# 3 Koreans - 3 coaching styles - 2012 Olympics



## Rick McKinney

Korean coach – Team USA. This style is very specific and has been attributed to Lee’s observations over the years and what he believes to be the most biomechanically efficient method available today. There are no similarities of the Korean method or basic understanding of what constitutes typical good form. 

Korean coach – Team Mexico. This style is what has been taught for years worldwide and it is what the Korean method was in the 1980’s through about 2010. (Which, by the way has been very American for years).

Korean coach – Team Korea. This style has many similarities as the older Korean method, with just a slight change or dramatic as to the movement of the follow through. This style was similar to the 1960’s and early 1970’s method being taught in the US. 

Although three different styles and yet under one coaching system? No, just one country of coaches who have varied their styles to either satisfy their own belief or to work in the culture they are representing. There is only one coach of this group who may represent the cultural change but I doubt it and that is the Korean coach working with the Mexican team. He has transformed a group of archers into very classic style and yet, if an archer deviates from that style it appears that he works with the individual. One of the male archers, Alverez, uses a unique draw method that is not common. Also, Serrano grasps the string with his fingers in a very unique way. However, both are on the team and did very well. This is a sign that the coach must be a bit flexible.

Lee’s coaching style. Starting with the Korean method that he learned in the 1980’s and 1990’s he has decided to go “rouge” and offer a different approach to his coaching style. It is hard to say that it does not work since he has been so successful. However, if you look at how the Korean team shot (their technique) when he was the coach, you will see that the style is entirely different to the US team. If you also look at the Australians and their technique when he was the coach there it was very similar to the old Korean method. For some reason he has decided that there is a better way and he has made those changes in the US. Does it work? Yes. Is it the best way? So far it has not proven as such but it can be said that the method works. It does require more rigorous training and it demands more strength than any other shooting method used. This is the reason that recreational archers will struggle to master this style of shooting. However, they can master about 75-80% of the method, which is quite similar to traditional style techniques. The remaining 20-25% should be considered once the archer reaches a specific area of expertise. However, I am not sure that Lee will allow an archer to be an RA or JDT if they do not commit 100% to his teaching style. 

The Korean coach with the Mexican team is without a doubt an excellent coach who has worked with the team for some time. The style and technique used by him is without a doubt successful. It is truly a classic style of shooting and the most efficient use of bone structure and light use of muscle, thus better control of fine motor movement skills. The draw, anchor, aim and continuous motion has proven best for the two medal winners Roman and Avitia. Their fluid motion, great line and good positive approach is noticeable when shooting during the Olympics. Serrano looked as good when shooting, however, his timing changed under the pressure thus not able to make it to the medal round. Alveraz has a lot of talent and is so young that if he continues to shoot and train, he could be a medal contender in 4 years. Although his technique is not 100% like the first three I talked about, he does have an excellent technique. It is nice to see that they do not need to be clones with this coach. The unique thing I noticed was the coach’s approach with the archers. He was always smiling and appeared to be upbeat. This appeared to put the archer at ease and was even able to smile and laugh during the scoring periods. This is so important for an archer to be relaxed during this time of pressure. 

The Korean coach with the Korean team. This new style of shooting, which is more of the older US approach that was used back in the 1960’s and 1970’s was a bit surprising to me. However, it has been proven to be successful. The relaxed shot execution and the extreme follow through is what coaches like Dick Tone advocates. This has been proven to be effective and successful. The interesting thing I noticed with the coach was his seriousness with the archers. Very seldom did I notice any joking smiling or relaxing. I attribute this to the culture of the archers and their coach. They were there to do a specific job and that is what they did. This is only speculation but I would have to say that it is interesting to note that it works. I am not sure it would work in the US unless you had that serious type archer. 

The interesting note is that all three systems were effective and proven to be successful. As I have stated in other threads, I really like the system of the Mexican program. Their technique and style is excellent and one that is very classical and the most biomechanically efficient system I have seen. 

I only commented on these three styles since all three where lead by a Korean coach. It shows that each had his own way and each proved to be fairly successful. The most impressive of all was the Mexican group due to their fantastic finish and their technique. It is hard to beat such simplicity when done right. I salute the Mexican Federation for their courage to develop this program. 

Another note is that there appeared to be two approaches to shooting the elimination rounds in bow poundage. Many archers were over bowed by the amount of shaking they showed during their shooting. This was noted with men and women. I think this is due to making an effort to shoot as heavy poundage one can in order to shoot flatter trajectory. Since the round only requires 12 to 15 arrows at a time, they do not need to worry about getting worn out. However, the lack of 100% control might have been a factor during the early stages. You will note that most of the archers, who shot bows that were not too heavy, went on and shot in the medal matches. I figure this is something that only time will tell with this new type of round. I know it is not real new, but in real terms it is still new for the coaches and archers to figure out what is best for the round.


----------



## chang

Rick McKinney said:


> If you also look at the Australians and their technique when he was the coach there it was very similar to the old Korean method.


Prior to the Sydney game, Simon Fairweather did most of his training by himeself at his local club. he did acknowledge, Coach Lee managed to increase resources available from the elite national level. 

Dave and Tim were then Coach Lee's full time students.


----------



## midwayarcherywi

> Also, Serrano grasps the string with his fingers in a very unique way. However, both are on the team and did very well. This is a sign that the coach must be a bit flexible.


Rick,

I've watched Serrano shoot a fair bit. Are you talking about his string hand, or Velez? 

Gabe


----------



## jmvargas

Rick,

...what can you say about the korean coach of the italians??

IIRC vittorio mentioned that he was more of a ceremonial or nominal coach only as the archers still had their own individual coaches...

..whatever it is the italians must be doing a lot of things right as they just won the gold in the men's team in london and have had many olympic medals in the past both team and individual...


----------



## limbwalker

> This is the reason that recreational archers will struggle to master this style of shooting. However, they can master about 75-80% of the method, which is quite similar to traditional style techniques. The remaining 20-25% should be considered once the archer reaches a specific area of expertise. However, I am not sure that Lee will allow an archer to be an RA or JDT if they do not commit 100% to his teaching style.


What I've said for some time now. Hopefully the "NTS or the highway" advocates will read this and take it to heart. There is a time and place for elite training programs. It is not in the Bowman or Cub - or possibly even the Cadet - levels of JOAD. Not in this country.

Here's why I say this (and many JOAD coaches already know this...) - Kids in the U.S. have SO many choices of popular sports that archery always takes a back seat. Individual sports like archery, tennis, golf, etc. will ALWAYS take a back seat in our society to team sports. Our kids are very social kids who want desperately to be part of a popular movement or group. Asking them to shoot archery when none or very few of their friends are doing it, and it's not seen as very "cool" or widely understood, and you can't go to college on an archery scholarship, and you can't support your family as an archer... well, those are all strikes against our sport in the minds of the kids we coach. So it takes a special young person to go ahead and forego the baseball practice or volleyball practice to go shoot archery. So already we have a tiny % of the youth population that we can reach with our sport. 

When you add to that an intensive training schedule and terms like "biomechanically correct," "Lan2," etc., then it removes another big percentage of the youth who are willing to stay on board. Therefore, we MUST be sure to keep this sport fun and easy to learn for as long as possible. Then, when a child or young adult realizes they want to commit to the sport, set goals and achieve them, we can introduce new techniques and more instruction. But this must be on pace with the individual archer's tolerance for change and willingness to work for their goals. 

The minute archery practice ceases to be fun, about 75-80% of all our young archers are going to head for the doors and go play ball with their friends. Because, let's face it, archery in it's current form can be just plain boring. Especially the practice and training. And kids today don't do "bored" well, or for very long.

John


----------



## Vittorio

Rick is pointing out that there are many different "Korean" techniques, and some of them have been proven to be very succesfull in London. 
Personally, I have never seen one "Korean" technique, in the past, but just several variations of the basic models developped worldwide in the years between 1975 and 1994 (approx.). Stance, draw cycle, anchor, release ... You can see many similarities and hundreds of variations around, and every x years some "new" technique comes out and claims to be better than others, just to show that is a variation or simply a copy of an already existing one. 
The inner rotation of the front shoulder: already used by URSS and mainly Ukrainian shooters, was common in Korea at the end of the 80's too.
The preminent use of the lower drawing shoulder muscles for better stability: gets back to mid 70's in different countries
The thumb behind the neck : used by Ferrari in the 70's already 
Open stance: originated in US, being Rick the most well known advocate of it
Line of drawing in front and out of the body: mainly Korean, early 90's. Foir the chronicles, D.E.Suk was shoooting himself this way before becoming a coach, and demonstrated it in Italy around 1990.
2 Fingers shooting: I was shooting 2 fingers a the end of the 70's already...OK, not a good example :angel:, so think to the entire US men team in Atlanta in 1996

Long time ago I have figured out what is the most efficient and repetitive technique to draw a bow, and I have not changed mind since then. Basically, is the technique that comes more natural and used by 90% of world archers, pprobbaly because is less energy demanding. The real secrets are in how to make it really repetitive, how to reproduce it on different archers and how to dominate it under the head to head stress. An I have NOT changed mind about it in the last 7 years, since THA has been published. I admit for a certain period of time i have had some doubts. But then I have analized the shootng techniques of almost all top level shooters, and allof them have been confirming my theories in part or in full. 
The world of archery is now 90 percent conquered by "sighters", and "pushers" are dominating more and more (using THA terms).
Then, I can make a sighter and a pusher from any of the basic techniques I have seen in London, independently from the details of their draw cycle, as they were all much more similar each other that what an outside simple observation can tell, with one only single exception: OH H.J. !
I'm still studying his front shoulder "compound style" position, to sort out how this is working in a pushing technique (that he is clerly using), as considering the complexity of the movemnts needed to keep everything in line during the final release phase in a situation were vectors of forces in balance are pushing in very different directions then the line to the target. Several have tried in the past this kind of solution, none has been succesful with it. Up to now . 
So, at present I can say that at least one single coach in Korea has now managed something really new that merits to be studied. For all others, nothing new undr sun, as usual IMHO.

P.S.:
I have seen several archers in London using very unefficient techniques to try to do something that others were doing in a much simpler way. But results in London have not been related at all to the complication of the drawing cycle nor to the pure level of poundage used, fo rthe majority of the medal winners.


----------



## Rick McKinney

Thank you Vittorio for pointing out my "point". :smile: In the 1980's the US ran a battery of scientific tests and found that most results were so inconclusive that there was no one way, there were many and as long as the way was repetitive, it will give you similar results. One thing that did stand out was the mental aspect of the game, self esteem, positive reinforcement, high confidence level, relaxation, attitude were some of the most notable. These were very high ratings, which you would expect. 

As for the Korean coach - Italian team, I chose not to use this example since Vittorio has already stated that Suk is not the archers' personal coach. However, it is wise to note that he has found a way to work in harmony with the team without interfering with the archers' personal coach. It does work. 

As for Serrano and his release fingers or finger placement on the string, it is quite strange and yet effective. This is very uncommon for an elite shooter, however, he is proving my point by showing that if you repeat it often enough and exactly the same every time, it will work. I mentioned him and Alveraz because of their unique differences and yet they are still on the team. This is not what the goal is here in the US, but that can be another thread. As a matter of fact, the Italian way was the US way years ago....I will do it my way and don't get in my way!


----------



## kshet26

Sorry, I'm watching video of Oh in the gold medal match and I'm not seeing what is different than normal about his front shoulder. What is meant by 'compound style'?


----------



## murderarrow

Mexican style was developed by the greatest mexican coach, Mr Jose Almanzor from Guadalajara. Almanzor was the very first coach of Serrano and Velez. Alejandra Valencias (Pan Am Champion) is coaching by Miguel Flores who was teached from Mr Almanzor as shooter and coach, and Valemcias style is an evolution of teaches from Almanzor. Its important to say that mexican team is not trained by Lee Wong, who focused only in a few archers, for example, Alvarez shoot in Baja California, the female team have their own personal coachs.


----------



## jmvargas

it is admirable how the korean coaches of various national teams are able to work with the personal coaches....

....trying to imagine myself in their place, it would require great skills in diplomacy and also involve tremendous patience, discipline and focus in achieving common objectives...

easier said than done...


----------



## midwayarcherywi

jmvargas said:


> it is admirable how the korean coaches of various national teams are able to work with the personal coaches....
> 
> ....trying to imagine myself in their place, it would require great skills in diplomacy and also involve tremendous patience, discipline and focus in achieving common objectives...
> 
> easier said than done...


Very true! You have to check your ego at the door. Perhaps this is why great athletes very often don't become great coaches. Ego is what drives the athletes to excellence. Ego can be a very big barrier to extracting performance out of another.


----------



## BLACK WOLF

Rick McKinney said:


> Thank you Vittorio for pointing out my "point". :smile: In the 1980's *the US ran a battery of scientific tests and found that most results were so inconclusive that there was no one way, there were many and as long as the way was repetitive*, it will give you similar results. One thing that did stand out was the mental aspect of the game, self esteem, positive reinforcement, high confidence level, relaxation, attitude were some of the most notable. These were very high ratings, which you would expect.
> 
> As for the Korean coach - Italian team, I chose not to use this example since Vittorio has already stated that Suk is not the archers' personal coach. However, it is wise to note that he has found a way to work in harmony with the team without interfering with the archers' personal coach. It does work.
> 
> As for Serrano and his release fingers or finger placement on the string, it is quite strange and yet effective. *This is very uncommon for an elite shooter, however, he is proving my point by showing that if you repeat it often enough and exactly the same every time, it will work.* I mentioned him and Alveraz because of their unique differences and yet they are still on the team. This is not what the goal is here in the US, but that can be another thread. As a matter of fact, the Italian way was the US way years ago....I will do it my way and don't get in my way!


I couldn't agree more!!!! :thumbs_up :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## Jimmy Blackmon

He's shown success with his technique but I wonder about the depth of his coaching ability outside the form. Rick mentions the mental aspect of the game and it takes a special coach to note when their archery need them to get them to execute their game under stress. Some of the best archers get to that tipping point when they are trying to place the arrow in the center of the 10 instead of executing strong shots. The arrows soon begin to spray and the harder the archer tries the worse it gets. Do any of you know truly how Coach Lee does with this aspect of coaching? How well does he know, relate, and handle his athletes when they need it? Not when they want it but what they need when they need it. If this is too far off topic sorry...


----------



## Joe T

Along the same theme a comment from a nice study trying to connect how people shoot to the results obtained 

_"There is not a single muscle that was determinant for score or speed for all archers. Rather, different proximal muscles or muscle combinations determined speed or score for different archers. Muscle activity levels determined score for the archer with lower arrow speed while variation in muscle activity determined score for the archers with higher speed. The varied muscle activity by the archers in this study shows that the archers have an individual manner of influencing score and speed."_

Ref: INFLUENCE OF MUSCLE ACTIVITY ON SHOOTING PERFORMANCE IN ARCHERY: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS


----------



## DWAA Archer

Interesting post by Rick. Thinking about coaching archers I'll start with Kisik Lee, Rick has looked at the type of form he teaches today an says it has changed over time. What has not been mentioned is technology available today Kisik Lee is always looking for the edge to improve the archers he coaches so this would include things like force plate testing, 3d force plate testing, ECG testing, SCATT system test, high speed video running through dartfish software and a whole host of digital analysis of biomechanics. Findings from this research would result in changes to form coached. Look at the swimmers in the 2008 olympics some of the races all the athletes where on world record pace you don't get those gains with out studying biomechanics.

Then theres personality you could be the best coach in the world but if you do not get on with the archer its a waste of time Coach Suk seems to have this problem.

Then theres the coach of the Mexican squad has worked with his archers for some time I do not know much about the Mexican coaching system but when a country employs a Korean coach the first thing they do is get a system in place to teach good form so that the new archers coming up have fewer form issues to fix and scores are higher over time the system will bear fruit this has been done in other sports. but then again he may have got lucky and came across some very motivated and determined archers a former speed skater then theres miss Roman who has that look about her as the type of woman you would not want to have an argument with thats the type of personality that makes a tuff archer.You have to be stubbon to deal with the frustrations the sport causes.

Thats my take on it.


----------



## chang

DWAA Archer said:


> Interesting post by Rick. Thinking about coaching archers I'll start with Kisik Lee, Rick has looked at the type of form he teaches today an says it has changed over time. What has not been mentioned is technology available today Kisik Lee is always looking for the edge to improve the archers he coaches so this would include things like force plate testing, 3d force plate testing, ECG testing, SCATT system test, high speed video running through dartfish software and a whole host of digital analysis of biomechanics. Findings from this research would result in changes to form coached. Look at the swimmers in the 2008 olympics some of the races all the athletes where on world record pace you don't get those gains with out studying biomechanics.


I would really like to see scientific reports/records of these tests that Coach Lee done, Beside the word "Biomechanic" so far, I just can not find any "BEST" publications reflecting them. I am not so far convinced that his method is superior to other methods scientifically or un-scientifically. So far, I can see the physique of those perform well under BEST controdict the meaning of "Biomechanics Efficient"

I have seen it done in Swimming and Cycling, Biomechanical methods are used to find individual solution for individual person. not one method for all.

It is not Biomechanics at all, by simple pointing at one bigger muscle and saying it is "Biomechanical Efficient".


----------



## limbwalker

> What has not been mentioned is technology available today Kisik Lee is always looking for the edge to improve the archers he coaches so this would include things like force plate testing, 3d force plate testing, ECG testing, SCATT system test, high speed video running through dartfish software and a whole host of digital analysis of biomechanics. Findings from this research would result in changes to form coached.


Are you assuming all of this is being done at the OTC? I agree it should be, however, I have no reason to believe it is.


----------



## Seattlepop

chang said:


> *I would really like to see scientific reports/records of these tests* that Coach Lee done, Beside the word "Biomechanic" so far, I just can not find any "BEST" publications reflecting them. I am not so far convinced that his method is superior to other methods scientifically or un-scientifically. So far, I can see the physique of those perform well under BEST controdict the meaning of "Biomechanics Efficient"
> 
> I have seen it done in Swimming and Cycling, Biomechanical methods are used to find individual solution for individual person. not one method for all.
> 
> It is not Biomechanics at all, by simple pointing at one bigger muscle and saying it is "Biomechanical Efficient".


Ah, the NTS bash fest continues I see.

We may never know what scientific studies any coach has read or used in their coaching, but apparently quite a few studies in archery do exist. This list is from FITA, "Sports Medicine and Science in Archery".


----------



## Warbow

Seattlepop said:


> Ah, the NTS bash fest continues I see.
> 
> We may never know what scientific studies any coach has read or used in their coaching, but apparently quite a few studies in archery do exist. This list is from FITA, "Sports Medicine and Science in Archery".


SP, quoting a **FITA** book's references does nothing to prove the validity of NTS. And most of those references are not specific to archery.


----------



## Seattlepop

Warbow said:


> SP, quoting a **FITA** book's references does nothing to prove the validity of NTS. And most of those references are not specific to archery.


No one has to prove the "validity" of NTS any more than these threads have managed to disprove it. Its a system, take or leave it. Some have had the dignity and class to tout their system and accomplishments without issuing divisive negatives about NTS. Others could learn from their example. 

Regarding the FITA references, I counted 16 references that contain wording specific to archery. The rest are applicable to athletes in general. Archers are athletes. Throughout the discussion on coaching methods several have asked about scientific studies and there have been very few specific references to any published studies. Now you have at least sixteen more. You and others have asked for scientific proof for NTS. I think it safe to assume that any of the above studies applicable to any coaching system are also applicable to NTS.


----------



## Warbow

Seattlepop said:


> No one has to prove the "validity" of NTS any more than these threads have managed to disprove it. Its a system, take or leave it.


I strongly disagree with both of those positions. NTS claims to be better than other systems and to be based on science. Those are claims we can break down and test. And just because something is called "a system" doesn't mean you have to take it or leave it. Why would you even say that? If something is wrong, we can see about fixing it. I don't see any reason to settle for the status quo just because it is a "system".




Seattlepop said:


> Some have had the dignity and class to tout their system and accomplishments without issuing divisive negatives about NTS.


You, it seems to me, are making this divisive by trying to make it personal. Science doesn't do that. Whether NTS is scientifically valid is an impartial and objective question and it is one we should get answers to. Trying to characterize reasonable inquiry as "bashing" is not a way of moving forward based on facts or evidence, same goes for claiming that the validity can't, for reasons you haven't quite articulated, be tested, and same for your claim that a system can't, again for un articulated reasons, be broken down in to testable components.



Seattlepop said:


> You and others have asked for scientific proof for NTS. I think it safe to assume that any of the above studies applicable to any coaching system are also applicable to NTS.


No, that isn't safe to assume at all, not when it comes to specific proof as to whether certain claims of NTS are valid. Again, I'm not seeing what siting the index to a **FITA** book that is not about NTS has to do with proving the scientific validity of **NTS**


----------



## chang

Seattlepop said:


> Ah, the NTS bash fest continues I see.
> 
> We may never know what scientific studies any coach has read or used in their coaching, but apparently quite a few studies in archery do exist. This list is from FITA, "Sports Medicine and Science in Archery".


Thanks for showing documents that showing people are doing biomechanics with archery, I have carefully read through the list, Can anyone pointout quickly which articles verify coach Lee's shooting cycle. 

There is no doubt biomechanics can bring benefit to archery. If one technique claimed to be scientifically superior. I will like to see the scientific verification of the claim.


----------



## limbwalker

> Its a system, take or leave it.


Seattle, the problem is not NTS. The problem is that we as coaches don't get the choice to "take it or leave it." 

Again, I want someone to answer what % NTS an archer must shoot to be considered "shooting NTS" or how much a coach must teach to be considered "teaching NTS." 

Considering, of course that there is "room for individual interpretation."

If we can't answer this question, our National certification system is meaningless.

John


----------



## DWAA Archer

limbwalker said:


> Are you assuming all of this is being done at the OTC? I agree it should be, however, I have no reason to believe it is.


Hi John I cannot say if all those tests are used at OTC but I do know that all have been or are regularly used by Archery teams around the world in particular Dartfish which does result in form being tailored to the individual because we are not all the same shape and size. So you can still have biomechanically efficient form that just looks a little non standard but you would still be compliant.

The question has to be asked is NTS working are average scores improving or not?


----------



## limbwalker

DWAA, we used Dartfish in '04. It was "new" technology then, but in reality, there are $300 cameras today that can do what Dartfish did for us back then. It's nothing "high tech" really.

Relating NTS to an increase in scores is only looking at one piece of the pie. Physical coaching technique has probably 10-20% to do with the scores of top archers. 

And SO MANY tend to look only at what the top 3 or 4 men are doing, which IMO is a huge mistake. Big athletic men can make any system work. When I see something proclaimed as "biomechanically efficient" then I look for proof in the average sized women who should be able to comfortably shoot more weight, more accurately, than before. And that's not happening.

In fact, I'd say that if you look at the size and strength of the top men that are making NTS work, and coach Lee's "BEST" method before it, it would lead one to conclude that it only works for muscle-bound men. Simon, Tim, Dave, Brady, Joe F., etc. Even Jake and Jacob are very fit and very strong for their size. Why the need for the bulk and strength training if this is indeed a more efficient technique?

John


----------



## lksseven

John,

Great points.


----------



## Seattlepop

chang said:


> Thanks for showing documents that showing people are doing biomechanics with archery, I have carefully read through the list, Can anyone pointout quickly which articles verify coach Lee's shooting cycle.
> 
> There is no doubt biomechanics can bring benefit to archery. If one technique claimed to be scientifically superior. I will like to see the scientific verification of the claim.


I think this is where you a Warbow need to get together and find where NTS has ever made a claim to be scientifically superior. Or superior, period. I can’t find where K. Lee has ever said his was the best or only method. In fact the forward to his first book specifically says there are successful archers who have a variety of styles and that K. Lee’s use of biomechanics “…does not mean it is the only way…” Are you and Warbow feeding off an unfortunate, marketing driven choice of acronyms? That would be very sad indeed. 

He also makes no claims to have invented any of the science that provides a foundation for his coaching. He claims to study it and use it. And surely we know that the term biomechanics is widely used and NTS only claims to optimize and use it as the foundation. Name one coach you admire who you would admit does not study available science and still expect to be taken seriously. Name one coach you admire who would admit to not using biomechanics in their methodology and still be taken seriously. 

Some have asked for muscle specific testing. I also see that Total Archery contains an assortment of EMG amplitude comparisons for biceps, posterior deltoid, upper, middle, and lower trapezius muscles and flexors. There is more on the SCATT tests and shoe insole testing. I’m sure you could all review those tests and find something to feed your biases, but many of us would rather move on and try to learn how to shoot a bow. 




limbwalker said:


> Seattle, the problem is not NTS. The problem is that we as coaches don't get the choice to "take it or leave it."
> 
> Again, I want someone to answer what % NTS an archer must shoot to be considered "shooting NTS" or how much a coach must teach to be considered "teaching NTS."
> 
> Considering, of course that there is "room for individual interpretation."
> 
> If we can't answer this question, our National certification system is meaningless.
> 
> John


I understand and I apologize for being so brash in earlier posts. Its just that this has gone on for how many years now and nothing has changed? I can't be the only one who is tired of hearing about it over and over and ..... Criticism of the NTS program is becoming an annoying hum. 

We all get the difficulties of transitioning under new leadership. Corporations and government agencies all go through the painful process of learning a new agenda and mourn the loss of managers we may have loved working with. We cry "Unfair!" and form transition teams and end up in team building exercises the purpose of which is to learn, ultimately, once again, that it is easier to ride a train in the direction its going. So I have to ask why the "world of archery" should be any different? 

As far as flexibility and individual interpretation, every NTS coach here has posted that they are flexible and make allowances for individual capabilities. But yes, they had to go “back to school” and that is difficult for many, especially those who are already well established. 

I see no difficulty in being taught NTS 100% as well as other disciplines/methods 100%, for certainly only then can you know what is going to work. I don't want a coach who is going to teach me 50% NTS. I don't want to be told the wrist flippy thingy isn't going to work because it didn't work for them or their last student. You have to show me all of it. Together my coach and I may decide how close to the string my bow shoulder should rotate and assign a "style" name. But we will try them all. In the end I may end up 60% NTS, 10% Korean, and 30% circus clown. And that may truly be "what works best for me".


----------



## chang

Seattlepop said:


> I think this is where you a Warbow need to get together and find where NTS has ever made a claim to be scientifically superior. Or superior, period. I can’t find where K. Lee has ever said his was the best or only method. In fact the forward to his first book specifically says there are successful archers who have a variety of styles and that K. Lee’s use of biomechanics “…does not mean it is the only way…” Are you and Warbow feeding off an unfortunate, marketing driven choice of acronyms? That would be very sad indeed.
> 
> He also makes no claims to have invented any of the science that provides a foundation for his coaching. He claims to study it and use it. And surely we know that the term biomechanics is widely used and NTS only claims to optimize and use it as the foundation. Name one coach you admire who you would admit does not study available science and still expect to be taken seriously. Name one coach you admire who would admit to not using biomechanics in their methodology and still be taken seriously.
> 
> Some have asked for muscle specific testing. I also see that Total Archery contains an assortment of EMG amplitude comparisons for biceps, posterior deltoid, upper, middle, and lower trapezius muscles and flexors. There is more on the SCATT tests and shoe insole testing. I’m sure you could all review those tests and find something to feed your biases, but many of us would rather move on and try to learn how to shoot a bow.


I brought every book written by Coach's Lee , I've never argued his method was worst (nor better) than other methods, but using word "Biomechanics" and promoted (if not by coach lee himself ) as scientificish like "Biomechanically Efficient". I believe coach Lee would have used Biomechanics succesfully in training his elite archers, but promoting one general/basic technique for all as more "Biomechanically efficient" controdicts with every way biomechanics being applied in sports. 

Talking about EMG tests presented in TA. as you explained, what they shown are the activities of biceps, posterior deltoid, upper, middle, and lower trapezius. What I understood from these EMG measurement, it is to show engaging lower trapezius can take some load away from the other muscles (put it in a simple way, using more muscles to share the same load so every single muscle works less). and That is all.

To engage more muscles in drawing of the string, draw shoulder has to be lowered, this can affect the whole upper body in term of balance, weight/stress distribution and skeletal support/arrangments. and I can see BEST technique usually shoot with a higher bow shoulder, this is a natural responce of lower of draw shoulder.... and I believe the author of the 2 Total archery (If it is not really coach lee) need to explain a little more about the advantage over issues associated with such a methods for the full shooting cycle... and I do not think it need the details of biomechanics. 

I believe rising question is also part learning, if might even help to better understanding the real technique.


----------



## Vittorio

chang said:


> .......
> To engage more muscles in drawing of the string, draw shoulder has to be lowered, this can affect the whole upper body in term of balance, weight/stress distribution and skeletal support/arrangments. and I can see BEST technique usually shoot with a higher bow shoulder, this is a natural responce of lower of draw shoulder.....


This is exactly what average archers (and coaches) do NOT understand properly. As the final result at the end of the draw cycle must be a perfect balance of all forces involved, to be able to be steady in the gold in the final aiming phase, front side (bow side) muscle and bow weight have to be compensated by back side (drawing side) muscles. 
Reltionships becomes in this way more evident:
- High front shoulder = low drawing shoulder, low drawing muscles involved
- Low front shoulder = High drawing muscles (not shoulder!) involved
- High front shoulder = high grip 
- Low front shoulder = low grip 
- Low front shoulder = more bow weight needed
- High front shoulder = less bow weight needed
- Holding line out in front of the archer = more open stance needed
- Holding line in close to body = less open stance needed
- Side drawing line = more open stance needed
- Target drawing line = less open stance needed
As any of the above sentences are related to analog values and not to digital ones, it should be clear that drawing cycles and corrsponding bow/stabilizers and grips combinations are almost infinite in the real world. 
So, a coach can follow the high front/low back philosophy (Mr. Lee's one) and say it is more efficient than the low front / high back philosophy (mine), and viceversa. But of course must be prepared to handle all the infinite variations between the two extremes in order to be able to better help his archers if they can't go the desired extremes for phisical reasons. Good coaching is finding the right compromise for your archer, not to stick on one single solution, if it does not work.

P.S.
It is very easy to guess why front high/back low can't work for the majority of the ladies ... They usually have brests, so it is very difficult to built for them such line ... (big body men being in same condition, of course)


----------



## chang

Thanks Vittorio. that is exactly kinda explanation I was looking for when talking about any techniques. 

One technique may have advantage on muscle usage, but less optimal skeletal alignments, the other technique may have better upper body bone arrangement, but certain muscle may have to work a bit harder. and mentally, one archer may accept one arrangement better than others, find a optimal balanced point againt all the pro and cons shall not one single solution.


----------



## lksseven

I've been wondering about the amount of resistance and/or animus of "NTS" among some of us (including me) and trying to figure out what might be part of the cause of it. What I've concluded is that, for me anyway, it's a response to the name "National Training System". It sounds so "Iron Curtain-ish", and philosophically grates on me like a bucket of cold water.

There's no "National Training System" for teaching quarterbacks, or baseball pitchers, or point guards, or anything else. And if there was, that would irritate me, too, and I'd be inclined to resist it.

If it was just being promoted as the 'Kisik Lee method', the whole thing would be a non-issue for me - just as I don't have any 'issue' with "the West Coast offense" in football (even though it's not my favorite offensive philosophy, it doesn't rankle me); just like I don't get rankled when someone talks about the 'Charlie Lau' school of baseball hitting, or the 'Oklahoma Defense'. That's a single entity's (HIS, ITS) philosophy, which is fine. But I have an instinctively negative reaction to an exclusionary 'we've decided that there's ONE national ideal form - as dictated by the name NATIONAL TRAINING SYSTEM - and Americans must submit/subscribe to it on a national level, like The Borg.

Is that just me?


----------



## limbwalker

It is very presumptuous Larry, for them to believe they have "found" a system that can be declared our "National" system, after still not yet proving itself effective for both men and women of many physical types. 

America is the most diverse country in the world. We have archers from 6'5" 200+ lb. men to 4' 11" 100 lb. women all shooting competitively for USAT and Jr. USAT spots. These archers are of European, Asian, African, Latin American and Middle-Eastern descent with every conceivable body type. 

If any country should not subscribe to a single "National" training system, it is us! 

And honestly, I think we're starting to find that out the hard way...

As Larry says, we are not forced into a "National" training system for baseball pitchers or hitters, Basketball players, Football quarterbacks, etc. and yet we have the best in the world and they come in many shapes, sizes and styles.

I find it pretty hilarious that at a time when we're being encouraged more than ever to embrace diversity, the same people who would wholeheartedly agree that diversity is our strength will stand there and say that we need a single training system.

Good luck with that in the U.S.


----------



## Warbow

limbwalker said:


> It is very presumptuous Larry, for them to believe they have "found" a system that can be declared our "National" system, after still not yet proving itself effective for both men and women of many physical types.


I don't think the problem is inherent with the concept of a "system." A system can include a wide variety of methods for tailoring form to individuals–I'd say the issue is the narrow approach of the NTS system and questions about its validity and/or superiority to other systems rather than an issue with it being a "national system" per se.


----------



## limbwalker

> I don't think the problem is inherent with the concept of a "system." A system can include a wide variety of methods for tailoring form to individuals–I'd say the issue is the narrow approach of the NTS system and questions about its validity and/or superiority to other systems rather than an issue with it being a "national system" per se.


Agreed.

There are a couple problems we're experiencing right now... #1 is how do you measure success of failure of a program? I mean, is there anywhere written down the measure of success of our elite trianing programs, and consequences for not meeting those? Are they actual or just perceived measures? #2, How much bias exists in sticking with a program to prove that it was the correct decision? How close do we need to come, once again, to failing half our elite athletes before a significant change in that area is made?

Ah, these are fun questions to ponder alright, but most of them don't really affect any recreational archer.

Where they do begin to have an effect is in our coaching certifications and in the future of prospective elite archers in this country that many of us coaches are working with.

I have had no fewer than 4 very promising archers with tremendous potential come seek out my coaching specifically because they did not want a coach that was married to NTS and wanted nothing to do with JDT, the OTC or any of the posturing and politics that seems to be the flavor of the day in our organization.

Does this mean I won't teach them components of NTS? Absolutely not. I will if I think it will help them. But we cannot afford to take the approach that it's "NTS or the highway." It's not morally correct IMO to turn away kids that aren't willing to make huge changes to their shooting form anymore than it's correct to turn away coaches that aren't willing to sign on to coaching a single method.

For all those who are protective of the emporer's clothes, I encourage you to carefully read what I am writing too. I'm not criticizing NTS - only the process through which it's being applied and the silly politics that are being played surrounding it. Again, it's become a "litmus test" of whether "you're with us, or again' us..." and we just don't have room for that in this sport. That mindset will be the death of USArchery if we're not careful.

Coaching level certifications should be a process of review through a board of qualified people who can collectively evaluate a coach's experience, people skills, demonstrated aptitude for a number of aspects of coaching, potential, etc. 

It's an embarassment to the program to have some coaches with level 3 or 4 certifications that couldn't tune a bow or shot their way out of a paper sack, and yet we have them. Likewise, there are plenty of world class coaches in this country with ZERO coaching certifications through USArchery. Is that what we really want?

John


----------



## Matt Z

John - What would happen if the 4 archers you are mentioning became the top 4 in the nation? What would happen if Vic, Butch and John made this year's Olympic team?

What I'm reading so far, regardless of political posturing of coaches inside or outside of the NTS system, the only downfall is potentially limiting an archers ability for national support in coaching? What the greatest thing about this sport is the highest score always wins. Regardless of what path an archer takes or who they are coached by. For me, the NTS is an advanced form of shooting for those who have the time to implement it.

I can't get excited about all the fuss over Coach Lees methods, they have obviously shown results. Whether I agree with them or not...


----------



## limbwalker

Matt,

What results have they shown that other coaches have not? Which standard are you using to determine this? I'm not arguing with you, but we can all be correct if we only apply our standard to determine results.

If you just want to use Oly. medals, then Lloyd Brown is still a far better coach. But we know that Lloyd wasn't Vic's personal coach, or Butch's either. So considering Vic's Olympic success (individual & team medals + consecutive top 10 individual finishes), is Larry Skinner then the "best" U.S. coach in recent history?

You see how complicated this gets?

Declaring that our current system has shown "results" is only looking back a short while. 

Are we prepared to declare a single medal every 8 years a successful program? 

I'm not offering an answer, but to be fair, we must compare apples to apples.

John


----------



## Warbow

limbwalker said:


> Agreed.
> 
> There are a couple problems we're experiencing right now... #1 is how do you measure success of failure of a program? I mean, is there anywhere written down the measure of success of our elite trianing programs, and consequences for not meeting those? Are they actual or just perceived measures? #2, How much bias exists in sticking with a program to prove that it was the correct decision? How close do we need to come, once again, to failing half our elite athletes before a significant change in that area is made?


That is a great point. If you do something long enough you are going to get hits, no matter what. And if you don't study the results objectively it is easy to make biased judgements about whether something works or not–not just easy, it is something humans are especially prone to, and it is why we invented science, to help us separate what is true from what merely seems to be true.

If you toss a coin enough times you will manage to get 8 tails in a row--but that doesn't prove that you have a superior coin tossing technique. Same goes for winning medals. We can't assume causality for NTS rather than mere correlation even if we do win. And, as you point out, NTS could be a system that works for just some body types but doesn't for others, perhaps even causing injury. So even if one could prove causality for NTS and medals, that doesn't necessarily show us the downside, people leaving the sport due to politics, intransigence on the part of the program or even injury caused or exacerbated by NTS. It is a complex problem, and not one easily solved. And it is why I take any claims of "bio mechanical efficiency" with a grain of salt. And even if something is bio mechanically efficient that doesn't mean it is good for you--efficient and safe are not synonymous any more than expedient and safe are.



limbwalker said:


> For all those who are protective of the emporer's clothes, I encourage you to carefully read what I am writing too. I'm not criticizing NTS - only the process through which it's being applied and the silly politics that are being played surrounding it. Again, it's become a "litmus test" of whether "you're with us, or again' us..." and we just don't have room for that in this sport. That mindset will be the death of USArchery if we're not careful.


Yes. Any system that claims to be scientific and evidence based must be open to criticism, that is how we learn and improve things, not by creating a system which claims to be scientific but that supporter's reflexively rush to protect from evidence based inquiry. We don't need a Lysenko style system of archery.



limbwalker said:


> Coaching level certifications should be a process of review through a board of qualified people who can collectively evaluate a coach's experience, people skills, demonstrated aptitude for a number of aspects of coaching, potential, etc.


That sounds like a fine idea, but that same concept, poorly implemented, can be ideal for creating politicized levels. (Quality of) execution is everything.




limbwalker said:


> It's an embarassment to the program to have some coaches with level 3 or 4 certifications that couldn't tune a bow or shot their way out of a paper sack, and yet we have them. Likewise, there are plenty of world class coaches in this country with ZERO coaching certifications through USArchery. Is that what we really want?
> 
> John


I'm just down in the trenches where people are having fun with archery  , but it certainly seems the case that many good instructors get a level 2 to satisfy basic insurance requirements and such and skip the extra certs as being a hassle they don't need until forced by some specific demand, if at all, to get a higher level cert.


----------



## Matt Z

You bring up a good point on direct coaching, would Lee then become the most medaled coach over Lloyd (we'd have to include Australia)?

And I overlooked the Olympic context of Rick's original post, I was referring to World Cup and even National results over the last few years(my bad). But also by that context, the Korean men are mediocre... and we all know that's not the case


----------



## limbwalker

> would Lee then become the most medaled coach over Lloyd


Well, I'd say if Lloyd was Justin Huish's coach, then coach Lee has a ways to go yet. Simon was already a world champion archer. Lee certainly gets credit for Tim and David and our men's team in 2012. But what are Tim and David doing now? Where is the Australian program now? And where, oh where, have the women EVER been under Lee's instruction? Because, let's not forget, there are more than just men who shoot archery for team USA.

John


----------



## Jimmy Blackmon

I hinted at this above but perhaps I should be more direct. KSL had an archer that had proven that he was "capable" of winning the Gold medal but what happened? Naturally, it was a very high pressure situation and that is where a coach is critical. He makes the athlete that is "capable" able to perform at his potential. He also had a team that was "capable" of winning the gold medal but he stood there as they celebrated securing the silver like they had just won the gold. They had a serious task in front of them and they were "capable" of winning gold. Again, coach, snap them back on task and let's shoot some strong shots. I was disappointed with the outcome of this olympics but I do not blame the athletes. They are young and that's about as high as the pressure gets. They needed a coach, not a friend, not a guy who did the coaching in practice. Just my take. With that and a dollar you can get a cup of coffee.


----------



## TexARC

write your own dialogue based on body language and the target. And would _you_ adjust your vertical ?


----------



## Matt Z

limbwalker said:


> Well, I'd say if Lloyd was Justin Huish's coach, then coach Lee has a ways to go yet. Simon was already a world champion archer. Lee certainly gets credit for Tim and David and our men's team in 2012. But what are Tim and David doing now? Where is the Australian program now? And where, oh where, have the women EVER been under Lee's instruction? Because, let's not forget, there are more than just men who shoot archery for team USA.


Hey, I thought we were just comparing Olympic medals?!?


----------



## chang

If Olympic medal is the only concern, Performance (hence results) of the Sth Korean (or even Nth Korean) systems are indeed remarkable and efficient.

Badminton was once a very popular community level sport in Malaysia, probably still is, in the late 70's, this community found itself struggled to compete internationaly with China. later, Chinese system was introduced, and results were shown immediately on the modal count, at the time, It did make sense to focus all efforts on one technique, and let the few top coaches to concentrate on producing results. 

What people did not realized at the time, was the impact to recreational community from a top-centric system that it copied. , It took many years for the community to realize putting all resources and efforts centered arround a few top coaches and althletes, was not the best way to promote the sport at the community level. Before the system was introduced, the community found itself competed internationally with a government owned system, now found itself competed with the same system nationally. The word "recovery" was mentioned many years after the system was adjacted to a more balanced approach. what was learnt from the earlier experiense, was that celebratie coaches need to be "managed" properly to harmonize them with a culturally and structurally different community.

Badminton may have nothing to do with archery, and Malaysia is a totally different country. it was just another case how a different system was adapted.


----------



## limbwalker

Jimmy, I believe you, and Ron, are on to something.


----------



## limbwalker

> What people did not realized at the time, was the impact to recreational community from a top-centric system that it copied. , It took many years for the community to realize putting all resources and efforts centered arround a few top coaches and althletes, was not the best way to promote the sport at the community level.


And this is where we find ourselves now. 

Look, if you encourage and grow the sport at the community level, the stars will rise to the top because they will have more competition from more places. 

Beyond a certain point, success in the archer lies with the archer, not the coach. Just ask Butch, Vic, Joe, Jason, Thomas, and so many other archers who have achieved tremendous levels basically on their own.

So, if success lies ultimately with the archer, then the solution for a productive national program is MORE ARCHERS, not a new coaching method.

John


----------



## TexARC

My previous set of photos to educate notwithstanding, one of the goals for Tom Parrish, if I can be so rude as to speculate what was in his mind - is that 
1) America's method of producing unique, individual archery champions was "in the past" as far as his charts showed, and
2) If we were going to create a pipeline of excellent youths (yewts) who could both shoot well, and not have to be totally re-written as archers when they got to the OTC, then we needed to have something better than the uniquity that Rick, Jay Barrs, Darrell, Butch, and Vic were the excellent example of. What worked for them could not be taught in a cookie cutter way around the country and still yield gold medals. At the time, there was ample absence of Americans on the steps of world championships and oly medals to lead many to conclude there "was something wrong" with American methods of coaching excellence.
3) Perhaps we should simply have determined to be more rigorous in teach coaches to be excellent so they could ninja the oddballs when they arrived at the OTC, and let things flow from that.
4) Regardless, here and now we have a "system" that is trying to establish a way for kid "a" in Alabama to get basic instruction that insures they shoot their best, and if they want to go further, they are not slapped in the face with a huge fish (a la Monty Python) and told that they have to learn all over again.
5)I believe that a well trained and wise coach (and I hope others agree that I am such, but to heck with those that think otherwise) can employ the NTS without naming it as such and develop a happy and satisfied archer/family. If the kid goes on to the next level, I want him/her to have no reason to think I failed them in preparation. If that means adhering to the NTS, then how have I failed that archer, as long as I have mentored excellence and satisfaction in the athlete? She will, I firmly believe, be a safer, less injury prone, more positive, more effective, player of the sport of flinging arrows. Her parents will be taught also by me how to be proper, supportive yet not "soccer parent" rabidly weirdos. <ahem>
People who think "NTS" is the only way are seeing a rainbow in monochrome. The guts of NTS can be a Pink Floyd polychromatic wonder of a rainbow if they have the prism and horsepower to use in applying the tools in it, its precepts ad hoc. 
Teach what works. Find ways when that doesn't. 
I am still looking for any significant way in which I cannot apply the NTS pieces to *any* archer. 

John, you know me and a lot of my philosophy of mentoring. How can teaching the precepts of what is called the NTS or the BEST or the Don Rabska School of Archery be wrong if it lessens injury, improves uniformity, promotes sound aspects of excellence, and does not HAVE to be the ONLY thing that is taught by a wise coach? where is it written in the books of Kisik, "MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY"? - If we were talking about a similar book written by an American Coaching Poobah, then sayin' that, yeah, I'd expect such a stupid quote.<G> 
In a way, I think in the distant past, that's the American coaching system (he said with a grin) and NOT the Kisik way, for the most part. If I have an athlete that MIGHT be able to make the JUSAT I owe it to her/him to prepare same for the next step. I don't want her or him having to strip down technique just to make it to the next ring of the pursuit.

I for one want as many coaching arrows in my quiver as possible.


----------



## Warbow

TexARC said:


> 4) Regardless, here and now we have a "system" that is trying to establish a way for kid "a" in Alabama to get basic instruction that insures they shoot their best, and if they want to go further, they are not slapped in the face with a huge fish (a la Monty Python) and told that they have to learn all over again.


The simple solution would be to train the top coaches not to slap kids in the face with fish (figuratively speaking). Perhaps we shouldn't be worrying so much about teaching coaching skills to our coaches but basic fairness and people skills? :dontknow:


----------



## gairsz

We were down at the SoCal showdown this past week end. You guys are ruffling feathers with this thread. 

My son spent the bether part of the last five years working on this system, as well as in the system. It was very good for him and he had great success with it and then things changed. I am not sure what. Long holds, and in consistant execution. We have been told he has target panic. He has been working very hard to reduce his aim time and execution time after watching the Olympics. Holding is not in his vocablary anymore. In Canada and at the SoCal he was the first one off the line. In most of his matches he had three arrows on the target while his opponent had not shot their second arrow. It has been very difficult to leave holding behind after training that way for five years. It's early so we have no idea if we are going in the right direction. 

Well, what I am trying to get to is, we were told by Lee that there are many ways to shoot high scores, just look at the Koreans. The reason his method is better is because it is better under pressure. I just don't see that now.

Am I missing something?

Gary


----------



## limbwalker

> We were down at the SoCal showdown this past week end. You guys are ruffling feathers with this thread


So? If they do in fact believe they have "the answer," then it should be pretty easy to dismiss the chatter here. 

Gary, I don't believe you are missing anything. I believe that some are beginning to see just how few clothes that the emporer is actually wearing. One day, the emporer will realize this as well, and he's gonna be pissed at the tailor who told him he looked great in those clothes  



> Holding is not in his vocablary anymore.


So then perhaps Tim Strickland had it right all along? ha, ha.

Ron, I hear what you're saying. But you keep citing "it lessens injury." Please cite some facts to support that. Because I don't believe this is true. If your sample size is one, then I believe you. But my sample size (firsthand knowlege, mind you) is more than that.



> where is it written in the books of Kisik, "MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY


It isn't. It's not his book where this is written. It's with USArchery. Coach Lee is smart enough to realize that there is no such thing as "one way." However, I'm not sure all our leadership in USArchery understands that, and being expected to teach NTS in order to attain higher levels of certification in the U.S. is proof of this. That is absurd. Here's an example: so far, Larry Skinner's "total muscle control" approach has produced as many Olympic medals as has coach Lee's method. So why aren't we being told to teach this as well?

Four top 10 finishes in four consecutive Olympic games? I think that's worth studying.

Do we really think that the variation in individual form showing up at the OTC is our problem? If so, then explain the GOLD MEDAL WINNING ITALIAN TEAM, please.

If it's inconvenient for a coach to have to learn and understand multiple shooting styles, then perhaps what we need is not a coach, but rather a team manager to accompany these elite athletes to events, and a way for them to have their personal coaches present when they feel they need them.

John


----------



## chang

I think the arguement is not about whether there should be a "system" that establish a way, but how the way is defined? from whom? for whom?


----------



## rpdjr45

What difference does it make at this point? The man has be re-hired. The only way to force his hand is to fight like hell to change the Olympic team selection. If an individual scores a qualifying score at any "one" of say, five tournament, six, seven? Put them all on the line and take the top three or four men and women. If you have eight archers, and each has his own coach, then eight coaches are going with them. I think the current system is rigged; designed to keep the "nonbelievers" out. I would rather see the best person win then to have best person who played by the system's one sided rules win. "You shot better than Bambam, but Bambam did everything he was told to do for the last three years, so he's earned it by doing more, even though his score sucked."


----------



## Joe Pf

-Vittorio-
"Long time ago I have figured out what is the most efficient and repetitive technique to draw a bow, and I have not changed mind since then. Basically, is the technique that comes more natural and used by 90% of world archers, pprobbaly because is less energy demanding. The real secrets are in how to make it really repetitive, how to reproduce it on different archers and how to dominate it under the head to head stress. An I have NOT changed mind about it in the last 7 years, since THA has been published. I admit for a certain period of time i have had some doubts. But then I have analized the shootng techniques of almost all top level shooters, and allof them have been confirming my theories in part or in full. "

How do I find out more about your technique? I am fairly new to recurve shooting and would like to know more. When someone much more experienced than me speaks. I listen.
Thanks, Joe


----------



## Jimmy Blackmon

In the end the coach can completely believe in his coaching program, but when we allow him to manipulate the entire system that produces the athlete and the selection system for the Olympic team shame on us. Particularly, when the tailored systems may not be, but gives the perception that, it ensures self-preservation. 

I do not know Kisik so I will not publicly judge him as a person, that would be wrong, but I can see how this system can and will become a detriment to the U.S. archery program. Anytime you develop a program that demands one way or all roads are closed you prevent the system from improving. The thing that has benefitted America as a nation is our creativity and innovation. Many nations, China in particular, envy our innovation. The ability to think, conceive, try and even fail in the end yields a living and learning nation. In the case of archery, the day we say that the youth programs have to teach a particular form, the coaches can only be credentialed on a particular form, to enter the Olympic Development program you have to mimic that form, and to make the Oly team you must shoot that form and be in the program already we have stifled what makes us strong. Yes, over time you can develop some very good archers with a proven system, but you have ended what makes us great. This program goes against our culture in my opinion.

This nation is about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We believe that all men should be equal and have a fair shot. What has made America strong is the fact that a man believes that if he works hard he has a chance. This program goes against that very fabric. What about the guy that has some talent and at 30 is at a point in his life where he can give it a go so he trains hard in hopes that at 35 he can make a go at the team? If we let this program become exclusive then he never enters the first tourney and he knows he can't make the team. 

Okay, enough. I believe you have to have a standard to make the trials. In marathoning there is a qualifying time. If you run that time then you make the trials and if you make the trials the top three on game day make the team. You could have a min score and then open the door for the trials. If you are top 3 on trials day then you make the team. Yes, this means from time to time you get a guy that has a monster day on trails day but it was fair and that gives hope to all. It's not a closed fraternity.


----------



## limbwalker

For the record, I have no problem with the trials process as it was run this past year. It was fair and open and the best archers earned their spots. Some may see it differently, but from my perspective - and I was there for two of the three events - it was plenty fair and the boys from SoCal were our best archers this go-round. Good for them, and good for coach Lee for helping them achieve that.

But coaching at a full-time training center, and coaching out in the real world are two COMPLETELY different things. You can get results with full time archers you will never get with recreational or part-time archers just through sheer repetition and because you have a constant set of eyes on their form. 

When you can't see a student more than once/week or once/month, that's when you find out whether the form you're teaching them holds up, is easily learned, and is repeatable. And in that situation, I prefer to keep it as simple as possible. If I can see a student several times/week, then more complex and advanced moves can be incorporated. But only then.

So, even the same archer can and will need different styles of coaching. Just depends on their personal situation.

John


----------



## Jimmy Blackmon

I don't want to be misunderstood, I also think the best archers made the team. My points are not about the shooters at all. I think this team could have won the gold team and Brady could certainly have won the gold. I truly believe that. My concern is with the idea that in order to be a credentialed coach you would have to learn and only teach a specific form taught and endorsed at the OTC; that all coaches of kids must teach this and then that you would have to train at the OTC and compete at X number of world events to qualify for the team in addition to the trials.


----------



## limbwalker

Jimmy, I am not sure it is written anywhere that teaching NTS is a "must" but rather, it is implied and expected. 

What I object to is the mentality that if you aren't "on board" with the NTS as the "best" way, then you will be marginalized in our current system. Again, it's being used as a litmus test for whether you're for the "program" or against it, which I think is silly and short-sighted. 

If the leadership within USArchery would simply say that coach Lee's method is the preferred method being taught at the OTC, but there are also many other successful methods being taught in the U.S. and archers are encouraged to find the system that works best for them, then I'm all for that. 

Declaring coach Lee's method to be so successful that we are adopting it as the "National Training System" for archery is premature IMO. We're so anxious to show progress and to show consistency. Why? Let the scores speak for themselves. If coach Lee's system is the best system for strong, athletic young men, then fine. Let the strong athletic young men go to him and learn that style of shooting. However, I am not convinced it's the right system for any other demographic, yet. And I'm absolutely not convinced it's what we need to be teaching our recreational archers because of the complexity - both physically and technically. 

Every four years ( two if you want to include the world championships ) we get to take stock of which shooting styles are the most successful. It's a data set that is free and open to anyone in the world. So lets just do the math, crunch the numbers, so to speak, and run the statistics. Then we'll have our answer. 

So far, I don't see where the majority of top level archers are contorting themselves and going through many technical steps to execute a shot. What I see is that simple still wins the "majors." 

John


----------



## kshet26

I'd like to see a wiki setup for archery shooting styles. Maybe organized by top finishers in major world events, with breakdowns of their form as well as video of them in action. I would imagine that patterns would become evident.


----------



## limbwalker

It would be nice to see, but finding someone who can objectively "label" the form an archer uses could be tough.

I'd trust Rick and Vittorio to do that though, as neither have a vested interest in promoting one particular technique over another.

John


----------



## bownut-tl.

John,

This may be a silly question but, are you implying that the "simple shooting process" that I keep reading about, has very few technical steps. When I was taught years ago by Don Rabska, John Ray, and a few other old guys and used Rick M's book, there were just as many detailed steps. Some different than NTS but most were the same. 

Just curious about this one: Do you teach the same process to a recreational shooter as you would to someone that wants to go much further and become competitive or do you get into more detail with the competitive shooter?

Terry


----------



## limbwalker

> Every four years ( two if you want to include the world championships ) we get to take stock of which shooting styles are the most successful. It's a data set that is free and open to anyone in the world. So lets just do the math, crunch the numbers, so to speak, and run the statistics. Then we'll have our answer.


I'll add to this that then we'll have our answer for elite archers. Recreational archers are still a whole other ballgame.

In my mind, we have two types of students. 

1) The student with highly competitive goals that is willing to see a coach often enough to really work through complex technique and develop the strength and stamina to make it work.

2) The student that thinks archery is a fun hobby that they don't take too seriously, but they also don't want to suck at it either.

About 70% of my students over the years have been in category 2. Trying to teach them a complex shooting method like BEST/NTS is very counterproductive. You simply don't see them or have enough 1 on 1 time with them to go through all the steps, and there is a very strong chance they will have forgotten half of what you taught them by the next time you do see them. In this case, I argue that simple is better. Parallel lines, square stance, simple follow through, and go have fun. 

For the students in category 1, it is still tough to see them long enough to make a lot of progress in just 6 months or a year. And even then, learning BEST/NTS is no guarantee that they will ever become elite archers in their division. In fact, the statistics show that most former JDT archers are either not competing or are not ranked in the top 5 nationally.

I think enough youth have gone through the JDT and RA programs now that a study needs to be done on the programs as a whole, and some honest questions need to be asked and answered by those archers who no longer shoot, or are no longer competitive. 

In business, this is known as a 360 degree review. After 7 years, I think we're due. I know if I were the USOC, I'd want to see it. The leaders of these programs should want to see it too. It's how you address your weaknesses and get better as a program.

John


----------



## target1

unless something changes, we will more than likely see the same results, more or less in 2016. Our elite archers don't need more lessons, they know how to shoot. They need their heads coached.


----------



## limbwalker

bownut-tl. said:


> John,
> 
> This may be a silly question but, are you implying that the "simple shooting process" that I keep reading about, has very few technical steps. When I was taught years ago by Don Rabska, John Ray, and a few other old guys and used Rick M's book, there were just as many detailed steps. Some different than NTS but most were the same.
> 
> Just curious about this one: Do you teach the same process to a recreational shooter as you would to someone that wants to go much further and become competitive or do you get into more detail with the competitive shooter?
> 
> Terry


Good question Terry.

I don't believe there were as many steps. At least, not as many to remember and certainly not as many "new" phrases, terms, positions, etc. I don't see complex processes anywhere in Rick or Vittorio's books. I don't see unnatural, manufactured positions being promoted in either of those books. Rick talks about his wide open stance, but only as an example of variations that can still work. He certainly doesn't suggest that an archer must shoot that way to be successful. He uses examples of many successful styles and lets the individual try them to see what works for them. This is what I did when I learned. I went through all the styles that Rick mentioned in his book and tried them all. Eventually, the more natural one for me settled out. But believe me, I tried them all multiple times.

I think there is plenty of room in our sport for more simple, AND more complex shooting styles. Different strokes for different folks you might say. Some people are just naturally attracted to the complex and some to the simple. I think there is plenty of room for both, especially when the target is the ultimate judge. 



> unless something changes, we will more than likely see the same results, more or less in 2016. Our elite archers don't need more lessons, they know how to shoot. They need their heads coached.


Agreed.

The question could be asked - have we traded mentally tough archers with "suspect" technique for technically perfect archers with suspect mental strength. Pick your poison, I guess. Tough to have both, for sure...

One thing about home-brewed technique is that the archer who created it "owns" it. They don't need a coach to tell them when they are shooting well or not. 

Archers that are too heavily coached will have doubts when they begin to shoot poorly about whether they are losing their "technique" or not. It's not organic and their body is always fighting to stay "in form." 

You see this all the time on the PGA tour. Golfers who are over-coached and have "perfect" golf swings are a dime a dozen. However, those aren't usually the guys who win majors. The guys who win majors take their home-grown swing - tweaked here and there by a coach - and win with it. Mentally, I think it's a stronger position to be in. And top coaches in golf are the ones that can take a home-grown technique and SHOW the golfer why it works, and what things to watch out for when it doesn't. 

Anyone that doesn't think golf and archery are comparable, think again. We can learn a LOT about coaching by scouring the PGA professionals and seeing what they've learned. Golf also has their share of "celebrity coaches" with their own styles. They also argue ad nauseum about what's better - a one-plane or two-plane swing, etc., etc. and there are top coaches that coach all styles. But in the long run, it's the golfers with the most confidence in their own shot that wins. And that means they own it.


----------



## gairsz

target1 said:


> unless something changes, we will more than likely see the same results, more or less in 2016. Our elite archers don't need more lessons, they know how to shoot. They need their heads coached.


They did have their heads coached. Brady, Jake, Jacob, and Miranda worked with the Bassham team.


----------



## rpdjr45

Yep, to Limbwalker, again. The individual has to make it work for them. If the archer snap shoots and hits tens, stop trying to get them to hold for 4 seconds. If they draw back straight, then quit trying to make them do the whirl-a-gig swing around. I swear that the population of the earth would be reduced significantly if we let the experts tell us how to have sex the "right way" or the BEST way, instead of letting us just do it!:kiss::kiss:


----------



## Seattlepop

Vittorio said:


> This is exactly what average archers (and coaches) do NOT understand properly. As the final result at the end of the draw cycle must be a perfect balance of all forces involved, to be able to be steady in the gold in the final aiming phase, front side (bow side) muscle and bow weight have to be compensated by back side (drawing side) muscles.
> Reltionships becomes in this way more evident:
> - High front shoulder = low drawing shoulder, low drawing muscles involved
> - Low front shoulder = High drawing muscles (not shoulder!) involved
> - High front shoulder = high grip
> - Low front shoulder = low grip
> - Low front shoulder = more bow weight needed
> - High front shoulder = less bow weight needed
> - Holding line out in front of the archer = more open stance needed
> - Holding line in close to body = less open stance needed
> - Side drawing line = more open stance needed
> - Target drawing line = less open stance needed
> As any of the above sentences are related to analog values and not to digital ones, it should be clear that drawing cycles and corrsponding bow/stabilizers and grips combinations are almost infinite in the real world.
> So, a coach can follow the high front/low back philosophy (Mr. Lee's one) and say it is more efficient than the low front / high back philosophy (mine), and viceversa. But of course must be prepared to handle all the infinite variations between the two extremes in order to be able to better help his archers if they can't go the desired extremes for phisical reasons. Good coaching is finding the right compromise for your archer, not to stick on one single solution, if it does not work.
> 
> P.S.
> It is very easy to guess why front high/back low can't work for the majority of the ladies ... They usually have brests, so it is very difficult to built for them such line ... (big body men being in same condition, of course)


P. 85 of Inside the Archer specifically says: "the bow arm shoulder is down and forward", with a picture showing a low bow shoulder and arrow pointing downward to emphasis a low front shoulder. Seems to me you are both in agreement regarding the low front shoulder.


----------



## target1

gairsz said:


> They did have their heads coached. Brady, Jake, Jacob, and Miranda worked with the Bassham team.


and the results were?


----------



## limbwalker

> Seems to me you are both in agreement regarding the low front shoulder


Yes, of course there are common elements to all good archers. But the list is not really that long or detailed. 

You could also say "low front shoulder = good posture, a.k.a. not leaning back" and accomplish the same thing with fewer specific directions.

One simple phrase I offer my students "keep your hips under your shoulders and over your feet" takes care of so many details that could otherwise be labeled, analyzed and renamed...

John


----------



## Seattlepop

Seattlepop said:


> P. 85 of Inside the Archer specifically says: "the bow arm shoulder is down and forward", with a picture showing a low bow shoulder and arrow pointing downward to emphasis a low front shoulder. Seems to me you are both in agreement regarding the low front shoulder.





limbwalker said:


> Yes, of course there are common elements to all good archers. But the list is not really that long or detailed.
> 
> You could also say "low front shoulder = good posture, a.k.a. not leaning back" and accomplish the same thing with fewer specific directions.
> 
> One simple phrase I offer my students "keep your hips under your shoulders and over your feet" takes care of so many details that could otherwise be labeled, analyzed and renamed...
> 
> John


Wow, 10 whole minutes to issue a deflection from something positive about NTS. Did I catch you on a coffee break?


----------



## limbwalker

Are you wanting to get personal here?


----------



## bownut-tl.

John,

Your right about the use of simple phrases. However, sometimes a name works just as well. In your example, I call it posture. When I just tell the archer to remember their posture, they make the adjustments you are talking about. I could have called it KYHUYSAOYF but posture seemed to work just as well and was a bit easier to remember and pronounce. Just like Lan2. I know a lot of folks have problems with that term so I will change it to "ASOTSATBOTDAATTOTWATE". That acronym explains where it is. It is also just as easy to simply point to it and say "we call that spot on the skin...Lan2". It took me five minutes to explain it to a 12 year old (what it is, where it is, why we use, and how to use it). Since then, all I have to say is focus on Lan2 and she knows exactly what I mean. Now we can move on to the next subject. It's a process so we take it one or more pieces at a time and do a lot of review. 

Terry


----------



## Jimmy Blackmon

gairsz said:


> They did have their heads coached. Brady, Jake, Jacob, and Miranda worked with the Bassham team.


It's not about a seminar at the training center. It's about jerking them out of the funk at the moment. Look at the pictures that were posted of Brady's arrows and him making the adjustment. It wasn't the bow. I could be wrong but I bet you that he had entered the domain Tim talks about in the interview I did http://archersparadoxdotorg.wordpress.com/ He was trying to place them in the middle because he felt like he "had" to. At that point the harder you try the worse it gets. That is why the coach is standing there on the line with him.


----------



## bownut-tl.

Part of the problem THEY had was trying to read the wind when they often couldn't feel it and the two windsocs were saying different things and often weren't consistent from shot to shot. When they could feel it, the windsocs were often useless.


----------



## Chris RL

That's Lords for ya :angel:


----------



## gairsz

bownut-tl. said:


> Part of the problem THEY had was trying to read the wind when they often couldn't feel it and the two windsocs were saying different things and often weren't consistent from shot to shot. When they could feel it, the windsocs were often useless.


Wouldn't that be a problem for everyone?


----------



## bownut-tl.

gairsz said:


> Wouldn't that be a problem for everyone?


Yes and no. Each archer responds differently and it depends upon what is happening when the arrow is about to be released or after it is gone. When one target bail reads different than the other and the one your at reads different than you thought it would, things happen. It doesn't take many 8's or 7's or a 4 to end things. The yes part could be why some archers also shot 8's 7's, 6's, 5's, and others.


----------



## ArtV

So, John, I'm confused. Just what is your style of teaching, or style of shooting. Do I assume what is comfortable for the archer? Natural for the archer? or just pick one and it's ok? I curious what your entente objective is or are just against someone saying "this is the only way" to shoot a bow?

Art


----------



## limbwalker

Art, you are correct. I am against anyone saying that "this is the only way" or even "this is the best way" to shoot a bow because I am a scientist and the data simply does not prove this to be true. The data shows that there are MANY ways to shoot successfully, and that the "way" for an archer depends largely on that archer, their physique, their capacity to learn, their ability (or willingness) to train, etc. 

My style of teaching is in fact what's comfortable and natural for the archer. I try to get them to achieve the positions that we all know are critical to shooting well. I do this by explaining the benefits that can be achieved if they can assume certain postures, positions, pressure points, etc. If they can't however, I don't push them or make them feel like a failure because they don't look like certain high profile archers. I work with whatever they can do. But certainly comfortable and natural are almost always more consistent and repeatable. Especially under pressure. 

As coaches, we have "goals" for an archer to get to in terms of form and technique, but to insist that the same goal is going to work for everyone is not paying close attention to the facts. And I have little tolerance for that. 

IMO, the very best coaches can see the strenghts and weaknesses in every style of shooting, emphasize the strengths and minimize the affects of the weaknesses, but still allow that archer to be themselves.

Terry, I hear ya, and I admit some of my resistance is simply due to the requirement to learn even more new terms, sequences, etc. when I felt that we already had all the information we needed here in the U.S., if it had just been allowed to rise to the surface. 

Anyone that thinks the changes in coaching didn't have as much or more to do with politics as it did with archery are naive. We had the knowlege right here in the U.S. The data proves that. Darrell Pace, Rick McKinney, Jay Barrs, Justin Huish, Butch Johnson, Rod White, Vic Wunderle, Denise Parker, Jenny Nichols and Miranda Leek have all proved that. They have not gone anywhere. They are still here, in the U.S. and still very much capable of improving our program if invited into the discussion. But then, it would be "our" program, and not someone elses. So, a lot of what we're seeing is really about control.

John


----------



## target1

preach it bro....


----------



## Rick McKinney

gairsz said:


> They did have their heads coached. Brady, Jake, Jacob, and Miranda worked with the Bassham team.


As I have said before, each archer must be analyzed to decide what mental program would work for that particular person. One single program does not work for everyone.

(quote=bo-nuti)Part of the problem THEY had was trying to read the wind when they often couldn't feel it and the two windsocs were saying different things and often weren't consistent from shot to shot. When they could feel it, the windsocs were often useless.[/QUOTE]

Really....and you believe this? It sounds more like an excuse instead of a reason.


----------



## lksseven

Limbwalker said: 
_"So, a lot of what we're seeing is really about control."_

Bingo.


----------



## bownut-tl.

Rick McKinney said:


> As I have said before, each archer must be analyzed to decide what mental program would work for that particular person. One single program does not work for everyone.
> 
> (quote=bo-nuti)Part of the problem THEY had was trying to read the wind when they often couldn't feel it and the two windsocs were saying different things and often weren't consistent from shot to shot. When they could feel it, the windsocs were often useless.


Really....and you believe this? It sounds more like an excuse instead of a reason.[/QUOTE]

Yes. Since I was not in their head, I have no reason to say otherwise. If you know then so be it.


----------



## chang

Seattlepop said:


> P. 85 of Inside the Archer specifically says: "the bow arm shoulder is down and forward", with a picture showing a low bow shoulder and arrow pointing downward to emphasis a low front shoulder. Seems to me you are both in agreement regarding the low front shoulder.


Regarding "....High front shoulder = low drawing shoulder, low drawing muscles involved, Low front shoulder = High drawing muscles (not shoulder!) involved...",

I just want to make a little more comments.. 

Lowering drawing shoulder, not only allow the use of lower Trepazious, it also make more room for the draw arm to align with the DFL. so for the draw side of the body, Physically Load are less for the muscles at shoulder, back and draw arm. it is indeed an advantage. 







Action on one side of the body would normal affect the other side, 
the natural reaction of the upper body (without engaging more muscle to compensate), 
when engaging the lower trapezious ----->lower the scapular -----> Lower drawing shoulder -----> higher front shoulder. Please note, There are different between keeping shoulder down and the shoulder's natural position and reaction. 

Current BEST archers do show evident this, their bow shoulder is not just closer to the arrow both vertically and horizontally vertically, as also in Total Archery. 








Regarding bow shoulder, you can find in Ray Axford's Archery Anatomy the following:







Turning it into simple term, to make the upper body bone structure better support the front shoulder, front shoulder shall be kept down.
---under condition "1", front shoulder are being naturally kept down with minimum muscle work, and the shoulder is naturally supported by the upper body bone structures. 
---under condition "2" and "3", muscle need to work harder to actually keeping the shoulder down. 

Compare the 3 conditions with the archer's back Figure from Total Archery, I would say BEST falls into 2 or 3. and enough for me to wonder, 

engaging the lower trapezious ----->lower the scapular -----> Lower drawing shoulder -----> higher front shoulder ----> muscle load increase for front shoulder to keep it stable. 

So, it seems to me that load reliefed from one side could just fall back on another side, and are they being balanced? The muscular appearance of the BEST archers make me suspect(only suspect) otherwise.. 

In fact, with lower front shoulder and level draw shoulder, than muscle need to be used to either to lower keep the draw shoulder at the location, or the draw arm can not align with the DFL, more muscle work for the draw side...... unless one other options to allow the draw arm align with DFL ----> shift the anchor location back --> more side anchor or turning the head back (like michele).

It seems to me, one form may use only certain part of the body better, but with consequences. it is much much more likely to have different balanced solutions for different people. 

I would like to say also, All above are just basic visual anatomical analysis, not Biomechanics at all, that is the reason I would really like whats being done on Biomechanics for BEST.


----------



## bownut-tl.

I think the purpose for the photo in Total Archery was to show the archers scapula position and not the shoulders. At least that is what the photo caption says. 

Terry


----------



## chang

Hi Terry

True, it was to show the use of scapula, but, it also demonstrated the natural responce of the body (in term of shoulder relative position) when 2 scapulas arranged in this way. 

Rib bones are joined left and right, the action of lowering the back scapula, subsequently the back shoulder and tightening of lower trapezious, creates downward pressure on the draw side rib structure ---> leads to the upward action/tendancy on the opposite side. delibrated action can be done to compensate this, but muscle again need to be used. 

I believe it is a simple test everybody can try.


----------



## bownut-tl.

chang said:


> Hi Terry
> 
> True, it was to show the use of scapula, but, it also demonstrated the natural responce of the body (in term of shoulder relative position) when 2 scapulas arranged in this way.
> 
> Rib bones are joined left and right, the action of lowering the back scapula, subsequently the back shoulder and tightening of lower trapezious, creates downward pressure on the draw side rib structure ---> leads to the upward action/tendancy on the opposite side. delibrated action can be done to compensate this, but muscle again need to be used.
> 
> I believe it is a simple test everybody can try.


Just to be clear in my head, you're not saying the lower draw side scapula position, show in the photo, is set before the bow and draw arms are raised are you?

Terry


----------



## chang

Hi Terry

Regardless of the arm position and action, Lowering the scapula on one side pulls the shoulder down, what do think the opposite shoulder will respond? without delibrate muscle action.


----------



## gairsz

bownut-tl. said:


> Yes and no. Each archer responds differently and it depends upon what is happening when the arrow is about to be released or after it is gone. When one target bail reads different than the other and the one your at reads different than you thought it would, things happen. It doesn't take many 8's or 7's or a 4 to end things. The yes part could be why some archers also shot 8's 7's, 6's, 5's, and others.


Exactly. When the other archers are on their game, 8's, 7's, 6's, 5's, and lets not forget 4, will end things quickly. Isn't that why we have a set system, so the better archer can recover from a couple bad shots. It appeared to me others were just better on that day. By insinuating we lost because of the wind sounds like an excuse, or that others just got lucky. This discounts ability of the archers that beat us. Even if it is true, you just don't say it. Talking about poor form, well there it is right there. 

I heard this past weekend that our team was at a disadvantage shooting on target #1 because they could not see the wind sock on the left side, that's why we lost to the Italian team. I find that statement interesting because in all of the individual matches our shooters shot on the #2 target. Where did the advantage go? Did it switch back to target #1? I guess god decided to only blow wind on the US team.

How about this. Our team shot like champions. They represented our country like the true Olympians that they are and we are all proud of their efforts. Congratulations to the others that were just a little better on that day.

Gary


----------



## Seattlepop

limbwalker said:


> Are you wanting to get personal here?


It is what it is. Some people can take a jab, some can't. I'll stick to the issues.


----------



## limbwalker

> Wow, 10 whole minutes to issue a deflection from something positive about NTS. Did I catch you on a coffee break?


Way to "stick to the issues" there Seattle. 

Once again you fail to realize my argument. NTS is just another "method" that is being rolled out. It is one of many methods that have been used with success. One can argue how much success, but clearly it works for a percentage of the archery population. I've yet to be convinced that it is appropriate to teach a method so specific and physically challenging to female archers, younger archers, or recreational archers who will not be under the supervision of an experienced coach on a regular basis. That's my point. Not that it can't work, but rather it simply hasn't proven itself to work in those situations, and those situations encompass a HUGE and very critical component of our archery community. Because those areas (women, youth and recreational archers) are where we need to grow. We've already had strong, athletic young men shooting competitively in this country for decades. And guess what. That's still what we have.

John


----------



## limbwalker

Chang, someone had better hurry up and tell Butch he is being biomechanically inefficient with that high elbow! ha, ha.  Let's see... 5 consecutive Olympic teams after age 32, a gold and bronze Olympic medal, indoor world record, 2nd in the U.S. at age 56. If his method is biomechanically inefficient, just imagine what he could have done with the "right" coach.


----------



## Vittorio

The discussion is surely on of the ...best ... seen here since years .. 
So let me introduce you another variable to complicate the analysis even more... 
"an archer not only has to draw in the bow in the most efficient way, but his anchor point has also to be as stable as possible and as repetitive as possible during the aiming, no to mention the "click and release" phase, too". 

For sure, we have already seen that the balance of the forces at the end of the traction can be reached by almost infinite alignemnt positions of the front and back shoulder, but then, unfortunately, the archer also has to handle the small movement neded to "click" the cliker, and is here that the different alignements give their positive or negative effect in consistency, in both the pushing and pulling techniques.


----------



## unclejane

I've been following the thread with a lot of interest. I'm just getting back into shooting again and didn't realize there was this controversy in coaching about any _the_ way to shoot and individual ways to shoot. I'm kind of with limbwalker, tho. I've learned to do a lot of different things over the years and I think the only skill where individual "variations" don't work out too well is flying an airplane. There, you have a very definite _the_ way to do things and taking personal license can be expensive in the best case and deadly in the worst.

Apart from that, I also agree that there's little evidence that rigid approaches win out over flexible ones. 

As for archery, I wonder about persons like myself. I'm older (approaching 50) and (maybe permanantly) injured in the right shoulder so may never be able to shoot higher poundages again. I realize I'll probably never be competitive and will be a recreational archer till the bitter end, but I still want to learn to shoot well. That is, I'd like to really learn to do it the right way (for me) and continually get better. As a competitor, I don't care about shooting better than someone else, but only about shooting better than _I_ did each time, session to session and even end to end. 

Right now I'm similar to Butch J. in that I'm essentially teaching myself, but that's going to break down after a while. Eventually I might want to consult a coach to get some independent training in order to improve.

I'm curious where someone like myself would fit in as a student? I.e. should I even bother trying to find a coach? etc.

LS


----------



## lksseven

John,

To extend your point about coaching the archer, not the textbook - since no one else's tendons, skeletal structure, muscle attachment points/lengths, inner eye/spatial awareness, are arranged in the exact same measurements/angles as Butch's, his unique form is probably the most bio mechanically efficient form *for him*, as dictated by his body, and confirmed by his 'body of work'.


----------



## bownut-tl.

gairsz said:


> Exactly. When the other archers are on their game, 8's, 7's, 6's, 5's, and lets not forget 4, will end things quickly. Isn't that why we have a set system, so the better archer can recover from a couple bad shots. It appeared to me others were just better on that day. By insinuating we lost because of the wind sounds like an excuse, or that others just got lucky. This discounts ability of the archers that beat us. Even if it is true, you just don't say it. Talking about poor form, well there it is right there.
> 
> I heard this past weekend that our team was at a disadvantage shooting on target #1 because they could not see the wind sock on the left side, that's why we lost to the Italian team. I find that statement interesting because in all of the individual matches our shooters shot on the #2 target. Where did the advantage go? Did it switch back to target #1? I guess god decided to only blow wind on the US team.
> 
> How about this. Our team shot like champions. They represented our country like the true Olympians that they are and we are all proud of their efforts. Congratulations to the others that were just a little better on that day.
> 
> Gary


Gary,

Just like Athens when elite archers were missing the target completely, I guess that is an excuse also. So be it. I only mentioned the wind since the archers said it was something that affected them. If folks want to call that an excuse, OK. Also, it being the set system is irrelevant. You can't tell the wind when and when not to blow or change direction or anything else. 

Terry


----------



## lksseven

from Vittorio:
_"For sure, we have already seen that the balance of the forces at the end of the traction can be reached by almost infinite alignemnt positions of the front and back shoulder, but then, unfortunately, the archer also has to handle the small movement neded to "click" the cliker, and is here that the different alignements give their positive or negative effect in consistency, in both the pushing and pulling techniques."_

I'm very interested in hearing a discussion about this. I've been told that Butch's way is to rotate minutely his chin to achieve clicker release, and I swear I've seen Park Sung Hyun several times get through the clicker by slowly drawing back the tendon of her pinky finger on her bowhand. I just figured that this piece of the puzzle was completely personal, and that the best archers were the ones who could most consistently achieve an anchor point that got them to within a gnat's eyelash of being through the clicker, so that 'just thinking about expansion' was enough to set off the clicker (kinda like how Winston Churchill use to describe his martini recipe as "8 parts gin, and I _think_ about the vermouth for a moment").


----------



## lksseven

_"... I only mentioned the wind since the archers said it was something that affected them. If folks want to call that an excuse, OK. Also, it being the set system is irrelevant. You can't tell the wind when and when not to blow or change direction or anything else. "_

I've never heard a good quarterback or tennis player mention that the wind consistently picked up more during their motion than during their opponents' motion, and therefore had a more negative effect on them than on their opponents. 

Is it possible that swirling wind could play a 'luck' factor one time in a critical moment (such as in a one arrow shootoff)? Sure. Is it even remotely likely that the wind played a consistently punishing factor for 3 specific archers (all from the same country), spread over multiple instances, and over multiple days? Come ooooonnnn.

And, in any case, that contention begs the question of what about the Americans' form/shooting philosophy made it more susceptible to the wind than that of arguably lesser archers who advanced past the Americans and deeper into the brackets (unless you're going to contend that 'wind bad luck' was the exclusive experience of the 3 Americans)? My personal opinion is that what made them inordinately vulnerable to the wind disrupting their pace and shot making, was being overbowed, in that they were unable, at the limbweights they were pulling, to have the strength reserves to extend their holding times to wait out the wind and still be able to control/dominate the shot.


----------



## limbwalker

If you watch video of Butch closely, you can see the head rotation as he comes through the clicker. I am not aware whether this is something he teaches his students, or if it's unique to him, and he just leaves it at that. 

LS, if you can find a qualified coach, then by all means spend some time with them. But be careful how you choose your coaches. You might want to do some background on them and see who else they are coaching, whether they themselves were ever a journeyman archer, etc. No two coaches are alike, no matter what system they are teaching. You have to find someone you have confidence in and can communicate with. I know some level 4 coaches that I wouldn't send anyone to, and some elite coaches that have no USArchery level designation - so just because they have the "level..." designation doesn't really mean that much IMO.

One of the best ways to go about this is to learn to coach yourself. You can do this by studying form videos online, reading books and comparing what you're doing to those. I encourage my archers to learn to coach themselves because I can't be there for them all the time. I want them to use mirrors and video to "check" themselves ocassionally. So it's my job to communicate what we're after, and their job to get there. 

Four books I would recommend, in order of value (to me) are 1) Rick McKinney's "The Simple Art of Winning" 2) Vittorio and Michele Frangilli's "The Heretic Archer" 3) Ki Sik Lee's "Total Archery" and 4) Richard Carella's instruction manual for using the Formaster training aid. If you can digest all those and try a little of this and a little of that, eventually you'll find your preferences and what's most consistent for you.

I coached myself to an Olympic team in 2004 primarily by studying video of myself and comparing it to the few videos that were available online at the time. I also read, read and re-read Rick McKinney's book until I knew it by heart. 

Quite a few other adults have coached themselves to a very high level as well. Larry (post above) is one of them. But at first, if one is available, I'd recommend you find a coach you get along with and that has good credentials, and work with them. 

John


----------



## unclejane

Ok thanks John. Rick McKinney's book I've always wanted to read but just never got round to it. I'll check out the other references also.

I'm still working on the hump of my right shoulder injury, mainly trying to gauge if it's truly chronic and whether I'll be able to shoot high enough poundage for longer yardages. I've worked up to around 20# holding weight with my Win&Win and so far I can shoot until I'm tired with only very vestigial signs of pain (basically soreness). 

So I'm getting that out of the way first before making any other significant investments. I think my self-coached form is so far good for avoiding injury (I think I've discovered one thing that was part of the original cause). After that, I'd still love to have an informed observer watch me shoot, so that'll be the next step.

Thanks,
LS


----------



## gonehuntin

I agree with what many said in this thread, I think the guys looked a tad off their game,

So many archers that bring "winning"experience and expectations of "winning" to any tournament can become victims of the "shooting to not miss, or shooting to NOT LOOSE" trap at any given moment. The key here is develop an athlete that has the tools to stay in the "work" that they and their coach have developed over a long range relationship together during their competition, of course everyone already knows this, I am not trying to imply that this is new news to anyone.

One thing I think about as a hurdle that up and coming competitive archers face... they work with their coach for years, get comfortable with that bond, reach goals that they set together......then, when they become "elite", they are required to go to big tournaments where a different coach is behind them as they compete, and there is no familiar connection there.

Can take them completely out of their comfort zone.... as if the stress of the "big show" wasnt enough.....

It is my opinion that when we lowly coaches bring our archers to the point of elite status, for me, the obvious next step might be about what comes next for both...... archers and their personal coaches....as a successful team. 

I also recgonize that our team this year was shooting with their coach, so, this post won't address that particular scenario, but...... just a thought.


----------



## lksseven

Just as a question of curiosity (not contention) - why do adult archers even _have_ a coach in the shooting box with them? 

Second question - if a coach in the shooting box is an integral necessary component of the endeavor, then why doesn't the coach also receive a medal if the team or individual wins one?


----------



## limbwalker

Larry, if the coach is doing their job, they can serve as a second set of eyes for the wind, a calming influence (or kick in the A** if that's what's needed too) and if it's the archer's personal coach, they can help reinforce the shot sequence which is very helpful under those conditions. I know that having Frank behind me in my match in Athens was very helpful. He knew how to keep things light and keep me focused on the things that work for me. 

However, in sports like Tennis, the coach is not allowed on the field and not allowed to "coach" the athlete during the match. Same is true for golf. So I'm not really sure why coaches are even allowed on the field in archery to be honest.

I wouldn't be against making it more like tennis or golf, where the focus is on the archer, and not so much on the coach. We already have too much focus on the coaches IMO.

John


----------



## gonehuntin

John, could you elaborate on your statement about too much emphasis on coaches.

As several posters here have stated, ya'll were at least somewhat self coached. And even in that, you are saying that having Frank with you made a difference for you in Athens. In todays sports, more often that not, archers have a good support, mentor companion. While those that do not can certainly still reach goals they set, I would never take that away from you or anyone else, but.... not having a competent coach is not an advantage in this day and age. Especially when you consider that one's competition will most likely have one. Its the when, degree, and quality of coaching that should be the focus, not if the archer has one or not.

Comparing other sports standards to archery doesn't necessarily compare apples to apples.


----------



## limbwalker

If you are a competitive golfer, you'll realize just how close the two sports are in so many ways...

Regarding coaches, I was responding to Larry's question about coaches on the field. Not about coaches in general. 

Frank was not my personal coach. He was the team coach, and as such he knew how to help each of us independently and as a team. Olympic-caliber archers rarely need a personal coach with them. By the time an archer has achieved that level of proficiency, there is very little a coach can actually "see" with their own eyes and they are almost entirely dependant on feedback from the archer. So at that point, a coach is a companion, a manager of sorts, but there is no discussion about technique. It's too late for that.

One thing that some may not have considered is that a second set of eyes can also be a second source for bad information. So, an archer may have things pretty well figured out, only to have a "coach" make them change something that didn't need to be changed in the first place. So, sometimes even though well meaning, a coach getting involved in the process can create as many problems as it solves. This is why I say there may be too much focus on the coaches. It would be interesting to see how archers would fare completely on their own during competition. I would be in support of that.

John


----------



## Warbow

limbwalker said:


> Chang, someone had better hurry up and tell Butch he is being biomechanically inefficient with that high elbow! ha, ha.  Let's see... 5 consecutive Olympic teams after age 32, a gold and bronze Olympic medal, indoor world record, 2nd in the U.S. at age 56. If his method is biomechanically inefficient, just imagine what he could have done with the "right" coach.


Well, his method may well be bio mechanically inefficient--it is certainly possible that Butch Johnson's form *is* bio mechanically inefficient.. What does bio mechanically efficient mean anyway? Most leverage? It is a concept that has more direct applications in sports that are about speed or strength rather than about accuracy. Efficient isn't synonymous with injury prevention nor does it mean that it will necessarily give an archery better scores. It is a great concept--very appealing and sciency sounding when used in context with archery--but we haven't seen (at least I haven't) data proving that A) BEST really is biomechanically efficient in all of its aspects B) that biomechanical efficiency has a 1:1 correspondence with higher scores for all archers C) that it reduces injury for all archers, or any.


----------



## Rick McKinney

Coaches in the box. It was interesting to me to watch what the coaches did. Some appeared to tell jokes and laugh with the archers or at least tried to get them to relax. Others didn’t say anything. Some were talking so seriously that they were either telling the archer to shape up, as John said (giving them a kick in the butt) or was giving them some good info on wind drift, body reaction, focus, etc. I do believe that when an archer depends too much on the coach, they become very weak in how to feel the shot and determine arrow placement due to the shot. Humans are essentially lazy anyway and since a coach is right behind them they really don’t have to be too focused on the shot since the coach will spot the archer’s weakness. Unfortunately, the coach is not as perfect as the archer has been lead to believe. The coach is nothing but a tool for the archer to use. The final decision needs to be the archer to figure out. I am not saying that you don’t need a coach, but if you didn’t bring it with you it is very doubtful you will find it at the event.

Wind at the Games. Terry, I do not know your background or your experience in these type of situations. I can say that winds are tricky and when there are stands inside a larger stadium, there can be maddening swirling winds. However, all archers have to deal with it. The one thing I noticed, and I watched about 80% of the archers shooting with a very up close international feed, I can say that the biggest difference was tense shooting versus relaxed shooting. When you are just a little tense, you could tighten your grip hand, which will cause slight rights and lefts if not some highs and lows (depending on tailwinds, headwinds versus side winds). This normally doesn’t hurt the archer only by 1 point or so when shooting 10’s, they could drop out into the 9 ring. With the winds as tricky as they were, this difference increases the possibility of 8’s, 7,s and even worse shots. The wind will eat you up if you are a bit tense, and it did show not only with some of the US archers but many other archers. Just watching the Men’s Gold Medal match, you could see a major difference between the Korean and the Japanese archer. The Korean shot such smooth and focused shots, thus the wind had little affect on the arrow. The Japanese archer was just a bit tense, not enough to see by most people but it was obvious from those who have seen 1000’s of shots beforehand. Both gave their all. The only difference was the relaxed shot versus just a bit tense. As for the Men’s Team Gold Medal match and when Michele Frangili had to shoot that last shot and some comments were stated rather poorly that the wind died down, he still had to shoot the shot of his life to put that arrow in the middle. Can you imagine what could have gone through his mind? 4 years ago, they were in the same situation and ended up that one of the Italians shot a poor shot during the last end and had to suffer the anger and frustration from his fellow countrymen for four years since they took a silver. Michele couldn’t let down due to the time restraints and he had to just focus on shooting a good shot. It was played out brilliantly and I think it was the most important shot of his life. The pressure had to be intense and yet he came through.


----------



## bownut-tl.

Rick,

I've been either lucky or unlucky in that I have never shot in swirling wind conditions. Having said that, I agree completely with you that tension can have a deciding influence on performance, especially when you add wind or, worse yet, unpredictable winds. I don't believe wind alone was the deciding factor in the USA performance but I do believe it was one of the elements that made a difference for some of them. 

Terry


----------



## BLACK WOLF

limbwalker said:


> I am against anyone saying that "this is the only way" or even "this is the best way" to shoot a bow because I am a scientist and the data simply does not prove this to be true. The data shows that there are MANY ways to shoot successfully, and that the "way" for an archer depends largely on that archer, their physique, their capacity to learn, their ability (or willingness) to train, etc.
> 
> My style of teaching is in fact what's comfortable and natural for the archer. I try to get them to achieve the positions that we all know are critical to shooting well. I do this by explaining the benefits that can be achieved if they can assume certain postures, positions, pressure points, etc. If they can't however, I don't push them or make them feel like a failure because they don't look like certain high profile archers. I work with whatever they can do. But certainly comfortable and natural are almost always more consistent and repeatable. Especially under pressure.
> 
> As coaches, we have "goals" for an archer to get to in terms of form and technique, but to insist that the same goal is going to work for everyone is not paying close attention to the facts. And I have little tolerance for that.
> 
> IMO, the very best coaches can see the strenghts and weaknesses in every style of shooting, emphasize the strengths and minimize the affects of the weaknesses, but still allow that archer to be themselves.


:thumbs_up :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF

Rick McKinney said:


> It was interesting to me to watch what the coaches did. Some appeared to tell jokes and laugh with the archers or at least tried to get them to relax. Others didn’t say anything. Some were talking so seriously that they were either telling the archer to shape up, as John said (giving them a kick in the butt) or was giving them some good info on wind drift, body reaction, focus, etc. I do believe that when an archer depends too much on the coach, they become very weak in how to feel the shot and determine arrow placement due to the shot. Humans are essentially lazy anyway and since a coach is right behind them they really don’t have to be too focused on the shot since the coach will spot the archer’s weakness. Unfortunately, the coach is not as perfect as the archer has been lead to believe. The coach is nothing but a tool for the archer to use. The final decision needs to be the archer to figure out. I am not saying that you don’t need a coach, but if you didn’t bring it with you it is very doubtful you will find it at the event.


:thumbs_up :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## target1

the winds may have "psyched" them out, but the wind going through their brains were the deciding factor. Reason? Other shooters faced the same issues yet somehow "magically" overcame them. I realize we want to take the responsibility away from the competitor and shift the blame elsewhere, but end of the day, bottom line, it is the shooters mind power that makes the succesful shot or not.


----------



## Rick McKinney

Vitorio. I like to think that the real anchor is in your back. When you draw and set your shoulder blades in the correct place your head should be positioned just right so that the string and draw hand hits just right. If your back/shoulder blades are in the right position then drawing through the clicker is simple if it is set just right. The movement of 2 or 3 mm is so small that the head or anything else should move ever so slightly that it should not be seen by the naked eye. This slight movement should not cause the sight pin to go off target. Also, the balance, as you say needs to be just right so that one side does not over react to the other side’s movement.


----------



## chang

limbwalker said:


> Chang, someone had better hurry up and tell Butch he is being biomechanically inefficient with that high elbow! ha, ha.  Let's see... 5 consecutive Olympic teams after age 32, a gold and bronze Olympic medal, indoor world record, 2nd in the U.S. at age 56. If his method is biomechanically inefficient, just imagine what he could have done with the "right" coach.


Hi John

My physio-therapist once told me this:
"If you let your body stand up right, your chest and shoulder in a relaxed, squared/leveled posture, then when you draw a bow, the draw hand should natural meet the face between the cheek and the ear." 
That is most natural, simple yet efficientive form. The problem is: we need to see the string shadow/peep, we need to put the drawing line align with our vision, so we need to anchor under the chin (if we still want to stand up right), so some part of the body need to shift away from the best balanced position (in term for muscle efficiency and skeletal support) to accomplished that, and some parts of the body have to work harder. 

To me, Butch's form is the simpliest variation away from natural posture above. he is done well with the loads on his bow arm. 

If others want to make it easier for the bow arm, options are there to use other muscles, making room for them to work, and align with DFL etc etc, but further shift away from the natural posture. what I can see so far, is when you make one part work easier, another part of the body will need to work a bit harder. if the person can handle that situation particular well, so it is his/her best balanced combinations. 


On shifting the body from its natural square posture, I was told with the following consequencies: 

1. The further we shifting away from the natural posture, skeletal wise, our nerve will detect it and send stronger or more signals to the brain, that increases mental stress level. 
2. To shift further away from the natural posture, would need to engage more muscle to perform and balance it (if not strength), again more nerve activities, that also increase metal stress level.
3. From the spinal health point of view, an un-balanced rib cage arrangement, under load, increase the risk of spiral injury.
.
Of coz, the physio is not an archer, he is only express from his physio point of view. but it is enough to make me wonder, when we choose to perform something away from the body's most natural position, Is it more complex, more muscle, more stressful


----------



## limbwalker

> My physio-therapist once told me this:
> "If you let your body stand up right, your chest and shoulder in a relaxed, squared/leveled posture, then when you draw a bow, the draw hand should natural meet the face between the cheek and the ear."


Your physio-therapist might want to account for differences in forearm length, shoulder width, etc. When I draw a bow, the draw hand naturally meets my face in my anchor position. I have long forearms and narrow shoulders, which is why it's natural for me to be "behind" the line at full draw. Other archers have broad shoulders and short forearms, and as you say, their natural position will be closer to the ear, so they must compensate to achieve a target anchor. 

This is why you simply cannot declare one set of rules for all archers. What one archer can achieve based on their physiology is absolutely NOT what is natural for the next archer. So a coach must consider this when looking at alignment, anchor, etc.

John


----------



## chang

limbwalker said:


> Your physio-therapist might want to account for differences in forearm length, shoulder width, etc. When I draw a bow, the draw hand naturally meets my face in my anchor position. I have long forearms and narrow shoulders, which is why it's natural for me to be "behind" the line at full draw. Other archers have broad shoulders and short forearms, and as you say, their natural position will be closer to the ear, so they must compensate to achieve a target anchor.


One average, Asian like me would more end of near or behind the ear. That is properbly one of the reasons that Western and Eastern culture end up shooting mediterranean and mogalic style of shooting. 

I would say, Physiologically, you are far more "Biomechanically Superior" than me for shooting modern recurve.


----------



## Chris RL

And that's most probably how the styles emerged in the first place...
That being true, and there being five basic human skeletal variations, there might be five basic BESTS around....
Hmmm...


----------



## limbwalker

And these differences in skeletal size and shape, combined with variations in flexibility, certainly will account for the relative ease or difficulty an archer will have achieving certain positions.


----------



## TomB

limbwalker said:


> Larry, if the coach is doing their job, they can serve as a second set of eyes for the wind, a calming influence (or kick in the A** if that's what's needed too) and if it's the archer's personal coach, they can help reinforce the shot sequence which is very helpful under those conditions. I know that having Frank behind me in my match in Athens was very helpful. He knew how to keep things light and keep me focused on the things that work for me.
> 
> However, in sports like Tennis, the coach is not allowed on the field and not allowed to "coach" the athlete during the match. Same is true for golf. So I'm not really sure why coaches are even allowed on the field in archery to be honest.
> 
> I wouldn't be against making it more like tennis or golf, where the focus is on the archer, and not so much on the coach. We already have too much focus on the coaches IMO.
> 
> John


John, one thing I have found that I, as a coach, can do in match or team play that is additive to my archer or archers, is to watch the other archer/archers. My guy or guys can read the wind, analyze their own shot, etc. But, my archer can't and shouldn't be watching the other archer. Since this is a zero sum game in match play, I can read the other archers body language, is he tense or relaxed and then know if I need to say anything to my archer. I remember the story Coach Lee tells that on one poor shot by Tim's opponent in Athens that the poor shot was not the wind. This seems like something his archer would want to know and would not be able to get otherwise.


----------



## limbwalker

Tom, that's an interesting perspective. I guess I've always taken the opposite approach, in that there is nothing about the other archer that either controls or affects your archer, so regardless of what they're doing, the game does not change for your archer. It's still a matter of shooting the best shots they can shoot in the time allowed.

I want as few distracting thoughts as possible in my archer's head. I would think that informing them on what their opponent is doing would only add another unnecessary layer of anxiety to their shot process...

But each archer is wired differently. An example of this is Butch - he would ALWAYS keep track of what his opponent was doing. I am the opposite. I couldn't care less what my opponent has shot. It changes my goals not in the least. Even if they shoot at 23, I still want to win the set with a 30. It's just a "mode" I get into, which has nothing to do with the person I'm shooting with/against.

John


----------



## TexARC

yeah, John - but you are more mature than most.


----------



## rpdjr45

Methinks TexARC knows thee well, John. Cracked me up.:set1_rolf2:


----------



## limbwalker

Just what are you trying to say, Ron... 

And if I'm "more mature than most," what does that make Butch? ha, ha. (you don't have to answer that!)

He's an enigma in the best sense of the word, for sure. I'll never forget the final afternoon of the 2004 trials when he contratulated me on making the team literally right after I shot my last arrow. I had just put my bow down and had no idea where I stood. All I knew is that I had lost my match to him, but not even by how many points. I had no clue whether that was enough to make the team, but I figured someone would tell me eventually. Well, Butch knew. He had been keeping track of multiple scores in multiple matches on the field all along, knew how many points Jason needed to catch me, whether he won or lost his match (so he was keeping track of Jason's opponent's score as well) and a whole host of other things, all while shooting a match against me. Now, you could say that he was a "lock" at that point and had the luxury of thinking about who his final teammate was going to be, but seriously? I was really surprised. 

Heck, half the time I shoot a match I forget that there is someone else in the match. I just focus on the target, draw back and shoot and figure everything else will take care of itself in time. 

John


----------



## lksseven

_"I just focus on the target, draw back and shoot and figure everything else will take care of itself in time."_

That's a pretty good rule for almost anything in life!


----------



## lksseven

This thread has made it clear to me that if the archer and coach have spent a lot of previous time dialoging and analyzing stuff, then this coach - in the box during match play - can serve as a sort of confidante, and be able to remind the archer of this or that, based upon their many conversations of the past. That can be a very advantageous thing.

For example, if I draw low toward my drawing shoulder, and then raise up to my anchor point, I am almost always inline. But if I begin drawing straight to my anchor point (either because I'm getting tired or because I'm just being an idiot), then I cannot get inline, and my grouping will move to the right a good 4-5" at 70meters. Some days when this happens, I catch it immediately and remind myself "draw low, then stretch". But some days I might continue to draw straight to my anchor point for two ends, or half an hour (twisting the windage dial, changing my stance, and whatever other idiotic windmill chasing I can think of) before I remember "DRAW LOW, THEN STRETCH, dummy!" So, in a match - where time is of the essence - it would be a nice thing to have someone who recognizes that a couple of suddenly appearing '3:00 eights' means that it is time to remind the archer "draw low, then stretch to your anchor."


----------



## limbwalker

Intimate knowlege of the archer standing before them is a rare thing in international competition. Even in women's gymnastics, many times the gymnast's personal coach is sitting in the stands. 

In the case of the U.S. men, they had the advantage of having their personal coach there with them. For the ladies, not so much, unless you are talking about Khatuna only.

Some of this is just money (being able to afford to send so many coaches) some is politics, some is rules.

John


----------



## chang

Warbow said:


> Well, his method may well be bio mechanically inefficient--it is certainly possible that Butch Johnson's form *is* bio mechanically inefficient.. What does bio mechanically efficient mean anyway? ....BEST really is biomechanically efficient in all of its aspects .....


Whats being descripted in the 2 Total Archery, I believe is a general basic shooting technique. It can be explained clearly in simple TERMs, biomechanics is not required, neither does anyone need to know any biomechanics to learnt it. 

Many years ago, when I questioned technical aspect of word "Biomechanics", I have been told to accept this: If by any means, certain body action was believed/proven to be performed by the body more efficiently, it can be expressed as "Biomechanical Efficient" as a layman's term. 

So by showing lower trapezious is stronger and it is part of the body, hense it is "Biomechanically stronger", using a stronger muscle is more efficient and it is a body action, hence "Biomechanically Efficient", as simple as that. 

In around 2005 TA in fact started a trend for archery, Anyone knowing and mention a few anatomical terms, who said using X doing Y would be "Biomechanically" XX and YY. regardless what real biomechanics is.


----------



## Warbow

chang said:


> Whats being descripted in the 2 Total Archery, I believe is a general basic shooting technique. It can be explained clearly in simple TERMs, biomechanics is not required, neither does anyone need to know any biomechanics to learnt it.
> 
> Many years ago, when I questioned technical aspect of word "Biomechanics", I have been told to accept this: If by any means, certain body action was believed/proven to be performed by the body more efficiently, it can be expressed as "Biomechanical Efficient" as a layman's term.
> 
> So by showing lower trapezious is stronger and it is part of the body, hense it is "Biomechanically stronger", using a stronger muscle is more efficient and it is a body action, hence "Biomechanically Efficient", as simple as that.
> 
> In around 2005 TA in fact started a trend for archery, Anyone knowing and mention a few anatomical terms, who said using X doing Y would be "Biomechanically" XX and YY. regardless what real biomechanics is.


If that is the way "biomechanically efficient" is being used then it behooves us to reject the term as false framing, falsely claiming the imprimatur of proven human kinetics when actually being based on presumptions rather than actual scientific proof. Using scientific terms in a way that is contradictory to how scientists use them is often a sign of crank science, a way of passing off questionable ideas in a way that bypasses our normal skepticism. If people want to discuss unproven techniques then they should admit that is what they are, rather than use sciency terms to falsely project truthiness.


----------



## chang

Anatomy to biomechanics. to me is like newton physics to quantum mechanics. As long as you are not dueling speed of light, anything can be proven by newton physics could well be quantummechanically correct. 

So when you thought you bought something on e=mc2, then you found it to be f=ma. just before you can say "hey", a voice from above told you this: God has reveal secrete of the universe to you and make it so easy for you to understand, why complaint?


----------



## Warbow

chang said:


> Anatomy to biomechanics. to me is like newton physics to quantum mechanics. As long as you are not dueling speed of light, anything can be proven by newton physics could well be quantummechanically correct.
> 
> So when you thought you bought something on e=mc2, then you found it to be f=ma. just before you can say "hey", a voice from above told you this: God has reveal secrete of the universe to you and make it so easy for you to understand, why complaint?


Gonna have to disagree with you on that. Newtonian physics and subatomic physics are both scientifically based and can be proved scientifically with replicable test, within their limits, to be true and correct. The idea that something is biomechanically efficient so long as someone says that is so is not based in science but rather in the fallacy of argument by assertion. So I don't see a good case for saying anatomy is to biomechanics what subatomic physics is to Newtonian physics. Not analogous.


----------



## chang

In sport research, even if certain technique has been proven to be mechanically superior, it also need to be tested for its "psychological resilience" requirement.

For the same physical load, 
if using fewer groups of muscle to carry it, stress may come from how hard the muscles worked
if using more groups of muscle to carry it, stress may come from how complex the muscles need to be coordinated. 

So some techniques may be not as efficient, it can be just simpler to carry out and less stressful mentally. and others may be more efficient, but harder to coordinate and less stress/trauma resilience.


----------



## TomB

limbwalker said:


> Tom, that's an interesting perspective. I guess I've always taken the opposite approach, in that there is nothing about the other archer that either controls or affects your archer, so regardless of what they're doing, the game does not change for your archer. It's still a matter of shooting the best shots they can shoot in the time allowed.
> 
> I want as few distracting thoughts as possible in my archer's head. I would think that informing them on what their opponent is doing would only add another unnecessary layer of anxiety to their shot process...
> 
> But each archer is wired differently. An example of this is Butch - he would ALWAYS keep track of what his opponent was doing. I am the opposite. I couldn't care less what my opponent has shot. It changes my goals not in the least. Even if they shoot at 23, I still want to win the set with a 30. It's just a "mode" I get into, which has nothing to do with the person I'm shooting with/against.
> 
> John


i understand what you are saying John. If I were in the box for you and knew what I know now, you don't care what the other guy is doing, I wouldn't say are darn thing about him and focus on what you and I agreed to before hand that you wanted me to help you with, if anything (for example a judges error to be your advocate.) However, if I knew you had a tendency to look at the other guys target I think it would be important to know that the 8 left the opponent shot was not the wind, but a poor shot, I would say something. In any event, it is incumbent on me to first do no harm and second to help in areas we had agreed to before the match started.


----------



## Rick McKinney

lksseven said:


> This thread has made it clear to me that if the archer and coach have spent a lot of previous time dialoging and analyzing stuff, then this coach - in the box during match play - can serve as a sort of confidante, and be able to remind the archer of this or that, based upon their many conversations of the past. That can be a very advantageous thing.


I have always believed that there were two types of coaches: a personal coach and a team coach. Very seldom are they synonymous. A personal coach is just that. They work with you constantly and you both develop a good communication so that simple words can be said at critical times for efficiency. A team coach is one that can bring the team together and inspire them to being confident during the competition. A good team coach contacts each individual archer’s coach before the event and goes over what should be said and should not be said to the archer before, during and after the event in order to work with the archer. Also, the team coach should be informed on what to look for during the shot process. In the US it has been very rare that you see this. Most coaches think they are there to “improve” the archer thus starts recommending form changes. What a crock! The archer has spent years developing their form and this coach who doesn’t even know them thinks they have the answer right away!


----------



## Vittorio

Rick is spot on about differences between personal coach and team coach.

A team coach should be able to:
- Know perfectly the personal shooting sequence of each of the team members
- Understand exactly what going on on the field, including what the opponent team is doing and why
- Get the full confidence of the archers in the team in order to be able to give them suggestions during the team round, without disturbing them but geting immediate attention.
The coach has also the responsability to change archers sequence or to call back from the line one archer with difficulties, at least if they are not competing in alternate shooting. 

In my personal experience, I have even reached the level, specifically with women, to give to each of the shooters the indication of the counteraiming point on the target depending on the wind/rain condition during each shot. But to do so, you really need them to trust you more than their own feeling, and your responsability as coach increases dramatically. 
In many situations, the team coach weights on the team result as 1/4th of the total. Or, let say, a teaam without a good coach looses at least 1/4th of its potential. 

Not many team coaches on the field in London, if any ...


----------



## Rick McKinney

Team coaches. Of the 32 years of international competition, I have only experienced three true team coaches for the US Team that I can recall; Al Henderson, Dwight Nyquist and Sheri Rhodes. All three focused on trying to eliminate all external stresses so that the archer could focus on competing. They made an effort to stay upbeat, positive and inspirational. They all three asked what they could do to help instead of telling you their personal opinion of how they were going to make you a better archer.


----------



## limbwalker

Rick, I thought that Frank Thomas met the criteria you laid out for a team coach very well. He knew Butch and Vic and their preferences and what made them tick, and was quick to get to know me and how he could help me. The rest of the time, he stayed out of the way unless he felt he had something to contribute. Even after 8 years and a lot more experience, I still think he did a fantastic job and wouldn't hesitate to work with him again in that role.

I felt the same way about Sheri. Those two were fantastic team coaches for the '04 team.

John


----------



## robot pimp

As far as I can tell Roman's personal coach was a Korean woman named Song I Woo, but she may have left recently due to differences with the head coach Lee Wong and the Mexican sports federation. I don't read Spanish and only go by translations online. Avitia's coach is apparently a Chinese man named Zhang Zheng.


----------



## robot pimp

Before London Lee Wong had predicted they could achieve two medals, which ended up being true. Now his goal for Rio is three medals, one gold. I wouldn't bet on it because there is too much variability from competition to competition, with the notable exception of the Korean women who nearly always end up on top, but I would expect them to do well.


----------



## robot pimp

Reportedly Song I Woo is working in Britain now. It was said she received offers from a number of countries.
http://www.microsofttranslator.com/...excelsior.com.mx/adrenalina/2013/04/30/896621


----------



## robot pimp

Songi Woo is listed as Technical Coach on the Archery GB staff list.
http://www.archerygb.org/tools/documents/ArcheryGBStaffList-[14878].pdf


----------



## robot pimp

Wietse van Alten who coached Rick van der Ven in London and was the 2000 ind. bronze medallist now coaches Italy. Seems a bit odd when a coach goes to work for a competing country. I'm aware it's common, and the organizations have their reasons for hiring whoever they hire. Nevertheless, it's a bit odd. Comments by the Mexico coach Lee Wong suggest he has sympathies for his home country Korea, which is only human and to be expected. But that is the point.


----------



## limbwalker

I have to agree. There is enough information and opportunity out there for a home-grown coach to become world class that I don't see the point on farming it out. In fact, I see more problems than possibilities, usually in understanding the culture and language and politics at play...

But I guess we're not the only country that ignores world class coaches that we already have right here at home, eh?


----------



## Vittorio

There is a proverb in Italy that says something like: "No one can be a Prophet in his home country!"
This has been proven to be true everywere and for all sports, archery (coaching) included.

And, of course, the search for the Magician Foreign Coach that can grant an Olympic gold will never stop.....


----------



## limbwalker

Well, I guess a country could always import better archers, eh Vittorio?


----------



## old bloke

What an enlightening thread. Boy, do we have problems over here in the U.K. Reading this thread has given me faith that there are people who really understand what it takes concerning coaching. Thank you John, Rick and Vittorio.


----------



## Joe T

old bloke said:


> What an enlightening thread. Boy, do we have problems over here in the U.K. Reading this thread has given me faith that there are people who really understand what it takes concerning coaching. Thank you John, Rick and Vittorio.


Also worth reading the "News from US Archery" thread. If you substituted UK for US in the thread it would pretty much read the same.


----------

