's the angular motion. Think of elbowing someone in the head who is directly behind you. You can pull to your jaw in a straight line while describing an arc with your elbow. Picture an old time steam locomotive who's wheels turn in a circle while being driven by a piston that moves in a straight line. Also once at anchor your expansion through the clicker is triggered by continuing to rotate your elbow behind the line of the arrow.

Easier to show than to describe.

TAO


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

ryan b. said:


> well, *its still not
> 
> .. even though you posted a link to a bunch of pronation/supination images.*
> 
> ...


I linked pictures which you agree accurately demonstrate pronation/supination *as a movement* and I'm not getting it? I'm afraid that "getting it" in this case means understanding exactly what is meant by using the term pronate to describe a movement regarding the elbow and clearly I get that. What about that don't you get? What do you have to gain by taking an extreme literalists view and pretending to not understand Lee's use of the term? Smells like an agenda. 

BTW, I call my microwave an "oven", not a stove. Why would call it something its not?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

*Is the string placement photo in the book wrong?*

Ok, I mentioned this in my longer post on the book, but I've not gotten any confirmation on this either way.

In "Chapter 4:“Recurve Shooting: Setting Up” by KiSik Lee" the string illustration seems wrong:









That looks like the string position for a deep hook, whereas the text says this:

“The string should rest just before the first joint of your index finger, just behind the first joint of your middle finger, and just before the first joint of your ring finger.”

Those don't seem to match.

Here's the string placement illustration from Lee's website:









Is the book wrong or has the string placement changed or am I missing something?


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> Ok, I mentioned this in my longer post on the book, but I've not gotten any confirmation on this either way.
> 
> In "Chapter 4:“Recurve Shooting: Setting Up” by KiSik Lee" the string illustration seems wrong:
> 
> ...


The top picture shows the approximate weight of the string that each finger should hold not the string placement. The bottom picture correctly shows string placement.

TAO


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

On another note, according to amazon my book has shipped. As long as the world is still here when the book arrives, I am still looking forward to the read.
Cheers
ECL


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TheAncientOne said:


> The top picture shows the approximate weight of the string that each finger should hold not the string placement.


I considered that but I don't think that reasoning explains the discrepancy. The string line and the dots are in the wrong spots. There is no reason to put them there at all if not to show where to put the string on on your fingers. They aren't in a vertical row or some other alignment that would be the accidental placement of pretty design or typography. They are individually set. There is no other string placement diagram in the book. (The other one I posted is from Lee's website, not from the book.)

I don't think anybody new to NTS would think "Hmm, based on that diagram I should ignore those dots and that string diagram and put the string somewhere else on my fingers." That wouldn't make sense at all. I've been following this, as SP notes, for half a decade, and I wasn't sure if the string placement had changed, so I don't think there is any chance that a newbie would assume that the diagram was anything other than an illustration of where you are supposed to place the string on your fingers.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bobnikon said:


> On another note, according to amazon my book has shipped. As long as the world is still here when the book arrives, I am still looking forward to the read.
> Cheers
> ECL


Yea! 

Indeed, I think the book is a must read for any USA Archery Instructor, Coach or archer interested in hearing the details of the NTS program from the the hand of its creator.


----------



## HikerDave (Jan 1, 2011)

Warbow said:


> Yea!
> 
> Indeed, I think the book is a must read for any USA Archery Instructor, Coach or archer interested in hearing the details of the NTS program from the the hand of its creator.


I've got the eBook version and it covers a lot of the material that was covered in the Level III coaching class.

An added bonus is the chapter on compound shooting by Mel Nichols. I've always been a bit curious, especially since my wife shoots compound.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> I considered that but I don't think that reasoning explains the discrepancy. The string line and the dots are in the wrong spots. There is no reason to put them there at all if not to show where to put the string on on your fingers. They aren't in a vertical row or some other alignment that would be the accidental placement of pretty design or typography. They are individually set. There is no other string placement diagram in the book. (The other one I posted is from Lee's website, not from the book.)
> 
> I don't think anybody new to NTS would think "Hmm, based on that diagram I should ignore those dots and that string diagram and put the string somewhere else on my fingers." That wouldn't make sense at all. I've been following this, as SP notes, for half a decade, and I wasn't sure if the string placement had changed, so I don't think there is any chance that a newbie would assume that the diagram was anything other than an illustration of where you are supposed to place the string on your fingers.


The bottom picture is still what is being taught as of December 9th when I left the OTC. The top picture shows the current recommended percentages of weight that the fingers should bear. I can only conclude that the editing need work or the wrong picture was chosen. Perhaps I should have waited for the 2nd edition.

TAO


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TheAncientOne said:


> The bottom picture is still what is being taught as of December 9th when I left the OTC. The top picture shows the current recommended percentages of weight that the fingers should bear. I can only conclude that the editing need work or the wrong picture was chosen. Perhaps I should have waited for the 2nd edition.
> 
> TAO


I think as a freshly minted OTC trained L3 you should be just fine 

I think the book is a very valuable first effort by USA Archery (even if it is actually Human Kinetics project, not USA Archery's). It is the first detailed publication of the full NTS system available to the general public edited by USA Archery. I think there are areas for improvement and I'd love to see fixes in a second edition. Though who knows if any suggestions I have would get any traction with USA Archery. Pointing out errors with the JOAD Stars Pin program has fallen on deaf ears and I haven't even received so much as an "out of office" reply email or a polite dismissal from anyone I've tried to contact even though I've dealt with them in the past to get errors in the Adult Achievement program fixed on several occasions. And even far more connected people have not been able to get basic changes to the STARs Pin program for outdoor barebow or for 50 meter outdoor. So I haven't found USA Archery to be very publicly responsive. Perhaps it will be different now that their outreach coordinator is in place :dontknow:


----------



## hotshoe (Oct 12, 2002)

Warbow - who are you? What is your real name?


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> Pointing out errors with the JOAD Stars Pin program has fallen on deaf ears and I haven't even received so much as an "out of office" reply email or a polite dismissal from anyone I've tried to contact even though I've dealt with them in the past to get errors in the Adult Achievement program fixed on several occasions.


Getting JOAD fixed is one of my pet projects. 

TAO


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

TheAncientOne said:


> Getting JOAD fixed is one of my pet projects.
> 
> TAO


Not just yours. 

USArchery can spend tens of thousands of dollars catering to the elites and sending them and their "staff" all over the world, but we can't even get a simple error fixed on a JOAD achievement chart that affects potentially hundreds of young archers and dozens of coaches. 

There really is no question where their priorities are. After the meeting in Ohio, I held out hope that things would change. I held my tongue and gave everyone the benefit of the doubt. Well, it's now been HOW long since then, and I can't see any changes. Simple things, like fixing the achievement pin chart and adding barebow achievements. 

It would take two or three experienced JOAD coaches less than an hour to do this. Seriously. And I know many who have offered, and some who have actually done it already and sent it up. 

Crickets.....

It's embarassing.


John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

hotshoe said:


> Warbow - who are you? What is your real name?


Asks the anonymous poster... :dontknow: Why do you ask?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TheAncientOne said:


> Getting JOAD fixed is one of my pet projects.
> 
> TAO





limbwalker said:


> Not just yours...
> 
> It would take two or three experienced JOAD coaches less than an hour to do this. Seriously. And I know many who have offered, and some who have actually done it already and sent it up.
> 
> ...


Yeah, it just isn't rocket science and should require very little effort on the part of USA Archery to do. And fixing the "novice"/barebow category (and some of the errors and omissions in the manual and score sheet) aren't things that will take anything away from anybody, so it it shouldn't be a big political football. It is sort of awkward trying to explain to the kids why there is no lanyard for "novice" and that the category disappears outdoors after four pins.

TAO just told me about the new JOAD coordinator, and the outreach coordinator is now in place. Perhaps this will help make a difference? Or do all changes get hung up in red tape at a higher level? :dontknow:


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> Not just yours.
> 
> USArchery can spend tens of thousands of dollars catering to the elites and sending them and their "staff" all over the world, but we can't even get a simple error fixed on a JOAD achievement chart that affects potentially hundreds of young archers and dozens of coaches.
> 
> ...


The updated JOAD achievement pin chart was submitted by the JOAD committee almost 2 years ago. If I recall correctly, the pin chart was updated to include the 50 yard compound outdoor and barebow. 

So, let's see how fast or slow this goes. I think having the new staff is helping. Jimmy Butts posted on Facebook the other day that he finally got his 590 indoor FITA score gold pin from USA Archery after waiting 12 years. http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...230.127803.1080691925&type=1&relevant_count=1


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Unbelievable. 

If USArchery isn't interested in managing the JOAD program, then they need to hand it off to someone who is. 

Ugh.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> Unbelievable.
> 
> If USArchery isn't interested in managing the JOAD program, then they need to hand it off to someone who is.
> 
> Ugh.


Well, I do admit that I have some personal skepticism. But...they have done online ordering of the pins (bypassing the antiquated paper order form), and Spencer's wait time for his Silver Olympian pin and duffel bag was less than 2 weeks. Let's see how long it takes for them to do the Gold pin and plaque, excluding the holiday shutdown. I'm thinking 2-3 weeks for that.

I also await with curiosity the new 2013-14 High Performance Plan. Robby Beyer did the last one. I'm wondering how fast the new person will do this one.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Unbelievable.
> 
> If USArchery isn't interested in managing the JOAD program, then they need to hand it off to someone who is.
> 
> Ugh.


Didn't they sort of already try that, outsourcing the administration of JOAD to NADA, before they bought NADA? I don't think NADA had any authority. So USA Archery would have to do more than just hand off management duties, but the authority to make changes. Perhaps Bob can comment. He was co-chair of the JOAD committee back when they came up with the STARS Pin system to replace the patches, and the "it-isn't-quite-barebow" class that allowed genesis bows in. Some good changes. Just need to see about finishing the job now.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I agree some positive things have been discussed for JOAD, and a few changes, but as you say, it's time to finish the job. Our JOAD indoor season starts in a few weeks, and we're looking at a bunch of new participation by kids who are shooting barebow, or at least want to shoot barebow, but I have NO barebow achievements for them to work on. Very aggrivating.

Beast, as far as I'm concerned, if they shelved the High Performance Plan and just worked on JOAD and Grassroots archery for a few years, it wouldn't hurt my feelings at all. The focus of USArchery has been on USAT/Jr.USAT and international teams far too much for far too long IMO. It's time to take care of our kids and invest in the future of our sport.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> I think as a freshly minted OTC trained L3 you should be just fine


I'm starting to feel a little tarnished around the edges.

TAO


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Beast, as far as I'm concerned, if they shelved the High Performance Plan and just worked on JOAD and Grassroots archery for a few years, it wouldn't hurt my feelings at all. The focus of USArchery has been on USAT/Jr.USAT and international teams far too much for far too long IMO. It's time to take care of our kids and invest in the future of our sport.


It seems that many organizations tend to grow towards the light (money). If my quick Googling is correct, the core of USA Archery's money comes from it's $600K grant from the USOC for its role as the Olympic NGB for archery. Out of its annual $2.5 million budget only about a tenth comes from membership dues. So it isn't surprising that the rarefied stuff gets preferential treatment over the grass roots stuff. The members literally aren't that important. :dontknow:

But, the new addition of an outreach coordinator and full-time JOAD coordinator is at least promising. When those things get fixed then I'll know USA Archery actually cares. Kind of a litmus test. Until then, new full-timers notwithstanding, I'll have to wonder.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TheAncientOne said:


> I'm starting to feel a little tarnished around the edges.
> 
> TAO


You need a jar of Coach Polish. :embara:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> So it isn't surprising that the rarefied stuff gets preferential treatment over the grass roots stuff.


I'd love to see where the outrageous registration fees from JOAD Nationals (both indoors and outdoors) go. That's not chump change.

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> I'd love to see where the outrageous registration fees from JOAD Nationals (both indoors and outdoors) go. That's not chump change.
> 
> John


I dunno. I don't know what it costs to run that kind of event. The costs for rentals and services can add up pretty fast. USA Archery posts their audited financials, but they lump all trials and competitions together.

















I see they spent $12K on apparel and uniforms in 2011 for High Performance, and $24K for International Events. And that wasn't an Olympic year. These must be pretty expensive:











Joking aside, it can't be easy running an organization like USA Archery. There's a lot of stuff to juggle. Keeping the org in money when membership dues only pay a fraction of the total expenditures is a serious issue. Some orgs will give you a breakdown and explain where your money goes, such as you want to know for the JOAD nationals. But if they do that they'll have to add an additional line item of where your money goes for the expense of writing up an explanation of where you money goes.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Never said it was easy. But fixing the dA% JOAD achievement chart for compounds and adding barebow IS easy, and should have been done months ago. It's that kind of stuff that just makes me shake my head and wonder where their priorities are.

John


----------

