# Coaching philosophy



## rpdjr45 (Jul 28, 2007)

I am prompted to write this after seeing the men's and women's track team, specifically the 4X100 meters relay teams drop the batons. I coached track on the high school level for many years, over 20, and what I saw was not poor athletes, but poor coaching. It was obvious to me that the philosophy of USA coach was: we're so fast, just get the stick in their hands and we'll win. Well, I coached a bunch white suburban kids and our relays teams were conference and district champions. I told them that four pretty fast guys who can pass the stick well, will beat four really fast guys who don't pass the baton well. My point is that the coaches did not work on the baton exchanges, and they should have. All the passes I saw were slow, and nearly each exchange was dropped. That's coaching, not the athletes. The athletes did what they were told to do.

Archery: What is the coaching philosophy? From articles I have read about Lee, and the BEST system, and books, too many to mention, but Al Henderson is one of them, I see two distinct philosophies. Al Henderson's was basically, what does the archer do, refine what they do well, and minimize what they may be doing that is hurting the ultimate results, which is the score, and, therefore, championships, etc. In other words, what the athlete does dictates what the coach needs to do. Henderson's approach was to build on what is there, and make it better. By contrast, Lee's BEST system is designed to force the athlete to adjust to the system, and strip away anything that does not fit or conform to the system. The Asian system is, in my opinion, to have a system in place, make everyone do it, and eventually the system will turn out a doz or more athletes that fit that system perfectly. And to do that, only that system is to be tolerated. No diviation. And to get it to work, all kids should be taught the same way. This is why the Koreans will not allow a kid to touch a bow until they perfect the form by means of shadow shooting, pretending they have a bow. A kid will perfect it as fast as possible in order to get to play with the real bow and arrows. Simple in theory. Harder to do in a society that unlike some Asian nations, a generalization to be sure, that thrives and strives for individuality: the persuit of excellence as best as they can in their way. Coaches are there to help. Seems to me, from all the posting about Lee and why he is or is not where he should, ought, might have been: is due to rugged individualism, American ideals, vs Asian similarity or common-ism, or uniformity or comformity. We Yanks love our rebels and cheer how they got to where they are, and are happy to see them thank their parents and coaches who have helped them. Asian mindset is to get the athletes out of the house, and dependent upon the system. They cheer on the athletes and recognize them as the best of the "system" by following the system better than anyone else. 

The Olympic Training Centers (and I worked at the Squaw Valley OTC in '79 way back when Colordado Springs and Squaw Valley were the only two) are supposed to be places where the best athletes and the best coaches gather to exchange methods, ideas, training, experimenting, getting highly techno filming, etc. As more money came in, it was possible to get some elite athletes to be able to live and train at the centers. Some wealthy athletes who could afford it could also stay and train. The busiest time was in the summer, which, for example the wrestling elite 200 would come. These were the best high school wrestlers in the nation, and they were invited for training, filming, and the Olympic coaches would watch, evaluate, and run a tournament. The kids went home, jazzed up and excited. Seems to me that somewhere in the 30 years since my day in the center, the philolosphy has shifted. As for Lee, it seems that it is "this way or no way." Now, will such a system work? Oh, heck yes. It would take a few years, but figure it out. Today's archers are the "old guard" and the college kids, the 20 somethings are using the BEST system, and have bought into it, and will succeed using it. So a 19 year old today will be the 23 year old in 2012, and after using the system for four to five years, it should be smashing. 

Now, every system has a weakness. The BEST system may be one of the better techincal archery systems around. Everyone does the same thing and that is its strength. Everyone doing the same thing is also its weakness for if the archer fails to succeed up to his or her expectations, where do they turn? The only conclusion is to declare that "they" failed the system by not doing it right. The other philosophy, the one in which the athlete's shooting form dictates what the coach needs to do in order to help or aid the athlete to do better also has its strength. Its strength is that athlete is doing great things, and just needs some adjustments. The end result is the proof or the fruit of the efforts. Its strength is that the coach, one such as Al Henderson, is one who not only coaches the athlete's actions, but is also a life coach: in other words the person or athlete is ultimately more important that the sport or the score. Better to be good person and a not so good archer, than to be an great archer and a bad person. We all know that there are people who win first place, and while we may call them champions of this or that, we know that they are not champions in their hearts. They're butt head who score high in shoots. And so it comes down to "coaching."

Whew! I did not mean this to be a disertation. Final point, in summation, I think a lot of the unpleasantness about Coach Lee, the OTC, and archery flows from a difference in the philosophy. In fact, this difference in philosophy also shows it head with the JOAD VS After School Archery VS Archery in the Schools. I recall very animated discussion  about which way was best to teach beginning archery to kids, and how some said it must be done the BEST way or no way, and others saying, screw you, the idea is to get the sport introduced to the kids, not to build up your little Olympic empire. ETC. ETC.

Okay, that was my two bits worth of commentary. I'll shut up after this.:zip:


----------



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

rpdjr45 said:


> I am prompted to write this...
> 
> Okay, that was my two bits worth of commentary. I'll shut up after this.:zip:


Well, that was delightful! Thanks for sharing, it was a nice and thought provoking read.


----------



## bdca (Apr 9, 2007)

rpdjr45 said:


> I am prompted to write this after seeing the men's and women's track team, specifically the 4X100 meters relay teams drop the batons. I coached track on the high school level for many years, over 20, and what I saw was not poor athletes, but poor coaching. It was obvious to me that the philosophy of USA coach was: we're so fast, just get the stick in their hands and we'll win. Well, I coached a bunch white suburban kids and our relays teams were conference and district champions. I told them that four pretty fast guys who can pass the stick well, will beat four really fast guys who don't pass the baton well. My point is that the coaches did not work on the baton exchanges, and they should have. All the passes I saw were slow, and nearly each exchange was dropped. That's coaching, not the athletes. The athletes did what they were told to do.
> :


There was a discussion of this on the radio yesterday, and it seems the problem is that our relay team is made up of elite runners, and most are used to running the first leg of a relay. The key to a successful pass is the 20M zone where the next runner catches up with the prior, and our runners lack that experience. The solution was to hold specific training sessions for the best runners at meets. There have been a few.

Cya!


----------



## Unclegus (May 27, 2003)

Do you think the only way to get this BEST system to work is by starting out with people who have no preconceived notion how to shoot a bow? If that's the case, since we don't have nearly as strong an archery culture here in US, don't you think we just as well pat Lee on the butt and send him back home ????


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

A very good discussion of this very thing can be found here... http://www.mentalmanagement.com/a_mentorship.html


----------



## Old Hoyt (Jul 28, 2005)

Great Post!
Having been in this sport for nearly 40 years, I've seen some a lot of different forms win different events. The thing the winners all have in common: consistancy, confidence & desire. 
I recently coached 2 young recurve shooters at our Provincial Games earlier this month. I started working with them mid June. Neither have been shooting very long, nor do they have "great form". Major form changes were out of the question, with 6 weeks of training. So we worked on their strengths & their mental approach. Results - Gold for the young lady & silver for the young man.
Now over the coming indoor season, form changes will be made and like Al Henderson, we will build on their strengths. They had the desire factor, gained confidence & now want to refine & improve their technique. 
As a (Canadian) observer to the US Olympic archery scene, I wondered about the short time before the Olympics when Coach Lee was hired - seamed like 2012 should have been the realistic goal!


----------



## inferno nexus (Oct 15, 2007)

How about China? They've won alot of gold medals...what's their secret?


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

inferno nexus said:


> How about China? They've won alot of gold medals...what's their secret?


Simple...you want to see your family again, shoot better. Works every time in totalitarian countries.

Dave


----------



## inferno nexus (Oct 15, 2007)

Dave T said:


> Simple...you want to see your family again, shoot better. Works every time in totalitarian countries.
> 
> Dave


lol


----------



## mholz (Sep 7, 2005)

Simple...you want to see your family again, shoot better. Works every time in totalitarian countries.

Dave

Exactly! Or your back in the rice fields.

Mike


----------



## monty53 (Jun 19, 2002)

rpdjr45 said:


> We Yanks love our rebels and cheer how they got to where they are, and are happy to see them thank their parents and coaches who have helped them.


Ha! Ha! aka Victor Wonderle!

Remember the 2000 Olympics, where he covered with tape his limb’s logos and identification marks!?


----------



## Spiderkiller (Jan 30, 2007)

*Good Post*

Great post.

It makes me wonder though, what constitutes a coach? Is a coach an individual who creates a program idea, finds people to institute it, and then finds the best athletes to make it work.

Or is a coach an individual who sees the potential in a person, intructs them, guides them,allows the athlete to experiment and encourages them to excel. 

From what I've seen in junior college, the first type of "coach" is typically the fair weather coach. They are there smiling and taking credit when things are going great, and when the athlete is struggling, is never to be found. They take credit for what was already there, great athletisism(sp) and in my opinion, not a coach.

The second coach is the person you see guiding the person as well as the athlete. Teaching them about life lessons through competitions at all levels. Allowing them to succeed, and in moderation when neccessary to fail. So they can learn to be stronger. They are always the ones giving more than taking and there to help the person to be a better individual through their athletic experiences.

I would prefer the second coach. Seems more athlete centered instead of coach centered. 


Once again, great post. Makes a person think.


----------



## gig'em 99 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Coaching Philosophies*

You know...I didn't come up in the Ki Sik era. I was taught the continuous squeezing method that I'm sure many of you were taught. And now, I'm on my 4th reading of Ki Sik Lee's "Total Archery". And no where in that book does it imply that this method must be forced on young archers or any archer for that matter. In fact, its pretty clear about why he feels its a good system. Because it biomechanically efficient. It teaches the basics of how to get the different bones in line, and how to use fewer muscles, how to prevent injury. What it does is give a very solid foundation to the skills needed for this wonderful sport that we all love so much.

But it also teaches the coaches. How the coaches must be able to recognize physiological differences in the students, and adapt accordingly. Stating, "By contrast, Lee's BEST system is designed to force the athlete to adjust to the system, and strip away anything that does not fit or conform to the system." you are misrepresenting the philosophy. The bottom line is, that in almost any sport, there are fundamentals that have proven to be more successful than others. When there is proof that it works, you see the sport migrate to those fundamentals. "Everyone doing the same thing" is not the BEST method's strength. The BEST method's strength is in its simplicity! Its strength is in its ability to minimize the risk of injury if practiced properly. Its strength is certainly illustrated in its results as well.

I'll make this analogy - In towns where the pee wee or pop warner football programs are modeled to acquaint the young players with good fundamentals, and while their at it, acquaint the young players with how the highschool football team runs their schemes...those towns normally have extremely successful programs. I'll cite Midland-Odessa, TX as my example of a prolific high school football program with a very similar philosophy. There is a lot of cross-coordination between the higher grade-level coaches and those in the lower grades.

Back to archery, I don't how many of you have read Rick McKinney's "Simple Art of Winning"(certainly many of you), but I can draw parallel after parallel between what Rick describes as his form/methodology to the BEST method. In the end, what it does is teach fundamentals...the basics. It teaches the coach about biomechanics and basic physiology, which was never attempted before in a systematic manner. All this in an effort to allow the coach to find what is best for the student. I don't read from the book to my students. But any coach knows that very often you have to say the same thing in a different way so that the student..."gets it". What makes a coach good, is their ability to communicate with different students, and get the best out of those students.

Personally I'm excited to see the NAA support and endorse a method. They've never done that before. Because if they stick with it, I'd bet that we'll start seeing some of these young...pop-warner aged archers moving up to the senior level and shattering US records, and maybe in the mean time, make the USA the best archery nation in the world. For those of you who've watched archers utilizing the BEST method, one thing I'm sure you've noticed is how simple they make it look. The method is beautiful in its simplicity. And it just might be the piece that's been missing from US Archery over the past several years, which allows us to dominate this sport once again.


----------



## BuffaloJoe (Jun 4, 2009)

Spiderkiller said:


> Great post.
> 
> It makes me wonder though, what constitutes a coach? Is a coach an individual who creates a program idea, finds people to institute it, and then finds the best athletes to make it work.
> 
> ...


----------



## TheShadowEnigma (Aug 16, 2008)

Sounds like the Oreo technique. Tell them something they are doing good, followed by a critique, followed by something else they are doing well.

I never understood why they call it Oreo though, I always like the cream the best.


----------



## scriv (Jan 31, 2008)

rpdjr45 said:


> Archery: What is the coaching philosophy? From articles I have read about Lee, and the BEST system, and books, too many to mention, but Al Henderson is one of them, I see two distinct philosophies. Al Henderson's was basically, what does the archer do, refine what they do well, and minimize what they may be doing that is hurting the ultimate results, which is the score, and, therefore, championships, etc. In other words, what the athlete does dictates what the coach needs to do. Henderson's approach was to build on what is there, and make it better.



Personally, I believe that this is the way to go as a coach. However when taeching fundamentals I use much of the BEST system. Having two daughters with different physical builds I feel I must work with what they have. There's 2 cents. dave

P.S. Great post by the way.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I have a very simple solution for all of this...

Take all the money we are spending at the OTC and offer it up as prize money at each of the USAT ranking events, with the largest sum at the NAA outdoor nationals. 

I'm talking about thousands of dollars to the top archer at each event, with payouts down to 8th or 10th place (ala Vegas?).

Then let the archers figure it out. Because believe me, they will. 

Oh, that's right, we're already doing this .... for compounds. And look how we do internationally there!

I am quite serious about this. The best archers will be the ones that find the best coaches (and we'd quickly see which coaches know what they are doing based on the success of their archers) and stick to the program and train hard. 

Pretty simple if you ask me, and what could possibly be more American than that?

John.


----------



## Xcreekarchery1 (Aug 7, 2007)

I have been to the OTC, Dream team camps and recived personal coaching by coach lee. it is not a method where if you dont do it like this your done. the main concept behind BEST is that he wants you to be in YOUR most biomechanically efficient position. Coach lee will work with you to work around some physical problems, like my instance i cant do extra set cause it causes my shoulder to dislocate so he helped me figure out a way that i could do the shot and not have it doslocate. the result was amazing, my scores were better, my groups were tighter, and i didnt get tired as quickly. I have shot non BEST and i now shoot BEST it allows me to get to holding and not wear out almost indefinitely if i stick to the form. And as for coach lee, unless you have been coached by him and know him dont rag on his coaching technique or the method he has created because you dont know what your sayng when you do this.
thats my oppinion
chris


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

I believe a great coach will have a good knowledge of biomechanics and kinesiology as it is related to archery.

They will also be able to adapt and recognize the strengths and weaknesses of an archer and know how to correct it or take advantage of it.

They also won't believe that there is only one way to shoot a bow and will be able to improvise and be creative when it is needed.

Ray


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

During my L3 course, I had a chance to sit down with Coach Lee and we talked a little about coaching and My take is like many of you siding with him. While teaching BEST is an ideal and a great teaching method, Working with what works with the students is more important.

IMHO


----------



## JDT_Dad (Nov 5, 2008)

*I couldn't agree more.*



gig'em 99 said:


> Personally I'm excited to see the NAA support and endorse a method. They've never done that before. Because if they stick with it, I'd bet that we'll start seeing some of these young...pop-warner aged archers moving up to the senior level and shattering US records, and maybe in the mean time, make the USA the best archery nation in the world. For those of you who've watched archers utilizing the BEST method, one thing I'm sure you've noticed is how simple they make it look. The method is beautiful in its simplicity. And it just might be the piece that's been missing from US Archery over the past several years, which allows us to dominate this sport once again.




The young BEST method archers have already started to make their mark. For example, this past indoor season, one of Lee's students (Female Cub) broke _*every*_ Indoor FITA and National record except one. She broke all but one of the Cub, Cadet and Junior 60 and 120 arrow records (11 FITA and NAA Indoor records in all). She had the highest score of any Female Recurve archer under 18 years of age. If she had entered the tournament as a Senior she would have placed 6th. Although still a Cub, she shot in the Jr. World Trials last month as a Cadet and tied for 1st place in the Cadet Female Recurve division (before shoot off) earning a spot on the Jr World Team. 

Of the 12 positions on the Jr World Team available to recurve archers, 10 are students of Coach Lee and the BEST system. 

We are starting to see some pretty amazing performances by Coach Lee's students. I have no doubt the BEST system works and I believe the results are starting to prove it. We still have a long way to go before being competitive internationally, but our chances are looking better every day.


----------



## don0017 (Nov 10, 2008)

Viewing so many friends grow up in sports with personal coaches, one of the greatest problem which seems to hinder the sports is the pride of a coach. Many people seem to forget that coaching a student is to help the student become better, and not for their own reflective reputation.

As far as archery goes, trying to figure out "what works for an archer" is a very simple and effective way of thinking. 
Even coach lee, as stated in his book, must compromise a few steps from his BEST method to better suit the archer. 
From what I have heard, I could be wrong, people dismiss the methods and techniques of others simply because they do not believe in it. This can become quite bothersome as it can, IMO, actually limit a coaching ability. An opinion from the one who taught me, using the BEST-method as an example since it is well targeted, acceptance or dismissal, people who use it should remember it is not 'absolute' (compromise a few steps to what suits the archer), and those who do not believe it in could probably use it as another option (also trying to suit what works for the archer). I was trained with BEST, but it is not 100% because it is what works for me.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> And as for coach lee, unless you have been coached by him and know him dont rag on his coaching technique or the method he has created because you dont know what your sayng when you do this.


I have to agree with this. There are still probably fewer than 50 people in the U.S. that have spent any kind of time with coach Lee. Sure, lots of folks have met him and attended his seminars, but very few really have spent enough time with him to understand the BEST method or his teaching philosophy. So people should keep that in mind before they comment.

Now (for what may seem a 180 here), let's keep it real and ask the question "besides Brady, which ones?" to the comment by JDT dad regarding amazing performances by coach Lee's students. I may have missed them, but I don't think so. Not trying to be mean at all, but aside from Brady, I've not seen anything happen that wasn't already happening before 2005 at the OTC. There is a long history of exceptional youth performances in this country, and I could name names if I needed to... And Brady was already a world champion when he began working with coach Lee.

So, let's keep it real here and not get ahead of ourselves. When the U.S. teams are once again archery powerhouses in the world (and they are FAR from that today), I will admit the program is successful. We may be there someday, but until then, we're still ranked about 10th in the world (or worse) for recurvers... And that's being generous.

John.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

keeping it real is the right attitude. Most of the time we are hoping for something to happen that is outside our influence, such as a great book, a new method, the latest system, the hottest equipment or the greatest coach. The reality is that great shooters, shoot great already. These things only enhance them, usually but not always. There is such a thing as raw natural talent. Some got and sone don't. They ones that don't are always putiing down the ones that do.

John, I like your idea of putting up purses. Alot of shooters would follow the money.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> John, I like your idea of putting up purses. Alot of shooters would follow the money.


It's the only thing with proven success here in the U.S. in the past 20 years. That goes for compound and recurve alike. And there are a LOT of good shooters that don't attend many, or any, USAT events simply because there is no incentive to spend that kind of money on travel, registration, missed work, etc.

John.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> It's the only thing with proven success here in the U.S. in the past 20 years. That goes for compound and recurve alike. And there are a LOT of good shooters that don't attend many, or any, USAT events simply because there is no incentive to spend that kind of money on travel, registration, missed work, etc.
> 
> John.


John, you are so old school. Market economies, capatalism and profit incentives are so yesterday. NOT!


----------



## Steve N (Apr 27, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> It's the only thing with proven success here in the U.S. in the past 20 years. That goes for compound and recurve alike. And there are a LOT of good shooters that don't attend many, or any, USAT events simply because there is no incentive to spend that kind of money on travel, registration, missed work, etc.


I agree that the cream will rise to the top, regardless of method, if there is significant financial reward involved. 

However,


> And there are a LOT of good shooters that don't attend many, or any, USAT events simply because there is no incentive to spend that kind of money on travel, registration, missed work, etc.


. If tournament fees get raised to pay out the top shooters, I won't bother showing up, and I know many others who won't either. I'm not going to spend extra entry fee money to subsidize those who have the time, money, location, etc. to practice enough to place high. So we might end up with the most accurate shooters, but the number of archers will go down, because we don't want to subsidize the big boys, so in the end does the sport of archery win?


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

The trick is the money shoot already exists.......it's called Vegas.

And the same people keep showing up time and time again. I don't think it's brought anyone out of the woodwork.


----------



## LooMoo (Jan 30, 2007)

rpdjr45 said:


> I am prompted to write this after seeing the men's and women's track team, specifically the 4X100 meters relay teams drop the batons. I coached track on the high school level for many years, over 20, and what I saw was not poor athletes, but poor coaching. It was obvious to me that the philosophy of USA coach was: we're so fast, just get the stick in their hands and we'll win. Well, I coached a bunch white suburban kids and our relays teams were conference and district champions. I told them that four pretty fast guys who can pass the stick well, will beat four really fast guys who don't pass the baton well. My point is that the coaches did not work on the baton exchanges, and they should have. All the passes I saw were slow, and nearly each exchange was dropped. That's coaching, not the athletes. The athletes did what they were told to do.
> 
> Archery: What is the coaching philosophy? From articles I have read about Lee, and the BEST system, and books, too many to mention, but Al Henderson is one of them, I see two distinct philosophies. Al Henderson's was basically, what does the archer do, refine what they do well, and minimize what they may be doing that is hurting the ultimate results, which is the score, and, therefore, championships, etc. In other words, what the athlete does dictates what the coach needs to do. Henderson's approach was to build on what is there, and make it better. By contrast, Lee's BEST system is designed to force the athlete to adjust to the system, and strip away anything that does not fit or conform to the system. The Asian system is, in my opinion, to have a system in place, make everyone do it, and eventually the system will turn out a doz or more athletes that fit that system perfectly. And to do that, only that system is to be tolerated. No diviation. And to get it to work, all kids should be taught the same way. This is why the Koreans will not allow a kid to touch a bow until they perfect the form by means of shadow shooting, pretending they have a bow. A kid will perfect it as fast as possible in order to get to play with the real bow and arrows. Simple in theory. Harder to do in a society that unlike some Asian nations, a generalization to be sure, that thrives and strives for individuality: the persuit of excellence as best as they can in their way. Coaches are there to help. Seems to me, from all the posting about Lee and why he is or is not where he should, ought, might have been: is due to rugged individualism, American ideals, vs Asian similarity or common-ism, or uniformity or comformity. We Yanks love our rebels and cheer how they got to where they are, and are happy to see them thank their parents and coaches who have helped them. Asian mindset is to get the athletes out of the house, and dependent upon the system. They cheer on the athletes and recognize them as the best of the "system" by following the system better than anyone else.
> 
> ...




I must say that this post offended me. 
So, how has BEST method caused archers to "drop the baton?" Take a look at the next series of the top archers for team USA: Brady, Kohl, Carter, Kaminski, Leeks, Gilbert, Smith, Schardt.... all archers using BEST method...the list goes on and on. As great as I think BEST is, (yes, I am one of those archers that "bought into BEST method" as you so kindly put it,) the system will not get gold medals for USA over night. It will take years of hard work and training.

When reading this post, I thought "how ignorant." BEST is not a cookie cutter method. It does not mandate that you must do anything a certain way. If you went to a training camp, or a seminar, or talked to the RA's, they'd tell you that the most important part of the shot is holding. You achieve holding by having good use of your back muscles, and having good alignment. There are certain things that you can do to get there that Coach Lee teaches, but as long as you achieve holding, you are okay. For example. I'm pretty flexable, so I can achieve holding without doing set or extra-set, while other archers like xcreekarchery will do set but not extra set, while some others will extra set and not set.... you catch my drift. Coach Lee says in his seminars that BEST method is not a cookie cutter method that only works for some archers. The reason why it is becoming so popular is because it works for nearly all archers. It prevents injury, it can be worked around a previous injury. It is based on sound biomechanical principles that is versitle and can be used with nearly any archer... I think that we can all agree that the best performance come from good allignment and good back tension? That's all BEST method is trying to teach.


----------



## Spiderkiller (Jan 30, 2007)

*Question*

Not to hijack this thread, but it sort of has to do with coaching philosophy. Does a good coach explain the process to the athlete to help them be successful or does the coach insist the athletes just say do what they say with no explination. 

I've always been curious about the "BEST" method. Where is the indepth nonpartial data that proves it is actually more biomechanically more efficient than what was used before? And even then, who was used for the comparison?

This is NOT a bash coach Lee or the BEST method post. I'm just curious about the supporting data.


----------



## voxito (Apr 16, 2006)

Spiderkiller said:


> Not to hijack this thread, but it sort of has to do with coaching philosophy. Does a good coach explain the process to the athlete to help them be successful or does the coach insist the athletes just say do what they say with no explination.
> 
> I've always been curious about the "BEST" method. Where is the indepth nonpartial data that proves it is actually more biomechanically more efficient than what was used before? And even then, who was used for the comparison?
> 
> This is NOT a bash coach Lee or the BEST method post. I'm just curious about the supporting data.


All you gotta do is read total archery and you'll learn more than you can wrap your mind around about biomechanics. Coach Lee is synonymous with biomechanics because of his years of research with the Australian and Korean olympic teams. He has scientific research to back up and explain the best method.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Steve and Huntmaster, both of you need to go back and re-read what I wrote. I didn't suggest raising fees or following in the meager footsteps of Vegas (as it applies to recurvers). What I suggested is that the money we now blow on the OTC program instead go to prize money for USAT ranking events. It would be the recurve equivalent to the money available for compounds at Vegas, NFAA Indoor Nationals, etc. 

Now THAT would bring some folks out of the woodwork. If even 5th or 6th place at a major USAT event paid out $1500, you can bet on two things: 1) that there would be more serious recurvers, and 2) that the good shooters that stay home would reconsider...

That's my idea, but I doubt the USOC would ever go for it. 

After all these years of dumping 100's of thousands of dollars of USOC and sponsor money into the OTC with virtually nothing to show for it, could it be any worse an option?

John.


----------



## nuts&bolts (Mar 25, 2005)

voxito said:


> All you gotta do is read total archery and you'll learn more than you can wrap your mind around about biomechanics. Coach Lee is synonymous with biomechanics because of his years of research with the Australian and Korean olympic teams. He has scientific research to back up and explain the best method.


Another excellent read
is Archery Anatomy by Ray Axford.


----------



## JDT_Dad (Nov 5, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Now (for what may seem a 180 here), let's keep it real and ask the question "besides Brady, which ones?" to the comment by JDT dad regarding amazing performances by coach Lee's students. I may have missed them, but I don't think so. Not trying to be mean at all, but aside from Brady, I've not seen anything happen that wasn't already happening before 2005 at the OTC. There is a long history of exceptional youth performances in this country, and I could name names if I needed to... And Brady was already a world champion when he began working with coach Lee.
> 
> So, let's keep it real here and not get ahead of ourselves. When the U.S. teams are once again archery powerhouses in the world (and they are FAR from that today), I will admit the program is successful. We may be there someday, but until then, we're still ranked about 10th in the world (or worse) for recurvers... And that's being generous.
> 
> John.


I never meant to infer world class performances by JDT members. I was only trying to point out what I am seeing in several of Coach Lee's students. Several members of the JDT are breaking lots of US records. They are improving at a very rapid rate, and are still very young. We have a long way to go before we can be a dominate player internationally, but several JDT archers are dominating the ranks of US youth archery.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

"but several JDT archers are dominating the ranks of US youth archery..."

As they should, since the reason they are on the JDT is because they were some of our top young archers to begin with...

This is a bit of a "chicken or the egg" type of debate to which there is no clear answer...

John.


----------



## huggybear (Sep 30, 2004)

*The FACTS*

Here are the facts 2009:


*Mexican Grand Prix:* Both RA Men's and Women's teams defeat Mexican National Team in the Finals. Jake Kaminski was 2nd Individually(defeated #1 Ranked Archer(Serrano) from the Olympics). Kristin Braun was 3rd in her first international competition.

*AZ Cup*: Brady shoots a 116 in the finals to win. RA Men's team wins both open and national team round.

*TX Shootout*: Heather Koehl(18 years old) wins silver, Kristin Braun(18 years old) wins bronze. Jake Kaminski finishes 4th.

*Croatia World Cup*: Kristin Braun finishes 9th in her 1st World Cup. Brady Ellison finishes 4th.

*SI Cup/Youth World Team Trials*: Emily Blake(16 years old) makes the YW Team after switching to right hand 5 months before!*Note: she made the team last year as a cadet shooting left handed* Peter Kelchner(16) made the team as a junior as well.

*Gold Cup*: 3 RA Girls finish in top 4. Kristin Braun 2nd, Heather Koehl 3rd, and Megan Carter(18 years old) 4th. Emily Blake(16 years old) defeated the #2 seed and finished 6th. Brady finished 3rd, Jake Kaminski 5th.

*World Team Trials*: Brady sets 2 national records/highest fita score by non-Korean archer ever. Jake Kaminski shot 1320, just missed the team and is alternate. Kristin Braun(18 years old) finished 3rd and Heather Koehl(18 also) is the alternate. Two 16 year old boys from the RA program shoot personal best 1256, 1260 and just miss the cut for the top 8!


----------



## Spiderkiller (Jan 30, 2007)

voxito said:


> All you gotta do is read total archery and you'll learn more than you can wrap your mind around about biomechanics. Coach Lee is synonymous with biomechanics because of his years of research with the Australian and Korean olympic teams. He has scientific research to back up and explain the best method.



Yes, COACH LEE has data that says the system he is emplying works, but where is the nonpartial, unbiased data? An independant report. There has to be at least person who is an expert at biomechanics who will support the information that is presented in Coach Lee's book.


----------



## JDT_Dad (Nov 5, 2008)

*Chicken and Egg*



limbwalker said:


> "but several JDT archers are dominating the ranks of US youth archery..."
> 
> As they should, since the reason they are on the JDT is because they were some of our top young archers to begin with...
> 
> ...


True, many of the archers were very good before they were accepted into the JDT program, but they were not this good. Here is an example:

One female bowman was a very good shooter, she always seemed to win. _Always_. She had several national championships as a bowman before she joined the JDT. She was good shooter, but never good enough to win in the next division up. For several years she hadn't improved much if at all. About 5 months after her first JDT camp she is a now a cub, but posts the highest score for any female under the age of 18 at the National Indoor Championship. She also beats all but 5 of the senior women, and is even getting close your score. She did all this while shooting with a bow arm injury. I would call that a very good performance for a very young athlete who had been with the JDT program for only 5/6 months. She is continuing to improve at an amazing rate.

Is the difference in the young archer due to coaching or the system being used? I believe it is both. The coaching at the OTC is very good. Some of the best in my opinion. However, the BEST method also plays its part. Among the advantages of the BEST system is that it allows for consistency of coaching. The coaches at camp and the coach at home have a consistent message. They nearly always see the exact same problems with her form, and the athlete hears the same comments from all her coaches. I have to believe that is due to the BEST method. In the past, if you asked 5 coaches to evaluate the same athlete, you would likely come up with 5 different opinions about how to proceed. Not so in my experience with BEST. The message is consistent, an that certainly can't hurt.

So is it a chicken and egg kind of thing? In my opinion it takes both a talented athlete and excellent coaching to make a champion. I don't care who your coach is, if you don't have the drive and the talent, you are not going to be a world class shooter. No coaching system (BEST or otherwise) can take an archer with average ability and turn them into world class shooters. If the US is going to dominate archery at the world level, then we are going to need to find many more athletes with the talent to to go all the way. 

So yes, JDT athletes should dominate at events like the Jr World Trials. They are both talented and are receiving great coaching. But you should know that several kids are shooting way better that those who have come before them and their scores back that up.

We won't know for a while if the crop of kids coming up through the ranks is talented enough to put the US on top again, but if they don't make it, it won't be because of a lack of good coaching.


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

*It's about coaching!*

A talented archer will shoot well (not his/her best) even with a bad coach.

A poor archer will improve with a good coach, and a talented archer will become world class with a good coach. I saw this phenomenon at college, where our soccer team was ranked last in the division. We got a new coach, and the next season the team made the division quarterfinals!

So, the question remains: What makes a good coach?

I think it's someone who can analyze the archer's form, make him aware of his weaknesses, show him a _method_ (whatever works!) to improve, as well as nurture him in areas where he is already strong. 

The athlete and the coach must be able to respect each other; a fruitful coach/athlete relationship develops a special kind of intimacy, otherwise the archer won't feel free to open up on certain issues to the coach, and won't accept critique. A good coach shares not only in an archer's accomplishments, but also in his defeats. And a defeat is not always because the archer or the coach have failed.

I'll admit, I too was skeptical when the US hired Lee. I felt reminded of the Jamaican bob-sled team in "Cool Running", where they tried to win by copying the style of the best team. If Lee is a good coach (and from what I've heard and read, he most certainly is), then he will do all of what I've written above. The only place the BEST method comes into play is helping the individual archer improve his/her form and thereby score higher.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Guy,

You know I know the facts and you shouldn't feel the need to defend anyone. You guys are doing a good job with those who have chosen to stay with the program and I believe a young archer is better off staying there if they can. I've said that for years. 

However, with respect to accomplishments, I am more interested in how our U.S. archers stack up against the best archers in the world, not the other archers in the U.S... And the archers should be too. Placing at grand prix or national events with a limited field is an accomplishment, but not in the same league for those with true elite competition in mind. You know this as well as anyone alive.

Not to be disrespectful or dismiss those accomplishments you cited, but I pay attention to results at events where all the teams show up. 

So far, our recurve teams have not ranked in the top 10 that I'm aware of at a major international event. Not sure when the last time that happened. And the women failing to field an Oly. team for the first time ever? I consider that a MAJOR failure. Our men's team was on track to rank 8th or 9th in Athens, and there may be one world championship (Jr. or Sr.) or Olympics where the U.S. team ranked higher than 10th, but I don't recall when that was... I think you'd have to go pretty far back. Feel free to correct me if I'm missing one.

Don't take my comments the wrong way. I support a logical, consistent method of coaching IF we're going to have a national program. I simply suggested an alternative. And the facts remain that we are no more internationally competitive today than we were 5-6 years ago. In fact, the statistics may show that we've fallen even further behind with the rise of several other nation's mens and women's programs...

One area you don't want to get me started on is our ladies recurve program. I won't even go there on-line. 

John.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Since I know this is a sensitive subject that gets a lot of attention, I just did a quick "fact check" on U.S. team ranking and final placement at Oly. and World Championship events since 2003. 

2003 WC - Men rank 7th, finish 5th; Women rank 15th, finish 11th

2004 Oly. - Men rank 11th, finish 4th; Women rank 9th, finish 13th

2005 WC - Men rank 10th, finish 7th; Women rank 10th, finish 12th

2007 WC - Men rank 10th, finish 6th; Women rank 11th, finish 11th

2008 Oly. - Men rank 10th, finish 9th; Women? Nowhere to be seen...

IMO, the team rankings at major competitions demonstrate how competitive a national program is as well as anything else. Countries will always have one or two superstars, but for a team to consistently rank high requires depth. And depth can be achieved by 1) sheer numbers, 2) quality coaching, or 3) both. 

Forget Korea. Take the top 5 or 6 national programs in the world and run the numbers and see what you get. As a national program, we're not impressing anyone - regardless of whether our coach is the best or not. 

It may just be that our approach in general is off. Not enough young recurvers to draw from, or enough willing to make the sacrifices required. Or perhaps our best talent is shooting compounds. I couldn't deny that either.

Certainly some things to think about, and if we don't right the ship soon, some questions will need to be seriously answered (even moreso than following the '04 games I think).
___________________________________________

Now, a little closer to the topic, I believe it's a coach's job to coach the entire individual. Not just show them proper technique and then say "okay, go shoot." Many coaches (and archers) I know focus way too much on technique and not enough on the mental preparation. This is especially true with young archers. We teach them how to shoot in relatively calm conditions and surroundings, then put them on the line in major situations. Then shake our heads wondering why they often struggle. Good coaches understand their archers and can sense what's going on with them sometimes even before the archer can. That kind of relationship takes a LONG time to develop, and can rarely be developed in a group setting. 

When I was coaching a small group of archers at the 2006 Nationals, another coach asked me why I was running around so much. They said their philosophy was to prepare the archer before the competition, then after that it's up to the archer and their job was done. I thought a lot about that comment, but still don't think I agree with it.

John.


----------



## SHOOTO8S (Dec 26, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> I have a very simple solution for all of this...
> 
> Take all the money we are spending at the OTC and offer it up as prize money at each of the USAT ranking events, with the largest sum at the NAA outdoor nationals.
> 
> ...



Very simple solution John !


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> So far, our recurve teams have not ranked in the top 10 that I'm aware of at a major international event. Not sure when the last time that happened... Feel free to correct me if I'm missing one.
> 
> John.


John, I assume you're not accounting for indoor archery at the international level. The US Men's _recurve_ team won gold at the FITA Indoor World Championships in Poland this year with a total of 1752 rings, followed by Italy and Mexiko.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Flint Hills, I'm aware of that. Two of those archers were good friends and that was a GREAT win for the U.S. team.

But rarely do the asian or Aus. or Indian teams shoot the indoor events. I guess I'm looking at those events that the entire world show up to. Olympics and World Championships. And obviously my "top 10" figure was off, but not by much. 

Hazarding a guess, the U.S. teams (men and womens) have been stalled around a 10 - 12 collective world ranking for quite a while now. And unless we raise the bar within the U.S., I don't see that changing. In fact, I see it getting worse as other nations develop their teams even more...

If a world renowned coach and a consistent national program isn't enough to change this, then I'm wondering what will. Bringing the top U.S. talent to the recurve division at major national events may help. I'd love to see the results of a poll of the nation's top compound shooters, asking the question of what it would take to get them to make the same committment to Oly. recurve as they've made to compound unlimited. That would be an interesting poll.

John.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> When I was coaching a small group of archers at the 2006 Nationals, another coach asked me why I was running around so much. They said their philosophy was to prepare the archer before the competition, then after that it's up to the archer and their job was done. I thought a lot about that comment, but still don't think I agree with it.
> 
> John.


Me too.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Vittorio said:


> Me too.


I think I agree with this too and John's comment, although coaching in competition seems to me to be different than coaching at practice. I will defer to the experts here, but in competition I think it is more important to focus on the positives and keep an assertive and upbeat mindset. It seems to me that many younger athletes over think things in competition and try too hard. If their coach is standing over them all the time, this makes it worse. Now, I do think it is important that if you see a form flaw or consistent mistake to point it out and correct it. But, as John (and I think Vittorio) are suggesting it is more important to make sure their head is right. With the more capable athletes, I think the coach takes more of a partner role in competition. Confirming the wind, cheerleading, affirmations of perfect shots, etc. At this point with these athletes being there all the time is not a negative. I guess what I am saying is that coaching in competition is situational leadership. It depends on the on how willing and able the athlete is to excel.


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

TomB, 
I agree with you and think the coach should be actively involved at competitions as well as during training. And yes, the coach's role during a competitive shoot is a different one than during training. That role is not just cheerleader, etc. Remember that at any competition, only a few will place, while the rest of the archers "lose". For those not "winning", they need the coach to offer them consolation and support. It's really rough on you when you _want_ to excel, but just aren't good enough to beat the other archer. Here the coach can make or break you (emotionally/mentally), depending on his reaction.

John,
There was an interesting thread posted on here last year called "Why Olympic Archery isn't popular in the US". There was a lot of discussion as to the why, but I think that it boils down to the rugged "frontier" mentality that is still present, at least in the minds of the American people. Bowhunting and related bow sports such as 3-D and Field Archery are a "natural" outlet for that mentality (FITA compound target archery is just an extension of that). Nothing wrong with that, but FITA/Oly style recurve archery is too "genteel" to appeal to most US archers (that, of course, is just my own private opinion). 

Having an accomplished coach and a consistent training program won't be enough to convert archers from compound to recurve. The rationale being: I'm a world class archer shooting compound. That includes a lot of publicity and lucrative financial perks (sponsors, prize money). Why risk that for a discipline I might not excel at?

You'll have to start with youngsters just entering archery. The NASP is doing a wonderful job, unfortunately all for compound archery. If you have the "raw material", i.e. aspiring young recurve archers, then the world renowned coach can and will accomplish much together with them.


----------



## Archery Ang (Apr 24, 2006)

> When I was coaching a small group of archers at the 2006 Nationals, another coach asked me why I was running around so much. They said their philosophy was to prepare the archer before the competition, then after that it's up to the archer and their job was done. I thought a lot about that comment, but still don't think I agree with it.
> 
> John.



I don't agree either. I think sometimes having a coach there to help at a competition is more important. You can prepare until you're blue in the face in practice, but sometimes at a competition you need a swift kick in the rear to get your head back in the game. Coaches are perfect for that.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Vittorio, Tom,

I've seen two distinct variations of the coaching philosophy at competitions: 1) leave them completely alone, or 2) be right there behind them through the event. 

I've seen "top" coaches from various countries do both. I myself see little value in a national coach who sits back and watches from the sidelines, unless of course every single one of their archers shoots better with no feedback at all...?

My coaching experience is pretty limited, I'll admit, but I do believe that unless you develop a good working relationship with each archer you won't know what that individual needs during an event. Each archer I've worked with was different. Some did better with me standing right behind them giving them reminders, while others did better when I left them alone and they could get into their own rhythm. 

Flint Hills,

I've often thought that a person either has an Olympic dream or they don't. If they do, they will make the sacrifices required to follow that dream. If they don't, then they can say whatever they want, but they will still pursue other incentives, whatever those may be. To me, it really is that simple.

In the U.S., shooting Oly. recurve long enough to reach the competitive level is a huge sacrifice for many who did not start out with traditional bows. I can understand why so few would choose that path.

John.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> sometimes at a competition you need a swift kick in the rear to get your head back in the game.


Exactly. And that seems to be the most important job I performed as a coach at competitive events. Always reminding my archers to "run through the finish line" and "never let up" while carefully watching technique and occasionally providing specific reminders for individual archers of key things we had worked on in training.

I myself benefitted from a swift "kick in the rear" at the Oly. trials in 2004. Although I never had a personal coach, something that Larry Skinner said to me during the first day of the trials probably made the difference between having made the team and missing it by a few points... I've never forgotten that.

I'd say that in a nutshell, a coach's job is to prepare the archer prior to competition, but then keep their head on straight during it...

John.


----------



## OldSchoolNEO (May 11, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> In the U.S., shooting Oly. recurve long enough to reach the competitive level is a huge sacrifice for many who did not start out with traditional bows. I can understand why so few would choose that path.
> 
> John.


That's the truth.
I "gave up" after '92 and decided to get a "real job" and focus on my then young family.
The financial commitment to travel and train and enter tournaments is significant.
Not to mention the time factor, as you have little room for much else.
Olympic Recurve is a tough gig!


----------



## palmer (Sep 23, 2003)

Coaching arguments aside, I've said it before and I'll say it again.....there is a reason that class "A" schools can't compete with class "AAA" schools....sheer numbers. Some of you already commented on this in one form or the other. Increase the talent pool and an amazing thing happens, the athletes and their respective team mysteriously excel. Just an amazing phenomenon, huh?

Coaching enhances talent. It doesn't create it.


----------



## LoveMyHoyt (Nov 29, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> .... Although I never had a personal coach, something that Larry Skinner said to me during the first day of the trials probably made the difference between having made the team and missing it by a few points... I've never forgotten that.
> 
> John.


Care to share what he said to you???


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yea,

"STOP TRYING SO [email protected]#N HARD!" 

In that gruff tone that only Larry can pull off...

He was right. I was trying too hard and he could tell from 40 yards away. After that, I loosened up and shot well for the rest of the week.

John.


----------



## Archery Ang (Apr 24, 2006)

That's the best advice ever. Don't think...just shoot the darn arrow.


----------



## TheShadowEnigma (Aug 16, 2008)

"Don't think, just shoot." Is what I tell myself before each shot before I clear my mind. 

"X-Ring. Follow through." That is the only thing that is in my mind when I'm shooting.

Of course saying that is like telling someone not to think about a Pink Elephant. However it usually works for me.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Anyone else notice that 1/2 day's worth of posts on this thread have been removed?

Guess I said too much for someone's taste...

John.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Anyone else notice that 1/2 day's worth of posts on this thread have been removed?
> 
> Guess I said too much for someone's taste...
> 
> John.


I checked it out and nothing has been removed...except one a few days ago at the poster request.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

target1 said:


> I checked it out and nothing has been removed...except one a few days ago at the poster request.


Then there is something wrong with the records. There are posts by John about his opinions on avoiding injury and questions by me for clarification that are all missing. Surely injury prevention is important to all archers, and competitors especially.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Well, it certainly wasn't my imagination. You aren't getting all the information if you can't find the problem. 

Actually doesn't surprise me that they were pulled, even though nothing nasty or untrue was ever said. 

If they magically "disappeared" then it's an awful interesting coincidence.

John.


----------



## skybowman (Jan 31, 2004)

Perhaps a techno-contributor to the board can find a cached version out in cyberspace and repost.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

That's just it though. Nothing that was posted was all that earth-shattering, I thought. So it's kind of sad that someone felt the need to react by pulling the discussion. If it was pulled for the reason that I think, I can understand why though. I hope that wasn't the case. 

It is interesting to note that there have been over 180 views of this thread in the past 3 hours, but only one post by skybowman. Earlier today I thought it strange that there were so many views, and yet so little activity (replies). Makes me wonder if there was a busy censor, or just a lot of curious lurkers...

Would be nice to know the truth, because what's available online at the moment isn't it.

John.


----------



## ldfalks (Mar 14, 2003)

John, you're dealinig with AT here man. The only way to teach them a lesson is to not post. That'll show 'em. 

Maybe ya'll should keep a running log of your posts in a word doc that you can reference and reopst when disaster strikes. 

There are many views on this thread because some people are probably hoping to see something new or informative. All I have seen is a rehash of the last 3 years of rehashing, but I'm not giving up hope.

I didn't get to see your injury stats. I would have liked to have seen that.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Dee, I didn't post stat's. Just some anecdotal observations from my personal experience before you came on the scene at the OTC. Not worth a whole lot, but apparently more of a threat to someone than I ever imagined. Funny thing is, I really didn't think they were all that threatening and saw them more as helpful and informative than anything else. Guess someone didn't see it that way. 

I'm not going to keep a log of posts. This stuff ain't that important to me. I don't hang on every word here and I don't think anyone else should either.



> There are many views on this thread because some people are probably hoping to see something new or informative


So then, over 100 people were looking for new or informative coaching philosophy between 11:30 p.m. and 12:30 a.m. on a Tuesday night?



> The only way to teach them a lesson is to not post. That'll show 'em.


Interesting theory.



John.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

ldfalks said:


> There are many views on this thread because some people are probably hoping to see something new or informative. All I have seen is a rehash of the last 3 years of rehashing, but I'm not giving up hope.


Well, archery isn't new and we all like archery. If "newness" were the indication of value then none of us would be archers. Same goes for posts. A post needn't needn't contain utterly new insights--if that is even possible in archery--to have value. And what may be old hat to a veteran coach such as yourself may be new and have value to others.


----------



## ewan (Aug 28, 2007)

Sadly, the google cache only has the first page of this thread. Maybe we should all go back to sagi..


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Anyone else notice that 1/2 day's worth of posts on this thread have been removed?
> 
> Guess I said too much for someone's taste...
> 
> John.


Only a moderator can delete posts, right? If they do so, aren't they required to inform the poster? I'm not saying, they have to say why. But it does seem strange that posts which are not offensive would be pulled without explanation.

Unfortunately, I can't attest to their former presence, since I wasn't on this thread between when they were posted and when they were pulled, but the topic sounds quite interesting. 

Maybe it was just a technical glitch, a freak accident... who knows? Perhaps the moderators can be of some help...


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

I did attempt a post on another thread yesterday, and after hitting "Send reply" I got a Google "Oops, this link is currently inactive" message. Couldn't call up the homepage either. So maybe....


----------



## JDT_Dad (Nov 5, 2008)

*Why not re-post?*



limbwalker said:


> That's just it though. Nothing that was posted was all that earth-shattering, I thought. So it's kind of sad that someone felt the need to react by pulling the discussion. If it was pulled for the reason that I think, I can understand why though. I hope that wasn't the case.
> 
> It is interesting to note that there have been over 180 views of this thread in the past 3 hours, but only one post by skybowman. Earlier today I thought it strange that there were so many views, and yet so little activity (replies). Makes me wonder if there was a busy censor, or just a lot of curious lurkers...
> 
> ...


If you believe that the posts were pulled by "big brother", then why not re-post and see what happens? If they are pulled again, then you have your answer. If not, then maybe it was a tech glitch.

Sadly I missed the posts, but would love to have seen them. I probably accounted for 5 of the 180 views myself.

So I'll ask the question, what is the deal with injuries?


----------



## ldfalks (Mar 14, 2003)

Let's get back to the philosophy part.

I think archers should be able to make most tactical andd technical decisions themselves in competition within their level of ability and maturity in the sport. The coach needs to be there to watch and help them if there is something that they need to help with.

The only way the archer and coach can be successful is to work as a team and learn to compete by competing and working together over a period of time. Getting a coach the week before a competition is not going to help an archer much. the relationship has to start FAR in advance of that.

JMHO


----------



## JDT_Dad (Nov 5, 2008)

*Coach - Athlete Relationships*



ldfalks said:


> Let's get back to the philosophy part.
> 
> I think archers should be able to make most tactical andd technical decisions themselves in competition within their level of ability and maturity in the sport. The coach needs to be there to watch and help them if there is something that they need to help with.
> 
> ...


Here is a link to a website with a very good article on the athlete-coach relationship written by coach Jim White. http://usaajdt.com/2009/05/relationships-determine-results/


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Guys, yesterday (Tuesday, June 9), around 2 a.m. EST I posted on the 3-D Board on the "Leaving IBO" thread. That post is gone. I suspect something is wrong with the AT site server...


Flint, hopefully you're right. And maybe that's all it was. Strange coincidence, but I hope that's all it was and if so, I can certainly accept that. But I've not heard a peep from the Mod's since yesterday and I don't have a "reply" option on the Moderators? thread now. Not sure if that means it's closed, or what.

Sorry thing got off-track here. I'll save the other comments for another thread, another day...

Uhm, coaching philosophy, right? 

Dee, you are correct about building the relationship. It is so important that an archer trust their coach and trust is only built over time. Reputations alone do not build trust. Communication of the right kind for the archer is what does. 

I've seen archers give up on coaches too soon, and coaches give up on archers too soon. Likewise, I've seen the relationships last too long as well. When an archer reaches the limits of a coach's understanding and therby their own proficiency, it's time for a change. I have passed students along to better coaches several times now. It's sometimes hard to do (for both parties) but in the end it is the only way to improve.

John. 

John.


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

I started following this thread yesterday. Very interesting! I found the part of posting about the BEST coached youth setting records. I find it hard, like John, to use an already naturally talented archer before BEST as an example. I have seen Denise shooting records as a young archer without the BEST method. I find that it is the level of competition that a talented archer competes against brings out their highest results. What if Denise would have had equal competition for her age group to push her? I bet her record scores would be higher. The coaching here before has never been ready to deal with very young talent. The archery coaching community was not ready for the next step up for the youth when I got involved with my daughter in archery. In 1991 I could not even find a bow to fit her at 9 years old. I remember telling Lloyd Brown at the first JOAD Outdoor which they allowed the compound, that she could shoot high scores at distance as good as the Intermediate girls. She was talented.
I know that it will be brought up that this was the compound bow and not the recurve. In less than two years shooting with the recurve she made the JR. World Team and finished higher than the other girls who had been shooting recurve for a long time. At that time it was known that she had lost interest in archery and did not put in the focused effort. My point is talent over method.
On the injury issue....I shot with a top recurver that told me that he was injured using the BEST method. He told me that in all the years before he had never injured himself. I do believe one method does not fit all. 
I love John's idea of paying for placing in a tournament using USOC funds.


----------



## SandSquid (Sep 2, 2008)

Archerone said:


> On the injury issue....I shot with a top recurver that told me that he was injured using the BEST method. He told me that in all the years before he had never injured himself.




I'm recovering from a shoulder injury, a SLAP Tear and torn Bicep Tendon to be exact.

I was pretty convinced that the B.E.S.T. method at least contributed in some way to my injury. And I told my orthopedic surgeon this. He has carefully examined every shred of material he and I could find on the mechanics of the B.E.S.T. method to determine if shooting this method caused or contributed to my specific injuries or could potentially lead to other injuries. 

His exact words were: "If more archers correctly executed this method, I'd see a lot fewer of them in my office and in my operating room."

His advice to me was: "Use this B.E.S.T. method, and don’t go above 40# draw weight, and you will never need my services again."


----------



## JDT_Dad (Nov 5, 2008)

Archerone said:


> On the injury issue....I shot with a top recurver that told me that he was injured using the BEST method. He told me that in all the years before he had never injured himself. I do believe one method does not fit all.
> I love John's idea of paying for placing in a tournament using USOC funds.


I should have made this clear in my previous post. The girl was not injured while shooting. Believe it or not she was injured during the warm-ups before the shoot. 

As far as using a naturally talented athlete as an example. If you want to win internationally, I think you will have to have a very talented archer and superior coaching to win. 

We need to grow the talent pool so that we have more talented archers in the pipeline. A greater number talented archers will equal more chances for success. This is why killing the funding for the OTC is such a bad idea. The OTC is the one place trying to develop new archers. Giving the money to a bunch already successful archers will do nothing to grow the pool of potential Olympians IMHO. It's kind of like a technology company killing off research and development. You can get away with it for a little while, but in the long haul you will fail do to a lack of new products in the pipeline.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> The OTC is the one place trying to develop new archers. Giving the money to a bunch already successful archers will do nothing to grow the pool of potential Olympians IMHO


Uh, sorry but all you have to do is look at the ridiculous amount of world titles our compounders are winning to see whether it works or not. To me, that is all the proof I need.

I say Build it, and they will come.

Every company out there doesn't own every plant and part of the manufacturing process, even if it does wear their brand. I think by offering serious prize money at all the USAT events and Nationals, we'd get talent from other diciplines to come try their hand at Oly. recurve. I use myself as an example - shooting compound and traditional hunting bows for 20 years before I ever touched a target bow. The ability was always there, I just never had an occasion to pick up an Olympic recurve. And right now, there are thousands of 3-D, traditional and compound target shooters that don't really see a reason to either. 

I really believe we need to solve the talent problem first before getting carried away with a coaching technique. The U.S. still has a great deal of world class archery talent. But most of them aren't shooting recurve.

And to be accurate, the OTC has nothing to do with "growing" the talent pool. It is a training facility for already talented individuals. Grass-roots archery programs like NASP, ASAP, JOAD, 4-H and local youth 3-D events are what "grow" the talent pool.

John.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> ... Grass-roots archery programs like NASP, ASAP, JOAD, 4-H and local youth 3-D events are what "grow" the talent pool.
> 
> John.


Youth Target Archery...the future of the sport


----------



## Cuthbert (Nov 28, 2005)

Wow, what a great thread. You go John!!

:moviecorn


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

> Grass-roots archery programs like NASP, ASAP, JOAD, 4-H and local youth 3-D events are what "grow" the talent pool.


And it gets even better. While we are growing the talent pool we are exposing so many kids to the life skills developed by the participation in archery. Then we also create a life long fan base, some future coaches, and financial contributors. The critical success factor for archery that is so underutilized is that it is not a zero sum game. Everyone can have a good day. Golf understands and embraces this. Access to coaching and venues are the limiting factors for growth. Coaches have to be willing to coach the beginners, and the intermediates and then be smart enough to pass on the really talented ones to better coaches. To really grow the talent pool we have to take care and listen to the people who are passionate about running youth archery programs (in times when youth archery was the red headed step child because youth archery didn't put anyone on the podium in the short term). Only then can we expand to new JOAD clubs flowing out of the NASP, ASAP, 4H and 3D events.


----------



## archerymom2 (Mar 28, 2008)

JDT_Dad said:


> Here is a link to a website with a very good article on the athlete-coach relationship written by coach Jim White. http://usaajdt.com/2009/05/relationships-determine-results/


Great article! Nice job Jim -- who, by the way, is the newest official Junior Dream Team coach!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

In case anyone is interested, I tried to re-create some of the "missing" discussion from this thread on the "Moderators?" thread. I didn't want to re-hash (as Dee would say) all the injury stuff here.

Something that I will "re-post", as well as I can recreate it, is a reply to a question I got regarding "options" to coach Lee's method here in the U.S.

What I said about that is that I still recommend that any serious archer (by that I mean serious about competing on the international stage) still find a way to get one-on-one time with coach Lee. Until proven otherwise, I still believe that he is the only one that understands fully this method he is developing. I have always recommended to my students (and they and their parents can back me up on this) that they get to the OTC and work directly with coach Lee. So I do have confidence in him and his system. There is no disputing his results with Brady. 

However, there are not only options here in the U.S., but very good options that I personally would consider equal and possibly even better for some to spending time with coach Lee.

Because an archer-coach relationship is of utmost importance, coach Lee and his method will not work for every archer. So there must be good options for U.S archers to compete at the elite level.

In my humble opinion, my "short list" of U.S. coaches that I know can produce an internationally competitive archer is as follows: *Rick McKinney *(still "the man" in my book), *Sheri Rhodes* (maybe the best in between the ears that I know and unquestionably the best women's coach in recent memory), *Frank Thomas *(steady, stable and professional at all times), *Larry Skinner* (good 'ol down home wisdom and wit - and my buddy), *Bob Romero* (his recent hire to the coaching position in FL is well deserved), *Don Rabska* (the mastermind genius), *Lloyd Brown* (possibly the most underrated and unappreciated elite coach we have), and *Terry Wunderle* (even though he told me I wasn't worth his time 3 months before I made the Oly. team, I still love the guy and respect the heck out of him!).

Surely there are some I've missed, but the question was asked of me so I responded honestly. The above list is the one I give archers who are serious about becoming the best they can be, and want to compete for the U.S. on the "big stage" someday. They have my confidence, and I am pretty critical of coaches as a whole (sorry, just am  )

John.


----------



## JDT_Dad (Nov 5, 2008)

*I Disagree*



limbwalker said:


> Uh, sorry but all you have to do is look at the ridiculous amount of world titles our compounders are winning to see whether it works or not. To me, that is all the proof I need.
> 
> I say Build it, and they will come.
> 
> ...


I respectfully disagree. Just because there are many successful compound archers, doesn't mean they are successful because of the prize money. There is no cause and effect here, only an opinion.

I also have an opinion, and I believe the reason we are so successful at compound archery is because we have so many compound archers. More archers, means more competition. Competition weeds out those with the talent and drive from those who don't have it. The cream rises to the top. Why are so many people shooting compound? I would suggest the numbers are primarily driven by hunting. I know this is true in PA.

By eliminating money for the OTC you have done nothing to make the number of Olympic quality archers any bigger. You are right, the OTC doesn't grow the pipeline, but it is the finishing school for the pipeline. If you de-fund the OTC, the same recurve archers who are winning now will continue to win in the US, until they are too old to compete, but you will have far fewer people who have been properly trained to replace them when the time comes. Yes you might be able to pull a few archers from other disciplines by offering them some money, but the majority of folks are going to have alot of trouble supporting themselves while training without the help of the OTC. 

Take a look at what works. The most successful country (Korea) is successful because they have a huge pipeline to develop talent, and a proven uniform coaching system, not because of financial rewards.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Hey, we can respectfully disagree on this. That's fine. More than one way to skin a cat, I say.

You're right on target about the compound success being partly a product of their sheer numbers. There is no doubt that is an important factor. So the question becomes, how do we increase the numbers of recurve archers?

But there is an important point here. I never suggested just simply cutting the OTC budget off. What (I think) I suggested was to make those dollars, or at least some of them, available for prize money at all the USAT events and Nationals. I handle budgets, facilities and personnel on a daily basis, and I have a pretty good idea what the operating budget for the OTC archery program must be. There should be plenty there to make enough prize money available to make a difference, and attract the numbers we need. 



> they have a huge pipeline to develop talent, and a proven uniform coaching system, not because of financial rewards


Uh, I think the financial rewards are why they have a huge pipeline. I haven't been there myself, but don't they have a number of professional archers in that country? And isn't there a grand sum of money available for the Oly. team members and medalists? I think there is plenty of financial incentive for the Korean archers already. Someone with firsthand knowlege feel free to step in and correct me or add to that if you want.

I can speak for myself and my brother James and say that the travel, lodging and registration costs are a BIG part of why you won't see us at USAT events. Or why I've not been active since '05. I just simply cannot afford to travel around and shoot. So I shoot at home, and go to local events if I can make them. I can think of MANY current and former USAT recurve archers who are in the same exact boat. Plenty of skill and experience, but they just can't afford to keep throwing money after a simple "honorary" designation (USAT) or the opportunity to make an international team - which will just cost them MORE money. This is a HUGE problem for our Juniors and Cadets as well. ALL those Jr. World teams should be fully funded by the USOC dollars. Those kids are our future and they desperately need the experience. It's a shame that their parents are taxed the way they are, even after all the money they spent on traveling all over the U.S. to get to that position in the first place.

John.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> I can speak for myself and my brother James and say that the travel, lodging and registration costs are a BIG part of why you won't see us at USAT events. Or why I've not been active since '05. I just simply cannot afford to travel around and shoot. So I shoot at home, and go to local events if I can make them. I can think of MANY current and former USAT recurve archers who are in the same exact boat. Plenty of skill and experience, but they just can't afford to keep throwing money after a simple "honorary" designation (USAT) or the opportunity to make an international team - which will just cost them MORE money.


Except for a few winners I don't see how prize money would change that, in fact, wouldn't prize money up the entry fees to pay for the prizes? Meaning that the tournaments would cost the average person (who won't place) more money?

But, I can see that prize money might be something that could keep top players in the game...

Hmm...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I can think of about 6-10 current or former USAT members and those who have the potential to be USAT members, who don't attend shoots because there is not enough return on the investment. 

No, fees wouldn't have to be increased at all if there were money available from the USOC. 

Look, this is pipe-dream stuff I know, since there is probably no mechanism available to use USOC funds to pay out prize money at USAT events. Someone knows the answer to this, but I doubt it is even an option.

I'm just throwing it out there for the sake of discussion since it is such an obstacle to so many talented archers.

It would be interesting to see just how many recurve archers attend the Vegas shoot because prize money is available. There certainly are a lot of recurve archers there. I'm sure many of them go because of the opportunity to offset travel costs with prize money. We should have that opportunity at all the USAT events and outdoor Nationals.

John.


----------



## JDT_Dad (Nov 5, 2008)

*Actually you did say you would cut off all money*



limbwalker said:


> But there is an important point here. I never suggested just simply cutting the OTC budget off. What (I think) I suggested was to make those dollars, or at least some of them, available for prize money at all the USAT events and Nationals. I handle budgets, facilities and personnel on a daily basis, and I have a pretty good idea what the operating budget for the OTC archery program must be. There should be plenty there to make enough prize money available to make a difference, and attract the numbers we need.
> 
> John.


Actually, you did say you would cut off all money to the OTC:



limbwalker said:


> I have a very simple solution for all of this...
> 
> Take *all* the money we are spending at the OTC and offer it up as prize money at each of the USAT ranking events, with the largest sum at the NAA outdoor nationals.
> 
> ...


I don't disagree that more money to help offset the considerable costs involved in archery would help out greatly, but I don't think it is the driving factor in getting more people involved in the sport. 

We need to attract kids to the discipline and I don't see financial rewards accomplishing this goal. Telling a 9 year old kid "Johnny, when you grow up you can make money doing this" is not to motivate too many 9 year old kids to take up recurve archery.

Yes the Koreans do support their archers, but from what I understand they support the entire pipeline, not just the 50 or so who can shoot a 1350 FITA. Archery is supported in the schools and in the workplace, not just at the national training centers. I think that is why they have such a large talent pool to draw from.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Actually, you did say you would cut off all money to the OTC:


Ugh! Please read along and put things in context, will you? My suggestion was not to SIMPLY cut off funding alone, but to take that money and make it available for USAT and NTC events. Big difference.

So, following your suggestion, we should take part of the money and make it available for prize money, then send part of it to grass-roots programs like JOAD, 4-H, NASP, etc. 

Sounds good to me. Never have figured out why a JOAD national event should have to send so much money to the NAA. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

John.


----------



## Steven Cornell (Mar 22, 2003)

*What does Prize money have to do with coaching*

I do not think that they give prize money in some of the other Olympic sports that you could compare to Olympic archery.
Fencing, air rifle are just two.
Now the sports that make money have money for prizes.
But what does that have to do about coaching?

As coaches we are trying to help the archer become better.
Where they want to compete at: the club, or international level.
We can also help archers to just have fun. 
Each archer is different so you have to look at what works the best for them.

So John have you ever taken the ASEP course?
Athlete first, winning second.
It like shoot your best and let the score worry about it's self.

As far as the BEST Method goes, take a look at Darrell Pace's form.
BEST is about 90% of Darrell's form.

Coaching is a lot like being a MD. Coaching is a practice.


----------



## skybowman (Jan 31, 2004)

Let's assume we agree the BEST method is where we need to go. If it is to gain significant traction, then clearly it needs to be taught properly to those coaching young archers and ultimately, to their students. Yet much of the dialogue in this thread and others suggests that if I want to learn the BEST method properly, I should probably be taught by Kisik Lee directly. Unfortunately, that's a bottleneck if its real.

In addition, I might mention that I've been to a couple of BEST seminars a year apart and the style appeared to have changed slightly, suggesting that it has evolved or is being taught differently by different individuals. So what's right?

Having been a Level II for many years, my concern is to properly coach archers so that they can enjoy the sport and have the opportunity to improve.


----------



## SandSquid (Sep 2, 2008)

skybowman said:


> Let's assume we agree the BEST method is where we need to go. If it is to gain significant traction, then clearly it needs to be taught properly to those coaching young archers and ultimately, to their students. Yet much of the dialogue in this thread and others suggests that if I want to learn the BEST method properly, I should probably be taught by Kisik Lee directly. Unfortunately, that's a bottleneck if its real.


That is where the "pass down" from each level of coaching needs to come into play.

I was fortunate enough to train under Mrs. Hopwood and she was able to work with us to teach us the proper way to do it, and the proper way to teach it.

You cannot effectively, or safely teach something you cannot fully grasp youself.




> In addition, I might mention that I've been to a couple of BEST seminars a year apart and the style appeared to have changed slightly, suggesting that it has evolved or is *being taught differently by different individuals*. So what's right?


It's when people who don’t fully understand or understand incorrectly that issues arise, IMO.

When our local Shop owner returned from his Level-III Certification under Coach Lee himself, he and our area's High Performance Coach went out of their way to help each and every one of us (shooters and level-II Coaches alike) fully understand and feel the proper way of doing it. That way we are ALL on the same page and can coach the B.E.S.T. method properly and safely.





> my concern is to properly coach archers so that they can enjoy the sport and have the opportunity to improve


Can we get an "Amen, Brother"!


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

skybowman said:


> Let's assume we agree the BEST method is where we need to go. If it is to gain significant traction, then clearly it needs to be taught properly to those coaching young archers and ultimately, to their students. Yet much of the dialogue in this thread and others suggests that if I want to learn the BEST method properly, I should probably be taught by Kisik Lee directly. Unfortunately, that's a bottleneck if its real.
> 
> In addition, I might mention that I've been to a couple of BEST seminars a year apart and the style appeared to have changed slightly, suggesting that it has evolved or is being taught differently by different individuals. So what's right?
> 
> Having been a Level II for many years, my concern is to properly coach archers so that they can enjoy the sport and have the opportunity to improve.


Excellent point. And it is a big challenge. Any new methodology needs to be disseminated properly and widely.
I use the KISS ('keep it simple stupid') method myself. Which leads me to another observation. In most everything I've done or attempted to do, simplicity bred elegance. A simple shot sequence executed flawlessly equals stellar results. Every time I've over analyzed anything, the results were horrible.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Steve, this thread has multiple angles/lives...

Can't ever tell which aspect of coaching or competition we are talking about, and as you know there are 100 variances of each...

Absolutely I understand about coaching the individual to their potential. Anyone who has seen me coach could tell you I'm all about athlete first and winning second. I would hate to be seen as someone who puts winning before anything else. Not me at all. My students would all tell you that.

However, when the discussion turns to elite international competition, then winning IS important. Geez, I almost find myself sounding like my buddy GT there, but it certainly is. To show we have a successful national program, we need to do better than 10th in the world. I'm not really satisfied with that, and I doubt anyone else is either. If I were, then I'd probably just trot my students out to a local 3-D range and call it good! 

Sure, there are probably a lot of olympic sports where there is no prize money or professionals involved. Which ones of those do we dominate international competition however? I'd love to see that stat. When it comes to archery though, I know one thing that works, and that's the model developed by the NFAA - and is the ONLY reason we have our compounders out there consistently kicking butt and taking names at the international level. So there is my example, and it's in our own sport, with athletes that could very well be shooting recurves instead!

There is no doubt in my mind that if many of the top compounders applied themselves and took the same approach and attitude to the Oly. bow that they do with their compounds, we would have teams ranked much higher than 10th in the world... One of the biggest beefs I've had over the years is the whining I hear from the fita recurve crowd. Meanwhile, our compounders are kicking you-know-what and consistently figuring out ways without the help of a national coaching program to stay on top of the world. It's all about attitude, determination and motivation. In those areas, they (compounders) have us beat hands down. And on the line at our U.S. events, I tend to see more whining and less attitude from our recurvers than our compounders. Maybe that's just the personalities that are attracted to the diciplines, but it is worth noting since our compounders are the best in the world.

We need recurvers with winning attitudes. The compund crew was telling us that 5 years ago, and I didn't fully understand what they meant at the time. Sure do now. There I go again making statements that I know I'll get flamed for, but that's how I see it. 

On another topic Steve, I managed yet another 3rd place finish at indoor nationals this year. Funny, eh? I know you get the joke...

John.


----------



## ArrowNewB (Nov 13, 2008)

Just wondering here. If the Olympics is the mother of all competition for the recurve archer, what is the current equivalent for the compound shooters?

In that competition, how many of the top 10 Olympic ranked nations are represented? What are they ranked? Do those that are not in this competition have a national compound team to represent them?

I'm just curious as to what will happen if the top archers from the top nations in the Olympics all decided to pick up compounds and compete. Are their skills transferable from one form of archery to the other? If so, which direction of transfer do you think will be easier and more successful?


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

ArrowNewB said:


> Just wondering here. If the Olympics is the mother of all competition for the recurve archer, what is the current equivalent for the compound shooters?


Vegas here in the states


----------



## ArrowNewB (Nov 13, 2008)

Huntmaster said:


> Vegas here in the states


So vegas is the mother of all competitions for the compounds like how the Olympics is the top level competition to train for, for the recurves?

And the US is top ranked in the world, in this competition.

I'm just curious because if all it takes for the US to dominate Olympic archery to to get our top level world class compound shooters to be interested and pick up the recurve; are we really comparing equal ability archers when we say the US is leading the world in compound archery.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

ArrowNewB,

I will let the compond shooters speak for themselves (Lord knows they are more than capable of that!), but yours is a very valid question. And we're starting to see the answer too. More and more countries are preparing very skilled and competitive compound teams. And yet, our compounders still win. Why, well at least part of it is, like I said, attitude. They just plain scare the crap out of the other teams when they step on the line because everyone on the field knows they are the ones to beat. Same effect that the Koreans have on recurve archers. I believe that as good as the Koreans are at recurve archery today, our compounders are that good. Just look at the ability of even the 10th-15th ranked U.S. compound archer to go overseas and either win, or medal. I see it over and over again for the past 5 years. 

Sit down and talk for a moment with our compounders who shoot internationally, and it won't take long to understand why they are successful. They know they are the best in the world and they go out and shoot like it.

John.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

ArrowNewB said:


> So vegas is the mother of all competitions for the compounds like how the Olympics is the top level competition to train for, for the recurves?
> 
> And the US is top ranked in the world, in this competition.
> 
> I'm just curious because if all it takes for the US to dominate Olympic archery to to get our top level world class compound shooters to be interested and pick up the recurve; are we really comparing equal ability archers when we say the US is leading the world in compound archery.


Olympics happen once in 4 years.
Other than that the US itself has a lot of well-paid tournaments *over the year* for compounders (not only the spot like tournaments but also 3D).

And apart from all this, you got those crazy Koreans that produce an immense base of Olympic shooters in their training programme.
Just few days ago, the world cup stage 3 ended with all 3 medals going to Korean girls (who BTW ended 1st 2nd and 3rd in the qualifying round as well).


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

John, it falls into the same category of paying as you go. Compounders do not have to go to as many certain tournaments and be ranked like the Olympic archers. There are so many different rewards out there for them to shoot for. Their buddies shoot the same style and there are many types of shooting for them. You will not see, but a few Olympic recurvers out shooting field rounds. IBO, or ASA. These shoots are healthy competitions that hone their skills both mentally and physically. I always believed the variety was good for loving the sport. Of course the Koreans do not shoot indoors or other venues. That is why Olympic coaches do not like shooting anything other than the Olympic target. Compounders get more for their money spend on archery.


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> I've seen archers give up on coaches too soon, and coaches give up on archers too soon.
> 
> John.


Yep! When I first started shooting, which was not that long ago, before I'd internalized my shot sequence, our club coach would approach me and say something like, "Don't hold your bow in a death grip! You're torqueing it. Let your finger-sling hold the bow."

I'd concentrate on my grip, forget everything else, and then be shocked at where my arrows were ending up. So shocked, that I'd say to myself, "Forget her! She has no idea what works best for me!" The truth of the matter is, everytime I worked on a new element of style or sequence, my performance took a dive before recovering. But I wanted quick success!

At some point, she sort of gave up on me and left me to my own devices (and I feel that it's more important for her to spend time with some of our more promising youth archers than with a middle aged "liesure" archer). 

But guess what? This May, I finally took her advice concerning my grip vs. the finger-sling, and the most amazing thing happened! My groups started to tighten up all on their own...gee, imagine that!

Maybe I could convince her to spend some time working with me again...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Sometimes, paying a coach for lessons really is the best way for both parties. Lord knows I've given away free lessons for years now, so I'm one to talk, but I'm convinced that if there is a $50/hour fee on the line, it will get the best out of both the coach and the archer. In most cases, the archer will value the information MORE than if it was free, and they will certainly pay better attention. And I think the coach will be better prepared.

I've only charged for three lessons since I began coaching. They were all adults, and each traveled a long distance to come see me at my home. They had quite a lot of money invested in those lessons, and they listened incredibly well, took copious notes and then went home and applied what they had learned. 

Couldn't tell you how many times I gave a free lesson, only to see the archer lose interest halfway through the lesson! And by the end of it, they were telling me what worked best... ha, ha.

So, for some folks, paying for lessons is the best approach I think.

John.


----------



## crownimperial (Jan 26, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> Sometimes, paying a coach for lessons really is the best way for both parties. Lord knows I've given away free lessons for years now, so I'm one to talk, but I'm convinced that if there is a $50/hour fee on the line, it will get the best out of both the coach and the archer. In most cases, the archer will value the information MORE than if it was free, and they will certainly pay better attention. And I think the coach will be better prepared.
> 
> I've only charged for three lessons since I began coaching. They were all adults, and each traveled a long distance to come see me at my home. They had quite a lot of money invested in those lessons, and they listened incredibly well, took copious notes and then went home and applied what they had learned.
> 
> ...



I could not agree more with this, i pay my coach each lesson and boy can i say i get a lot out of every one i go to! I bring a note pad an pen write stuff down and pay attention to every word. At the end of the lesson he takes my pad an writes things down for me to work on, including lil sketches and all types of info and even sets up a schedule for me for the next couple weeks to improve the most with on whatever im working on. Although i believe only the serious and dedicated ones would pay the $$ for the lesions which also great for a coach which is trying to train archers to the elite level.


----------



## TheShadowEnigma (Aug 16, 2008)

I support my local range. I pay for all of my lessons


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Good point crown - it helps the coaches "weed out" the casual shooters from the serious ones. 

Kinda off-topic, the "paying for lessons" thing, but It was something that came to mind as a potential reason for a breakdown between coach and archer.

Now obviously all archery coaches (or just about all of them) donate their time for youth archery programs and training, as it should be. But as a student gets more serious about their competition, it helps for the relationship to become more formal I think. Maybe more professional is a better word...

John.


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

I don't rightly know...I pay my club dues, which pays for my coach's training and time. And since I'm still in the club, I'm the one that has to take (good natured) ridicule when my performance is under par. Heck, I'm the one that wants to succeed at archery, and I don't think paying more for coaching would make me take it more seriously. On the contrary, it most probably would keep me from getting any coaching at all, since I'm on a tight budget!

I firmly believe that you need more political and financial support for the sport! It can become very costly for parents to pay for coaching, entry fees, transportation, hotel costs, etc. Olympic archery shouldn't be an elite sport (in the sense that only those of independent means can take part).

In Germany, you start at club level, compete at district, province and state level. The clubs pay for coaching and fees, and parents car-pool the kids to tournaments. If you're good, then you move on to the nationals. The German Marksmen's Federation then choses talent from among the youth and sends them to the German national Archery Training Center during vacations, and recommends their attending sport-magnet schools (there are 3 in Germany where Archery is taught/trained). The parents must come up with money for room & board, but all other costs are covered (and there are scholarships and "student" loans for the room & board).

The adult archers are often drafted as "sport soldiers" into the military. After basic training, their main occupation is to train and practice. While archery is still considered a fringe discipline, talented archers still get a load of support!

Sounds like America has a long way to go, though I do envy you for your NASP and ASAP programs, the likes of which cannot be found here in Germany. I know America could do something similar, since I grew up in TX, where the UIL/University Intervarsity League organizes all levels of school competition. Heck, when I was in high school, we never had to pay for anything while at competitions except for meals.

Part of the problem of high costs could be solved, perhaps, by implementing what the South Africans have instated in Field competition. They divided the country up into districts, which were again sub-divided, and so on, all the way down to the local level. By succeeding at one level of competition, you move on to the next. That helps eliminate alot of the travel and associated costs.

They also have "major" and "minor" leagues. Everyone starts of in the minors, and if they reach or exceed a certain score at 3 consecutive events, they move up to the majors. That means that you have major and minor league archers shooting at the same event, but not shooting against each other. That is a great motivator for an intermediate level archer!

To sum it up, I think that by structuring the annual competition schedule, by supporting young archers financially, and enabling them the access to free and competent coaching, you will see the popularity of the sport rise.

Once you have a large enough talent pool to draw from, you will start to see more success on an international level. The BEST coach :wink: in the world can only work with what raw material he has, and only if he has enough of it can you see whether or not his coaching method is successful compared to that of other world renowned coaches.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Flint Hills Tex said:


> I don't rightly know...I pay my club dues, which pays for my coach's training and time. And since I'm still in the club, I'm the one that has to take (good natured) ridicule when my performance is under par. Heck, I'm the one that wants to succeed at archery, and I don't think paying more for coaching would make me take it more seriously. On the contrary, it most probably would keep me from getting any coaching at all, since I'm on a tight budget!
> 
> I firmly believe that you need more political and financial support for the sport! It can become very costly for parents to pay for coaching, entry fees, transportation, hotel costs, etc. Olympic archery shouldn't be an elite sport (in the sense that only those of independent means can take part).
> 
> ...


I think this post should be looked at prety closely. There is more than one way to get things done, and some ideas from other countries might spark an idea here. Just a thought


----------



## JDT_Dad (Nov 5, 2008)

Flint Hills Tex said:


> I don't rightly know...I pay my club dues, which pays for my coach's training and time. And since I'm still in the club, I'm the one that has to take (good natured) ridicule when my performance is under par. Heck, I'm the one that wants to succeed at archery, and I don't think paying more for coaching would make me take it more seriously. On the contrary, it most probably would keep me from getting any coaching at all, since I'm on a tight budget!
> 
> I firmly believe that you need more political and financial support for the sport! It can become very costly for parents to pay for coaching, entry fees, transportation, hotel costs, etc. Olympic archery shouldn't be an elite sport (in the sense that only those of independent means can take part).
> 
> ...


This is a fantastic post. Great ideas. Thanks Flint Hills Tex


----------



## Arrowinten (Apr 9, 2009)

*The system*

In my opinion, what is happening today with the Koreean shooting technique beeing copied in other countries, has happened in the past. Archery had its country - leaders throughout the years: USA (during Pace & Mckinney era), Russia (with Esheev, Zabrodsky, Valeeva etc.), Ukraine (Muntyan, Ivashko, Ruban etc.), Italy (Frangilli, Valeeva, Galiazzo etc.). The form of the winner has always been copied, but now it seems that everyone is expecting miracles from one book and from one coach, or from all Koreean coaches.

I remember that, not so long ago, there were Russian coaches everywhere in the world. Now there are Koreean coaches everywhere and most of the archers we see in the World Cup are shooting the same way. Considering the high scores recorded in the recent years, we can conclude that the influence was benefic (more than 30 archers shooting above 1300 in a World Cup stage).

But from what I can see, the Koreean way is not benefic everywhere. I heard that in Italy, "Total Archery" is very appreciated, but where is Italy now? Compared with their tradition, the scores of Italian archers are dropping seriously. And I think I may have a reason for this drop. I am from Romania, also a Latin people as the Italians, French etc. Here we have tried for many years to import the Ukrainian system, and except for a few archers who improved their scores, the results were not spectacular. In the Ukraine, as in Koreea, everyone shoots in the same way, everyone has to learn the same form; for a few athletes this is excelent, others can adapt to it but not with high resulting scores, and for the rest there is not much that can be done - they have to continue with low scores or take-up another sport. Such a system needs many many athelets, from who to choose the ones that adapt best to the "required form", and send them to the International Circuit.

My opinion is that such a system does not work for the Latin countries and also not for USA, as the individual is very important in our cultures. I remember the beautiful USA Team in Atlanta - 3 archers & 3 different shooting styles; I remember the Italian Team with Frangilli, Di Buo, Bisiani & Galiazzo winning medals in major competions - also 4 very good archers with 4 different styles. I remember Pace shooting differently from Mckinney, but both scoring very high. This variety is one of the most beautiful things in archery, but now it is fading away.


----------



## rpdjr45 (Jul 28, 2007)

You've hit it right on the head. The BEST style will work, but not for all people. The system of forcing athletes into the BEST style is the bone of contention. Or implying through word or action, or inaction, that it is this way or no way for you. For this reason I would love to change the Olympic selection process to one similar to the track and field team selection: top three scores go, and two or three alternates. Nothing counts but the scores. Could be a well known archer, or a Back Woods Bob, or an LA Nancy.


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

*Interesting event*

I don't think this is to far off topic because it shows a difference in philosophy and attitude regarding archery.

I was a large archery event recently...there was about 6 thousand participants at the 4 day event...(not an exaggeration - actually attendance was down from 8 thousand the year before ). Lancaster invited two of Samicks top exec to come and see what was going on. Lancaster had been suggesting a new line of bows for Samick and they wanted to let the Koreans see why.

They walked around for 3 days in wonderment that so many archers would show up for an event that was not competitive...just a bunch of arrow flingers having a good time....To them there was no point in having an archery event if it was not competitive. They left sold on Lancasters idea.

Art


----------



## MyLifeIsArchery (Aug 10, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> I have a very simple solution for all of this...
> 
> Take all the money we are spending at the OTC and offer it up as prize money at each of the USAT ranking events, with the largest sum at the NAA outdoor nationals.
> 
> ...


I do agree that more money will help, but IMHO cutting money from a program that has created the #1 archer in the US is bad. You say that the compounds are so good because they make more money, but its not from tournament winnings(besides vegas). Compounds make all there money because of contingeny from sponsors. They get paid twice as much as any recurve shooter. If a recurve wins a USAT event they might break even, were the compounds make money. If you could actually make money shooting a recurve more people would shoot one. Plain and simple.

America is compound based thats why we are so good. Every were else in the world is recurve based. Other countries pay there shooters because its there job, they pay them to shoot and to win medals or try. Lets say if america paid there top 15-20 shooters just to train we would get better. The higher your ranked the more you get paid, people would try harder to get into the money. Recurve archery in america is a hobby, not a job.

To do something like this US archery needs more money. The RA programs funds got cut by more than half from 08-09. What did they do, they went out and found a sponsor (TaxMasters) to make up the difference. If the RAs could do it then the organization should be able to also. You want to cut funds, well they already did. Taking more money out of the program and putting up for the USAT wont make a difference. The compounds would not like it if recurves were the only ones getting prize money. And if both divisions were getting prize money then it would be the same as now because compounds still get more contingency from sponsors so every one would still want to shoot a compound.

One more thing the BEST method is NOT KOREAN!!!!!!!!!! Coach Lee observed what Darrel Pace did, analyzed it made it better and taught it to the koreans. Since the 84 olympics korea has not lost a gold medal until 08 and its because of Coach Lee's system that he taught them. The system that was born from watching DARREL PACE. The same system that he taught AUS. and won medals with. Coach Lee's system is proven. Coach Lee analyzed the best shooter of the time DARREL PACE and made it into a repeatable system. The same system that US archery name THE BEST METHOD. In a way the BEST method is more american than korean, they just learned it first 

Sorry this turned out to be a novel. I just wanted to say something after reading about how the RA program is a waste money and how ever one has a quick fix. What I said above is not a fix, I am just saying what people every were else do. If you want changes then stop complaining and fix it or try to. If Coach Lee method is not working then go out and build the next olympic champion yourself if its that easy.


----------

