# FITA Eliminations - good tactics or poor sportsmanship?



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

I'm kind of hoping this is just a rumor.


----------



## stodrette (Jun 19, 2002)

Unfortunately, it isn't the first time I have heard of this.

Does taking the high road and getting beaten in an earlier round make one feel better?

or do we use the fact that others employ this tactic as an excuse to do it as well?


----------



## bsu_beginner (Feb 14, 2005)

I would think it would backfire. Hello people!!! The goal is to win... the goal is to hit 10's. Oh well... maybe I'm draconian in my approach to winning. Sorry. 

I really do hope its a rumor, but its one of those things... you can see it happening.


----------



## bowbender7 (Jun 1, 2002)

I'm sure it did happen and it makes perfect sense to me. Elimination rounds are a crap shoot anyway, the US might as well use some of the same strategies other countries use.

Fight fire with fire I say.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

It's weak!!! The way of a coward in my opinion. Shoot your best and let the chips fall where they fall.

Mentally, it is a bad thing as well to duck your competition. It creates more anxiety when you do go up against them. You would tougher mentally if you bump heads with them on a regular basis.

Glad he wasn't my coach, I would tell him to get bent.

That has really got to give the team confidence when your coach thinks you should duck them in a earlier round????????????????????????

I would give him the axe if it was me. The more I think about it, the more upset I am about hearing this.


----------



## bowbender7 (Jun 1, 2002)

So some people think that doing things within the rules in order to win or place higher is weak? I dont think we sent a team to make a moral statement and our coach recognizes the method used by other teams. It sounds like the same argument people use who gripe about people who shoot 2613's for indoor as an advantage. Its there for anyone to utilize.

Had the coach not prompted this action, nobody would be commending the US for doing the "right" thing.

I dont recall anyone hammering the Koreans for doing the exact same thing in the past.


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

> It's weak!!! The way of a coward in my opinion. Shoot your best and let the chips fall where they fall.


DITTO!

Dave


----------



## Guest (Jun 23, 2005)

Unfortunaly this type of format opens the door to "strategy" all the media people I have ever delt with have all said that because archery has no real "strategy" liike a team event makes it boring to watch. I don't like the idea of this comming into play but there is no real way to pevent it.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

bowbender7 said:


> So some people think that doing things within the rules in order to win or place higher is weak? I dont think we sent a team to make a moral statement and our coach recognizes the method used by other teams. It sounds like the same argument people use who gripe about people who shoot 2613's for indoor as an advantage. Its there for anyone to utilize.
> 
> Had the coach not prompted this action, nobody would be commending the US for doing the "right" thing.
> 
> I dont recall anyone hammering the Koreans for doing the exact same thing in the past.



This is the first I have heard about it. Ok, the Koreans are weak too. How's that. This isn't the same as shooting fat arrows. You don't have head to head comp in that kind of game. Apples and oranges. BTW, I use 2413s. 

Don't get defensive because of the team that did it this time. I call it like I see it. WEAK!!!

What would make you feel better as a competitor? Shooting your best on every arrow and losing earlier or throwing arrows to be the bigger fish in the smaller pound. If you are a real competitor, this throwing arrow bit should make you feel sick.


----------



## bowbender7 (Jun 1, 2002)

Well, I will say that there is a slight distinction here. This was done for the benefit of the Team portion of the shoot and the arrows were dropped by a competitor who had no chance of making the final cut on an individual basis. In the coaches eyes this individuals most beneficial contribution to the team at this point was to follow orders and do what was instructed.

As an individual its not something I would consider or do on my own - I agree about shooting your best, thats what I always try to do.

But I also understand why the team coach implemented this tactic.

As Sean stated above, this is strategy and is akin to a baseball coach instructing a pitcher to walk a big hitter - for the good of the team, as a safe bet. In this instance a good pitcher could have the attitude "I could have struck this guy out" and maybe the coach thought he could too. Its not about the pitcher its about the TEAM.


----------



## Hollywood (Oct 24, 2002)

It is very easy to be an armchair quarterback, isn't it? 

The ultimate goal is to be shooting as well as the number one team (Korea, in the case of recurves). Until we get to that point, strategy is essential. We don't use this strategy "just because someone else uses it." We use it because it gives us a higher probability of winning a medal. That is what everyone is after - winning as many medals as possible. Sad? Maybe. But true. 

I think that the coach did exactly as he should have done. I'm sure that he didn't TELL the archer to drop the arrows. Rather, he likely told her what the situation was and let her decide what to do. She has been around many years and is very familiar with world level competition and strategizing. That archer had absolutely nothing to gain by shooting 20 points higher, she still wasn't going to make the individual cut, but by dropping 2 arrows she potentially helped the team. To think of the TEAM is admirable. Bowbender also pointed this out. 

In the team rounds, if you are seeded 8 or 9 you are in the top half of the bracket and will almost assuredly meet the 1 seed in the second round (if you win the first round); however, if you are the 10 seed, you are in the bottom half of the bracket and you won't meet the 1 seed until the finals (providing you make it that far)...you would meet the 2 seed (but that's better :smile: ).


Please, don't get on anyone until you've been in their shoes. If, at some point, you have the opportunity to be there...then you will be faced with making the decision of what to do. Help the team? Or not? 

-peace,
Hollywood


----------



## bowbender7 (Jun 1, 2002)

Copy that and 10-4 Hollywood. :cocktail:


----------



## Hollywood (Oct 24, 2002)

Thanks, bowbender.


----------



## Legend_Of_Sherwood (Nov 24, 2003)

I think that more you will calculate the sooner you will be out. 
Shoot your best and don't let the scores to dictate your shooting.


----------



## toxoph (Mar 24, 2005)

Hollywood said:


> It is very easy to be an armchair quarterback, isn't it?
> 
> The ultimate goal is to be shooting as well as the number one team (Korea, in the case of recurves). Until we get to that point, strategy is essential. We don't use this strategy "just because someone else uses it." We use it because it gives us a higher probability of winning a medal. That is what everyone is after - winning as many medals as possible. Sad? Maybe. But true.


Yes, and along with this understand points arent droped to get in an easier bracket for a better chance of winning but as Hollywood says, to get in a different bracket so 2 team mates do not eliminate each other too early and have a better chance for team medals. Often the bracket they drop to is tougher.

Perfectly ok in my books, by any country

Now if you want to talk about some other things the Koreans (and others) do that border on being cheap or unethical, theres plenty there too.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

*Good grief....*

How is this any different than a RBI bunt who is out at first? Why is a sacrifice fly a good thing? In baseball, these individuals at least had the potential to reach first base, but we see their failure as a contribution to the team effort. 

The strategy at World's has the shooter already out of individual competition - but can contribute to the team effort. 

We don't know yet if the missed arrows will be a RBI, but it may help the runners to advance. 

Go team USA!


----------



## Hollywood (Oct 24, 2002)

Nice post, Seattlepop.


----------



## bowbender7 (Jun 1, 2002)

Seattlepop, I have doubts that we will change any minds here but I will add that regarding this subject - General Patton would be proud, Kasparov would understand and the risk will always be there that someone else can trump you at your own "game".


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

stash, tell me the truth, you have been around this sport, game, hobby, competiton for a long time....is this the first time you have heard of this type of action, strategy, gamesmanship-or lack of it being done?????

i know little to nothing of this format and venue....but i have heard for the last 4-5 years of how this is done at these fita competitions .....that it is and has been a part of the game....sometimes, by one person "throwing a match" it can eliminate a stronger opponent who placed themself on the chopping block.....

now myself, i always play to win....and personally would have a hard time throwing any kind of match....but even i have heard of this type of activity going on in these competitons....

dont hate the player-hate the game...

now if anyone has real issues or problems with this going on, or even allowed to go on....those issues should be with the organization that allows it to happen......so petition the org for allowing such actions to take place....

heck, its disgusting that yall would wait till one of your own gets the shaft put to them before you come and expose this crap....what kind of organization puts rules in place that allow for the manipulation of the game and puts the integrity in question of the whole contest....

what i find odd about some of yall on this thread is.....yall seem to be able to flip sides on issues and dont stay consistant....

yall say, rules are rules....and use the rules to your advantage...is that only if it doesnt effect you or someone you know?????

if the rules allow for someone to get bumped, by someone that it wont effect.....than so be it....use the rules to the fullest....if you dont like the rules....like every other archery venue...change them....

by the way....who got the shaft on this strategic move......

and above all else...GO USA.....


----------



## Hollywood (Oct 24, 2002)

onebowtie said:


> ...those issues should be with the organization that allows it to happen......so petition the org for allowing such actions to take place....


OBT - I'm pretty sure it would be impossible for FITA to institute a rule that said, "You may NOT miss the target." 

I also think that you're referring to something other than what happened here. I believe...you're talking about throwing matches (as in the trials...and while this is another topic for debate...in a seperate thread, please)...that isn't what happened here. 





onebowtie said:


> and above all else...GO USA.....


What he said.

-peace,
Hollywood


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Hollywood said:


> OBT - I'm pretty sure it would be impossible for FITA to institute a rule that said, "You may NOT miss the target."
> 
> I also think that you're referring to something other than what happened here. I believe...you're talking about throwing matches (as in the trials...and while this is another topic for debate...in a seperate thread, please)...that isn't what happened here.
> 
> ...


my bad...but this type of stuff has been happening in all of archery....funny how its only a issue when one of your own is on the south end of a stink bomb....


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

Totally support the decision to drop two arrows in search of a better bracket for the Team. These are the facts of life with the OR: a team has a better chance of getting into the medal round when (1) team members don't face each other in the lower rounds (thereby eliminating one of them) , and (2) avoiding pairings with the number 1 seed for as long as possible (thereby maximizing the chance that someone else will knock off the nbr 1 seed before you have to face them -- as has happened often in the WC and Olympics, especially in men's recurve). As long as the OR is the 'championship' round, it behooves all participants to be aware of the nuances.

In the majority of cases, it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish either (1) or (2). It takes a very savvy team coach who continually monitors scores and calculates permutations. It takes an archer's ability to 'fine tune' scores, an ability that in many if not almost all cases, just ain't there, at least not to the extent necessary to be successful at this. (For example, how many times has it been tried, only to fall prey to the 'one bad arrow' syndrome common to the OR?) Most of all, it takes archers who are willing to try to do whats best for the team as a whole. We have no way of knowing, of course, but I would bet that most efforts at managing a team's bracketing in this way do not succeed.

But, in the case being discussed, the decision was an easy one: the archer in question was not going to make the cut and was going to be eliminated from the individual competition, regardless of her score on her last two arrows. Kudos to the coach for being on top of the situation and to the archer for recognizing that she could improve her team's chances of success by 'taking one for the team'.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

oldreliable67 said:


> Totally support the decision to drop two arrows in search of a better bracket for the Team. These are the facts of life with the OR: a team has a better chance of getting into the medal round when (1) team members don't face each other in the lower rounds (thereby eliminating one of them) , and (2) avoiding pairings with the number 1 seed for as long as possible (thereby maximizing the chance that someone else will knock off the nbr 1 seed before you have to face them -- as has happened often in the WC and Olympics, especially in men's recurve). As long as the OR is the 'championship' round, it behooves all participants to be aware of the nuances.
> 
> In the majority of cases, it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish either (1) or (2). It takes a very savvy team coach who continually monitors scores and calculates permutations. It takes an archer's ability to 'fine tune' scores, an ability that in many if not almost all cases, just ain't there, at least not to the extent necessary to be successful at this. (For example, how many times has it been tried, only to fall prey to the 'one bad arrow' syndrome common to the OR?) Most of all, it takes archers who are willing to try to do whats best for the team as a whole. We have no way of knowing, of course, but I would bet that most efforts at managing a team's bracketing in this way do not succeed.
> 
> But, in the case being discussed, the decision was an easy one: the archer in question was not going to make the cut and was going to be eliminated from the individual competition, regardless of her score on her last two arrows. Kudos to the coach for being on top of the situation and to the archer for recognizing that she could improve her team's chances of success by 'taking one for the team'.


ok...if this is just a manaveur for the team...why are we being all secretive of who, where, and why....

lets go, either its right or wrong...dont yall sit on the fence...lets hear exactly what we think happened or went down.....

unless we get actual events...this is all conjecture and thread malfunction


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

Janet Dykman dropped her last 2 arrows to move the USA Team from 9th to 10th. By doing this, they avoid having to shoot against the Korean Womens team the second round. Great job by the coach for seeing this and Janet for "taking one for the team"


----------



## Hollywood (Oct 24, 2002)

I don't think anyone was being secretive (after all, the information is in the press release on the NAA webpage), rather people were just talking in general terms in this thread. 

-peace,
Hollywood


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

From USArchery press release:



> Under the direction of U.S. Coach Alexander Kirillov, Dykman intentionally missed the target on her last two arrows in order to give her team a better seeding for Friday’s team round competition.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

well as it appears......the USA coach was doing his job....to keep the team and members informed of what they need to do....

and yes, things like this happen in every sport .....just as professional teams sometimes coming down the stretch dont always field the best team, because with either a loss by them, or a win by the opponent places their team in a better position in the playoffs....

sounds like a great heads up call on the coaches part...and what choice did janet have at this point.....she wasnt going to advance anyway....

stash...do you feel this was a bad move...or a good move...and have you ever or your team ever been involved with similar actions????

thanks for the update and input ......i am liking this side and venue of archery more and more.....

GO USA.... we are all behind you and your very heads up play....always place yourself in the best position to win or get the highest place....


----------



## hkim823 (Oct 6, 2004)

I feel funny cheering on our team now knowing full well that we dropped points intentionally. Looking at the team round draw, and assuming that Janet could have easily nailed two more tens at 30, we could have been the 7th seed and still be in the bottom half of the draw in the same position we would have been without dropping those two arrows. Of course I'm not there, there's no way of knowing of any other teams tried to also shoot for position rather than just shoot their best either. 

The choice has been made though for better or for worse.


----------



## huggybear (Sep 30, 2004)

the only reason the team would have been 7th is cause the Russians missed 3(on purpose) on the last end to get into the 10th seed. That is the only reason. janet had no chance of making the team, Alexander knew what was going on and was watching the other teams to see what they were doing. This is something done by all the teams.


----------



## Hollywood (Oct 24, 2002)

huggybear said:


> Russians missed 3(on purpose) on the last end to get into the 10th seed.


I think that Guy meant that the Russians did this in order to get into the 6th seed (which makes sense...putting them in the bottom of the bracket). 

The only way that all of this strategizing could be stopped is for the tournament organizers to not post scores, thereby not allowing the participants (or anyone else, for that matter) to be able to following the standings. Not a great solution ,in my opinion. 

-peace,
Hollywood


----------



## hkim823 (Oct 6, 2004)

Thanks for the update Guy. I'm sure that any one of us in the same situation would have done the exact same thing that Janet would have, and given that piece of information Alexander did make the right call since other teams were jockeying for position.

In my opinion though it still doesn't seem fair or right. The baseball analogy doesn't quite play because I still feel that archery is a individual sport like tennis / golf / etc. etc. etc., baseball requires a complete team effort to win. If there was a baseball analogy it is like intentionally walking in a run to lose the last game of the season to get into a lower seed to face a more favorable opponent in the playoffs. That just doesn't sit well in my stomach.

Either way though I'm sure every American archer is cheering on hard our peeps in Spain right now. Knock em dead tommorow everyone!


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

hkim823 said:


> Thanks for the update Guy. I'm sure that any one of us in the same situation would have done the exact same thing that Janet would have, and given that piece of information Alexander did make the right call.
> 
> In my opinion though it still doesn't seem fair or right. The baseball analogy doesn't quite play because I still feel that archery is a individual sport like tennis / golf / etc. etc. etc., baseball requires a complete team effort to win.
> 
> At the same time there's nothing that can be done to stop it sort of behavior.


while archery may be a individual sport...it appears in this case it also is a team sport....

and dont kid yourself about any sport requiring a complete team to win, lose, or keep a game close....key players/particpants make all the difference in the world....bench a qb, pitcher, shooting or play maker guard, and you have a whole different team....

its done all the time in sports....when you can place the team in a better position by not winning, or not winning big....it somehow happens.....

if they wanted to stop this part of the game, they could...but it appears that its as much a part of the competitions as the individuals themselfs....

sometimes you win when you lose...and sometimes you lose when you win....


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

What you guys are failing to see is the mental part of this deal.

Missing a target is never a positive thing...ever. The coach here isn't looking at the whole picture. He is worried about the result here and now. He should be developing these young gals mental approach to competition so they are better prepared to face it in a positive way. It is ok that you get a negative result from a positive effort, that can be overcame and you can learn from it, but a negative result from a negative effort is not good. This also shows lack of respect to your opponent. Always give your best effort. What if that young gal was on her way to shooting her PB? Huh? How are you developing Janet's mental toughness and confidence by doing this?

Coaching isn't just about winning, it is about developing these young people and help them achieve the confidence and the mental strength to win down the road as well.

Self confidence and mental toughness in competition are hard things to build, but easy things to tear down. These gals are young.

You want your team to look forward to competing against the best, not doing everything you can to avoid them. You want them thinking, "excellent, we are facing the number one seed, I can't wait." You want the best to compete against early and often. If you aren't used to competing against the best, you won't be winning against the best. You may not be winning at all.

You want that number one seed thinking, "Dang, here are these spunky, pesky, never say die Americans again." You want that number one seed to expect a dog fight everytime you go up against them. You want them to know that they can't make any mistakes. You want them to feel nervous about facing you. You want them to know that they don't or can't intimidate you. You want them to know they have to shoot their very best.

He should want his team to get the number one seed early, this is when they are most likely to take their opponent too lightly as well. Get them early!! If you beat them early you have the psychological edge on them. Understand???? Intimidation is a big factor in competition. So is respect!!

All he is accomplishing here is adding to the intimidation that I am sure is there with the number 1 seed already. Just think of the advantage he just gave the number 1 seed with that move. If I was the coach of the number one seed, I would be telling my team, "look, the American team is afraid to face us, we own them now." "They are throwing points away in an effort to avoid us early in the round. When and if the number one seed faces us, they will have an edge and will have confidence that the USA team doesn't think they will be them.

The US coach is doing his team a disservice in the long run. Geez, I hope they don't lose now to the lesser seed they will face because of the arrows they threw. That would really be trouble for them girls' confidence and mental toughness.


Sorry OBT I disagree with you on this one. 

This isn't the same as baseball. This isn't truly a team thing in archery. You guys should know that. This shooting your own arrows. You just can't compare it to a team sport where the team uses one ball and has the team interaction. Nothing like a team sport. Just like wrestling in school isn't a real team sport now is it?

As for being called armchair quarterback, you are wrong. Mentally, the approach for the individual is the same in any competition. I have competed in team and individual sports. Give me the best often and early everytime. I relish the thought of competing against the best. If am going to lose, it will be against the best I can go up against with my best effort. No one will ever intimidate me either.

Maybe if you guys understood the mental aspect, you wouldn't be so afraid of that 1300.  

Seriously if you don't understand what I am trying to say, then you just don't get competition in my opinion and the mentality you need.

Just because others do it doesn't mean it is the best strategy or mental approach. It is also a piss poor excuse to do it. What your parents told you about this is true. What did they say when you asked to do something and they said no, but you said, "Johnny's mom and dad let him do it." What kind of answer did you get? 


I am off the fence all the way on this one. Just because other teams do it and it isn't against the rules doesn't mean it is good for the team to do.

I hope you understand where I am coming from.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

Hollywood said:


> It is very easy to be an armchair quarterback, isn't it?
> 
> The ultimate goal is to be shooting as well as the number one team (Korea, in the case of recurves). Until we get to that point, strategy is essential. We don't use this strategy "just because someone else uses it." We use it because it gives us a higher probability of winning a medal. That is what everyone is after - winning as many medals as possible. Sad? Maybe. But true.
> 
> ...


You don't beat the best if you never face them. What kind of thinking is this? Why be afraid to go up against the best?

You're sure he didn't say that huh?


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Ivorytooth said:


> What you guys are failing to see is the mental part of this deal.
> 
> Missing a target is never a positive thing...ever. The coach here isn't looking at the whole picture. He is worried about the result here and now. He should be developing these young gals mental approach to competition so they are better prepared to face it in a positive way. It is ok that you get a negative result from a positive effort, that can be overcame and you can learn from it, but a negative result from a negative effort is not good. This also shows lack of respect to your opponent. Always give your best effort. What if that young gal was on her way to shooting her PB? Huh? How are you developing Janet's mental toughness and confidence by doing this?
> 
> ...


tooth, you cant stair the beast in the face and say it aint so....yes, this is a world team championship....TEAM....so you do what you have to do...

i suppose you and your higher horse soap box things that the intentional walk is wrong....that rushing for short yardages is wrong(when the bomb is available on every play).....

what you fail to see tooth is that this here venue requires more than just a good shot...it requires a coach to assist in the team efforts.....it requires thinking and planning....can you deny this...

your looking at this all holier than thou....it aint about what one shooter does in one match...its about the TEAM.....there is no I team....

if this was against the rules....thats one thing...but has anyone, or any team ever been dq'd for this????????? 

like i said...dont hate the players....hate the game...

and again, this archery competition is no different than any other ....seems like someone always wants to change the rules or game....to suit them better....

there is a old saying....LIVE BY THE SWORD....DIE BY THE SWORD.....and im sure this type of activity has bit each and every team in the butt before....


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

I am talking about learning how to compete with the right mental approach and mindset. This isn't doing that. This really isn't a team sport like football or baseball. This isn't about a holier than thou thing. This is about where we are lacking as a team or as an individual and why we can't win gold. Our mental approach to the game sucks if this is how we are doing it.

I am not against the short run etc. Those are players interacting with each other on a team together using strategy. This archery team competition isn't the same. Never take points off the board.

Geez, it sounds like everyone there wasn't interested in hitting the target at all. I think they should make it where it is a team comp where every point counts.

While this seems to be common practice at these shoots, is it really doing us any good to play this way? I don't see us winning gold anywhere in archery until we develope the proper mental game. That is the real strategy. Doesn't anyone see the validity of my previous post?

When it comes to trying to beat the best in archery, it seems like we are teaching our shooters the checkers game and sending them to a chess match.

The mental game is the real strategy here. Not this jockeying for seeds. You want the best early anyways, that is the best strategy I am thinking. They are more likely not expecting defeat.

Like I said, this isn't about a rules thing to me. It is about why we can't win gold.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

So Stash, my answer in one sentence:

It is poor tactics and poor sportmanship.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

OBT- I never personally experienced this sort of thing when I was shooting because at the time it was all total-score, no possible advantage to dropping points intentionally.

First time I ever saw it in person was one year (I think 1987) at the Canadian team trials. Only 4 women had the necessary qualifying score, but the selection system involved several factors, and one was that team members had to place in the top 8 at the trials. One archer who had no intention of being on the team deliberately missed and allowed a friend to pass her into 8th spot so she could be on the team. Fortunately, nobody lost a placing because of this, so no real harm done.

I think the baseball analogy is not relevant, because intentional walks and sac flies are and always were an integral part of the game. This would be more like a team deliberately losing games to obtain a better playoff position, or maybe getting a better draft pick.

You can't make a rule preventing it, but it's not IMHO ethical. But it seems to be becoming more common and it's just another in a long line of things in the "win at any cost" attitude that is prevalent in sport.

This is NOT an accusation, but I'm wondering if the Canadian men compound shooters did this at 30M for some reason? Except for Kevin T, the 30M scores were WAY out of what would be expected from the other 3 guys. You can tell from the other scores that it was probably very windy, but to have all 3 guys (336, 339 and 342) drop 15 or more points off what they should have shot is a bit hard to understand. I hope that going from 2nd to 11th in the team ranking doesn't hurt them.


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

I here you Ivory and I guess on one hand one could argue that shoot what you can and let the chips fall were they may. If your out after round one then your out. Never going to learn if your never get to face the best…

On the other hand..

I guess an argument could be made to sacrifice a couple of point to keep the team in it as long as possible.. Shooting more teams .. Putting more pressure on themselves as they get closer and closer to the goal

Face the best and be out in one round .. Yes good experience or face several increasingly better teams as you try to take the best down and get in some more shots and experience with pressure.. Good experience as well.. Not sure there is a right answer . That elimination round was developed to be spectator friendly and fast pace. It really had nothing to do with the best interest of the archers and what may ( or may not be fair) I think one needs to practice how to come out on top on the "regular competition " and how to come out on top in the " elimination round" There both really no more then two separate tournaments with separate rules. If you can't win one you might as well try to win the other and yes on a good day both can happen


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

tooth,

Your response is so full of half-truths and generalities that its difficult to know where to start a response. Part of the difficulty is that most of your assertions are or would be true under many circumstances and perhaps in general, but not specifically in the situation at hand: a national team at the WCs.

And to get one detail out of the way immediately, Janet Dykman is a veteran archer, having been both to the Olympics and previous WCs. She has been there and done that and got the t-shirt. For Janet, this can hardly be called a negative result for a negative effort. Unfortunately, she was not on her way to shooting a PB, and no one can speak for Janet 'cept Janet, but I can only imagine and hope that she came away feeling good about having made a positive contribution to her team despite what would have been -- even with two tens -- a score well off her PB. You think she should not feel good about having helped her team? 

"Coaching isn't just about winning, it is about developing these young people and help them achieve the confidence and the mental strength to win down the road as well." ... a true statement as far as it goes, but a generality that to be useful in a national team context has to be expanded. Coaching is also about teaching the nuances of the rounds in which the archer and the team will be competing. We coach the Fita; should we not coach the OR? That means teaching the archer to recognize when it is to the archer's and the team's advantage to attempt to place themselves one bracket vs another. The randomness of the OR is well known: many a number one seed has been knocked out by the (in)famous 'one bad arrow' or the 'usually mediocre archer gets hot' syndrome. Indeed, in this very competition, the men's recurve number one seed, Park, Kyung Mo was beaten in the first round by the 64th seed, Leonardo Carvalho. A good coach will make sure that his team is aware of any seeding implications and that he can be expected to act accordingly to maximize the team's medal chances.

The WCs are not training. It is the real thing. The USOC pays attention to the number of medals. It is important for the team and the program to maximize ones' chances.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

I have mixed feelings on this - 

On the one hand, it may well be a shrewd move by the coach, but

To the extent her score impacts her world ranking individually, I feel badly for Janet.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Stash said:


> OBT- I never personally experienced this sort of thing when I was shooting because at the time it was all total-score, no possible advantage to dropping points intentionally.
> 
> First time I ever saw it in person was one year (I think 1987) at the Canadian team trials. Only 4 women had the necessary qualifying score, but the selection system involved several factors, and one was that team members had to place in the top 8 at the trials. One archer who had no intention of being on the team deliberately missed and allowed a friend to pass her into 8th spot so she could be on the team. Fortunately, nobody lost a placing because of this, so no real harm done.
> 
> ...


thanks for the answer.....again, i know next to nothing on how this works....and from what im reading....i see many many holes in the system...

others on here have touched on and made some good points....

and honestly, do you really think that the Canadian team would want to drop from 2nd too 11th....that makes no sense to me.....more likely i would say wind had a large part....

now back to the baseball analogy....not so much the intentional walks and sac flys....but you know that at the end of season when teams are jockeying for drafts, playoffs and so forth...they dont always field the best team to win games....its not eithical in my eyes...but somehow it has become part of the game and system....

back to archery.....i have to agree with ivorytooth in some of the things he says to me....i dont think by having your shooters not shoot their best and face whomever it may be...whether its the best or not....what your in a sense doing is telling them, hey-your not good enough to win...so lets just win this match and maybe another before you get beat....i understand as a coach, you want your "team" to go as far as possible, because that is how you will be judged.....(as the coach-which isnt a fair way to judge a coach)....but when you are instilling into your competitors, they cant win, or arent good enough to win....will they ever win???? will they ever become mentally strong enough to win???? will they ever really belive in themselfs????

i think each country has to decide what is important to them....is it to place the highest you can....or be the best you can....and than each governing body of that country should have the coach and representitives know up front what is expected.....and than thats the way it is....

personally, as a competitior, i would want to win, and win big every chance i could....and if one of my teammates didnt do their job in the first place, i shouldnt have to dump to pick them back up...because if you,me or anyone isnt there to win it....we really shouldnt field a team to begin with....

now, im not saying im against what was done...because like everything else....sport has learned how to operate in the gray area.....and if we have been victim of such actions in the past, and we can payback that party...so be it...what goes around comes around....and sooner or later everyone will be victim of their own ways....

do i have the answer no....in todays envoirment, is there a right answer????

power, money, lust, and greed....has it found its way into international archery......


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

olsenck,

World Ranking Points are determined soley by Olympic Round finishes. Janet was not going to participate in the OR, so there was no impact on her ranking.


----------



## PTH (Dec 30, 2004)

*throwing a match*

I just checked the results for the FITA World outdoor championships and all of our American shooters are gone....too bad one of our nations top shooters was eliminated but the very tactic just described ....during the US trials! I think the tactic stinks but it certainly exhists and many times we compete with other countries who do the same thing to make sure the best shooters get there....in our case we made sure one of the best shooters didn't get there?


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

The Olympic shootdown round was developed to make archery more interesting to spectators. The tactics that have followed are a shame. I wish we could go back to the good old days! I'm not sure these events really determine the best shooters anymore.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

oldreliable67 said:


> tooth,
> 
> Your response is so full of half-truths and generalities that its difficult to know where to start a response. Part of the difficulty is that most of your assertions are or would be true under many circumstances and perhaps in general, but not specifically in the situation at hand: a national team at the WCs.
> 
> ...


I have been told about how old and experienced Janet is many times already in PMs. LOL!. I still think she would like to be called a young gal. 

I am not trying to bash a shooter here. I respect all of them for their abilities. My questions are the way we are learning to compete in this arena.

Anytime you compete, it is training. You should be learning all the time, not just during practice. You can't learn to compete and win while practicing. You learn how to shoot and build confidence in practicing. You learn to win and to compete when competing. 

And you made my point about the seeds. The number one men's went down in the first round. Take them down early. Don't duck them. Don't let them off easy. Just think of the pyschological boost you get from meeting and defeating the number one seed. How would you think if you threw an arrow to avoid him, only to meet him later. Not gonna feel too good about it then and there. Never be intimidated. He has the edge if he knows you ducked him already.

I don't like the fact that we threw arrows to avoid the 1 seeded team and that they probably know that too. That is flawed strategy in my way of thinking. I would want the 1 seed to feel a sense of dread in facing us.  Read what I am saying in previous posts again about pyschological edges in competition. This is my big beef. I am not cocerned with who did it and I support our shooters. I want us to win the gold and ducking the best teams isn't in my opinion the way to do it.

Doesn't anyone get it?


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

PTH said:


> I just checked the results for the FITA World outdoor championships and all of our American shooters are gone....too bad one of our nations top shooters was eliminated but the very tactic just described ....during the US trials! I think the tactic stinks but it certainly exhists and many times we compete with other countries who do the same thing to make sure the best shooters get there....in our case we made sure one of the best shooters didn't get there?


i dont want to sound mean or anything here...because i got to be honest with yall.....

you fita bunch seem to be quick to point fingers at everyone but yourselfs....and in most or almost all other sport competitons....the winners are all the same...they win or lose because of themselfs....they dont depend on someone else to win or lose for them....

i am seeing things in archery lately that tells me we arent going to win consistantly anytime soon...heck, as tooth said...we are too soft because of being coddled with schedules, training, and donations....in other words, you fita types seem to be really pampered and act more and more like prima donnas....

PTH.....i heard about what you speak about....but let me ask you this...have the folks who were on the recieving end of this act, ever engaged in this before???? i have heard from the same rumor mill that yes indeed they have manipulated the system themselfs several times before....so, again, what goes around comes around....do i agree with any of it....im human, sometimes i do...sometimes i dont...and believe me, i consider myself friends to the folks from the west.....

i think its time to stop worrying about what the koreans, aussies, russians, or anyone else is doing.....and do like the mexicans just did...let the chips fall and take anyone down who gets in the way.....

when we have to start worrying about things other than ourselfs....we arent going to win.....

bravo to the 64th seed who took out the number 1 seed in men recurve...i guess someone forgot to tell him he was supposed to lose.......

PTH, the system we are playing in may be broke....than again, who am i to say....but i wont say that our best shooter didnt make the team because of someone else.....i think he shouldnt have put himself in position to depend on some other match.....he has won before....and im sure he will win again....and i bet he learned more than we will ever know after that trials....i bet you he will win every match he can from here on out...and never try to let himself be at the mercy of anyone else....just as each member of this team earned their spot....nobody can take anything away from any of them....they all are great shooters in their own right.....so lets not blame the players....blame the system if we must....

i am very proud of the team we fielded.....and my bet is we will see more of each of the members of said team.....i think this competition opened the eyes of each team member....i bet they learned....


----------



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

> Doesn't anyone get it?


as I sit here in Madrid after a rather long day, I can definitively say YOU sure don't....

:zip:


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

onebowtie said:


> i dont want to sound mean or anything here...because i got to be honest with yall.....
> 
> you fita bunch seem to be quick to point fingers at everyone but yourselfs....and in most or almost all other sport competitons....the winners are all the same...they win or lose because of themselfs....they dont depend on someone else to win or lose for them....
> 
> ...


Amen!!!

I am proud of all our shooters, even that young gal Janet. 

I hope they all read my posts and understand I am not bashing them. I am supporting them. I just don't think we should keep doing it the way we are doing it. I know they work hard and they deserve the chance to compete with every arrow they shoot. I feel bad for the ones who were instructed to throw an arrow. Janet, I would give you a hug if I could.


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

Heck it could have been Janet's Idea and her coach agreed.. She's seasoned, Pehaps she saw an opportunity for her team brought it up to her coach and the group procceded accordingly .. :angel: 

Never know .. I guess it's like pulling a goally at a hockey game.. May lose worse.. might just win :embarasse


----------



## stodrette (Jun 19, 2002)

Ivorytooth said:


> You don't beat the best if you never face them. What kind of thinking is this? Why be afraid to go up against the best?
> 
> You're sure he didn't say that huh?



You did see in the men's elimination that the #64 archer beat the #1 archer. so in reality, the idea of not facing #1 doesn't wash.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

>--gt--> said:


> as I sit here in Madrid after a rather long day, I can definitively say YOU sure don't....
> 
> :zip:


'

We shall see GT, we shall see. Sometimes the status quo just isn't good enough. 

You guys are making want to pick up a 'curve more and more.  If I had the cash to dump on a rig now, I would and join your ranks. Then the proof would be in the pudding. I know I could do well and I ain't afraid to say so. Maybe I have the edge on some already. 

Do you intimidate me? No. Do I have to be concerned with manufacturers, orgs or sponsers? No. Maybe your world is gonna get rocked by someone who isn't supposed to be there or have the connections and never shot fita before. 

Let the cross over begin!!  LOL!  Go LeEarl!!!!!

I don't believe in archery worship, you are just another shooter to me.   Maybe we will meet on the line. I know you can't be as bad as you come across here. 

I think we need to change how we approach the OR type competition. That is my opinion and I can state that. You can't say I am right or wrong with your opinion, but maybe you could with facts.  Are we winning? NO!! Maybe we need to change our strategies. Seems we are only winning here at home. I don't think it is the fault of the archers who are putting in lots of practice to be the best either. They rock!

Oh, I believe you were the one who helped me up after my chair broke on me during the Utah Open. Thanks, I was having some spinal cord issues at the time and wasn't diagnosed then. Thanks for your concern, it was appreciated.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

stodrette said:


> You did see in the men's elimination that the #64 archer beat the #1 archer. so in reality, the idea of not facing #1 doesn't wash.


Yes, I didn't know that at the time I was making my point though. This backs it up.


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

obt,

"is it to place the highest you can....or be the best you can" ...not necessarily mutually exclusive as far as the WCs or Olympics ranking round is concerned. This might be unique to archery...I can think of no other event or sport in which the individual scores of team members are accumulated to determine both individual as well as team seedings for subsequent elimination rounds. This has the potential of putting team coaches and archers in conflicting situations: the coach wants to maximize medal chances for both individuals and teams; individual archers want to shoot their best to get the highest seeding possible. Conflicts can arise when a coach sees that if shooting continues in the way that it has been, two of his team members are likely to end up in the same elimination bracket and possibly face each other, resulting in one less of his team to compete in the following round.

So what does a coach do? If his guys are all close to the top, probably nothing -- they're going to have strong seeds. If in vulnerable positions in the lower brackets, he calls them together and explains the situation to them. If he is effective, he will have one of them shoot poorly enough to drop into the next bracket. How does convince one of them to deliberately shoot poorly? He explains that if they face one another, then obviously only one will advance. If one of them drops into a lower bracket, then they both have improved their chances of advancing. Certainly not guaranteed, but it at least gives them both a chance instead of just one of them. So who gets the honor of dropping to the next bracket? If neither volunteers, he can either request/instruct one of them to do so, or flip a coin. If he is a good coach, he will already have had sessions with the team and outlined what he would likely do in such a situation, so as not to surprise them. He will have told them things like, "This is the ranking round, so there are no World Ranking Points" at stake here", "We will be shooting smart and aggresive instead of just aggresive", "We will be improving everyone's chances in the long run", etc. Furthermore, he will have obtained their commitment to support his decisions.

To reiterate something that I said earlier: if you're team is going to be competing in the OR, you've got to coach to the nuances of the OR. Shooting to have your best chance at an individual or team medal may mean not shooting your highest possible score; it might mean shooting your smartest score. Yes, it requires a different mind set than most of us are accustomed to, but there it is.


----------



## Reo (May 23, 2002)

I will tell you I have seen this done. I think that in the case of the team I realy think it was done in the intest of finishing higher not to win. The Koreans have just been one of the best for ever and if you face them in the finals and get 2nd. It is better than a 7th or 8th. The other thing that you all have over looked is that the NAA gets money for how they finish with a recurve. The USOC gives more money to finish higher than who you lose to. That is just the truth of the matter and that is sad that the US doesn't fell that they are good enufe to straight up put it to the Koreans but they are getting better and maybe one day they wont have to do this but for now the placement is what they are looking for. 

I think that it should of never been let out that is just silly. If you do something like this it is like anyother sport it is the nontalked about rules. Like a few years back a pro baseball player bunted to brake up a no hitter. Do you think he ran out and said that is why he bunted it no and that is just respect for themselfs the others and the game. 

Hope they all do well in the team event and that it works out but I still fell like if you want to be the best you have to beat the best and not run from them. 

Reo
:teeth: :teeth: :teeth:


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

Reo said:


> I will tell you I have seen this done. I think that in the case of the team I realy think it was done in the intest of finishing higher not to win. The Koreans have just been one of the best for ever and if you face them in the finals and get 2nd. It is better than a 7th or 8th. The other thing that you all have over looked is that the NAA gets money for how they finish with a recurve. The USOC gives more money to finish higher than who you lose to. That is just the truth of the matter and that is sad that the US doesn't fell that they are good enufe to straight up put it to the Koreans but they are getting better and maybe one day they wont have to do this but for now the placement is what they are looking for.
> 
> I think that it should of never been let out that is just silly. If you do something like this it is like anyother sport it is the nontalked about rules. Like a few years back a pro baseball player bunted to brake up a no hitter. Do you think he ran out and said that is why he bunted it no and that is just respect for themselfs the others and the game.
> 
> ...


Exactly Reo. You know and have been there. I don't like the fact we ain't playing to win. You got the right stuff. 

I am backing you up all the way dude...I mean Mr. WORLD CHAMPION!!


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

oldreliable67 said:


> obt,
> 
> "is it to place the highest you can....or be the best you can" ...not necessarily mutually exclusive as far as the WCs or Olympics ranking round is concerned. This might be unique to archery...I can think of no other event or sport in which the individual scores of team members are accumulated to determine both individual as well as team seedings for subsequent elimination rounds. This has the potential of putting team coaches and archers in conflicting situations: the coach wants to maximize medal chances for both individuals and teams; individual archers want to shoot their best to get the highest seeding possible. Conflicts can arise when a coach sees that if shooting continues in the way that it has been, two of his team members are likely to end up in the same elimination bracket and possibly face each other, resulting in one less of his team to compete in the following round.
> 
> ...


i am the first to say...seems to be a very weird competiton within a competition....almost making one counterproductive to the other at times...

like ive said....i dont claim to understand it or how it works....but do find some faults in it and its ways.....

i guess growing up....there was no such thing in the sports/hobbys i competed in as throwing a match or part of a match....you did your best and so did your competition....and the chips fell where they did....

this is very interesting...as you can see...it opens a very heated debate that people sit on both sides of issues....

i think alot of good points are being made....by all responding....

very interesting indeed....and we all sit here and wonder why archery doesnt grow....well i can tell you, im involved in archery....involved to a better than average amount of time than most so called target archers....and i dont have a understanding on this stuff and it appears that not many others do either....

if we as archers dont understand it...how is the public or anyone else ever going to and especially if throwing matches or parts of matches is part of it....i just dont think this stuff will ever grow more than it has.....and thats sad.....

tooth, dont let gt and his righteous post bother you....you have some very valid points and i think he is so far up certain venues, he will never see what others outside the box do.....matter fact, his post just proves that pampered prima donna attitude.....thats why he wont ever win anything.....did he make the team????? wonder why he is sitting there on a rather long day :wink:


----------



## Lloyd (Aug 30, 2004)

Strategy is key in many sports. The baseball example is right on. Players sacrafice their performance to move the team forward, and pitchers intentionally walk a batter because the odds are better that they can strike out the next. These moves are also risky, and don't always work. If the coach is right and the team wins, he's a hero on Monday morning. If not, he's an idiot.

Have you ever watched cycling? The Teams decide before the race which individual is going to win. In velodrome cycling, they don't try to go as fast as they can, but spend much of the race jockeying for position.

"Coaching isn't just about winning" Yes it is.

It is also "about developing these young people and help them achieve the confidence and the mental strength to win down the road as well." A well executed plan can do both. The athletes are smart enough to understand this. The USA Women's team did not position themselves well in Sydney, and they shot against the Korean team in the second match and went home with 5th place. I know that any of them would have rather thrown a few points and went home with a medal in the team round. It's just playing the odds, intentionally walking the batter to get to the next one which you are more likely to strike out. The team will still have to meet #1 in the Gold Medal match. Both scores that the USA Women's team shot in Sydney were higher than any other scores shot by all of the other teams except the Koreans. It's just SMART strategy to face them later when you can.

The coach made an extremely difficult decision based on the information that was available at the time. It might work, and it might not. At least the effort was made. If the US Team medals, Janet is a hero and Alexander a genius. If not, at least they made the effort.

This is the reality of the game. The reality of sport. Strategy is part of what makes it fun and exciting.


----------



## Hollywood (Oct 24, 2002)

Lloyd, 

Word. 

Thanks,
Hollywood


----------



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

> did he make the team????? wonder why he is sitting there on a rather long day


No, I finished in 13th place in the team trials...not too good. However, I didn't see any used car salesmen making the effort. As for why I'm here, I am sure you wouldn't understand.

I am, however, representing the US in Germany at the World Games next month, along with Joe McGlyn, John Dudley, Sally Wunderle and Jamie Van Natta, and y'know, I reckon that beats being an infamous internet blowhard any day


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

> I know that any of them would have rather thrown a few points and went home with a medal in the team round.


You sure about this? Even if they have a chance at a lesser individual medal or even not a medal?

I understand the strategy, I just don't think it works often enough and I don't thinks it helps the shooter's confidence.

Again you have helped prove my point. When they eventually have to shoot against number 1 in the final round, how they going to feel about that after ducking them earlier. The other team would know this and have an advantage. That is the way I see it. Just think if they would have beat that number one seed earlier. 

You mean to tell me as a coach you have to tell your team that now in the final round, you are good enough to beat the 1 seed, but before you didn't think they could so you told them to throw some arrows to avoid them?

While we are speculating on what the actual shooters think, I think that any of them would rather see one from their team win gold as an indie than maybe win a medal as a team. At least I would.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

>--gt--> said:


> No, I finished in 13th place in the team trials...not too good. However, I didn't see any used car salesmen making the effort. As for why I'm here, I am sure you wouldn't understand.
> 
> I am, however, representing the US in Germany at the World Games next month, along with Joe McGlyn, John Dudley, Sally Wunderle and Jamie Van Natta, and y'know, I reckon that beats being an infamous internet blowhard any day


Well I wish you luck and I hope you shoot to win. Have fun with it too!!


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

>--gt--> said:


> No, I finished in 13th place in the team trials...not too good. However, I didn't see any used car salesmen making the effort. As for why I'm here, I am sure you wouldn't understand.
> 
> I am, however, representing the US in Germany at the World Games next month, along with Joe McGlyn, John Dudley, Sally Wunderle and Jamie Van Natta, and y'know, I reckon that beats being an infamous internet blowhard any day


hum, i did not realize that you had 13 in your class at the trials....good job  

careful what you say there gt...wouldnt want you to be put on probation again by your company...and you know, i dont think there is anywhere else for them to ship you off too.....

gee, your killing me with all your wit here on your posts....blowhard...wow, one of your better posts i must say.....

good luck in germany, as im sure your going to need all you can get....  

as for what beats what.....lets just say that one of us has the option of traveling anywhere in the world he wants to go....without having to get permission and be at the mercy of fund raisers....and the other....well working things off aint all bad....is it :wink:


----------



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

Gee... ignorance really _is_ bliss for some, isn't it ?


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

>--gt--> said:


> Gee... ignorance really _is_ bliss for some, isn't it ?



especially if you consider yourself to be a polymath......  

it must be tough going to tourneys and when people ask you if your gt, that your so ashamed that you have to lie....than again your used to that arent you


----------



## PTH (Dec 30, 2004)

*Obt*

Don't you have cars to sell or something?


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

PTH said:


> Don't you have cars to sell or something?


something


----------



## Lloyd (Aug 30, 2004)

Ivorytooth said:


> You sure about this? Even if they have a chance at a lesser individual medal or even not a medal?
> 
> I've been on 2 Olympic Teams, 4 World Teams, 4 Jr. World Teams, 2 Pan Am teams, and numerous International Events. We've had this discussion many times, for many hours.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

Yes, that would be cool and hopefully not a less likely scenario.


----------



## Lloyd (Aug 30, 2004)

The semi-finals. (If I can get a picture to work)


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

Great pic! I can't wait to shoot one of these kind of venues.


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

> You did see in the men's elimination that the #64 archer beat the #1 archer. so in reality, the idea of not facing #1 doesn't wash.





> Yes, I didn't know that at the time I was making my point though. This backs it up.


Perhaps you'd care to explain that? I don't quite see any logic there but would like to listen to how you see it. In fact, I would suggest that it supports the opposite viewpoint -- archers from down in the brackets got the benefit of someone else knocking off the #1 seed. 

The #1 seed, Park, had shot 337 at 70m, the distance for the OR. Only the 2nd seed, Chung was higher, with a 341. The #64 seed, Carvahlo, shot 308 at 70m. Now, all else being equal, one would expect Park to best Carvalho at 70 meters. But, the OR being the OR, Carvahlo shot relatively well with a 158 and Park fell off to 154. In the 1/16 eliminations, Carvahlo fell back to a 152, which opened the door for the #33 seed, which happened to be our own Joe McGlyn. Unfortunately, Joe could only manage a 151. In the 1/8 eliminations, Cavalho lost to Custers on a tie break – both shot 159. Custers then lost to Moriya, the 24th seed, who now finds himself in the finals.

Now, note that none of the archers in the matches listed above shot better than a 159. Typical winning scores in all other matches in these rounds were at least 160 or better. At this level of competition, scores of 159 or less are usually losing scores (emphasize ‘usually’, this is the OR, after all!)

While the mens recurve was not, as far as we know, a case of anyone deliberately dropping points to get in a different bracket, it nevertheless illustrates the point: when the #1 seed is eliminated early, the door is opened for archers who would not typically (again, emphasize ‘typically’) be expected to shoot up the #1 seed level. 

Obviously, you, me or any, individual archer would like to be the one to knock off that #1 seed and the sooner the better. Beating the best, after all, is a real rush! But, first think strategically: your purpose in being on this team in this competition is to win a medal. Now think tactically: if you are not typically shooting the kind of scores that the #1 seed has demonstrated, which gives you the better chance of getting into the finals and a chance at a medal and thereby accomplishing your objective and your team's objective and justifying the money spent to send you there: shooting against the #1 seed right away, or giving other competitors the chance to knock him off before you get to him, perhaps (emphasize 'perhaps') giving you the opportunity to shoot against a competitor that might be more similar in typical scores to yourself?

Perhaps the #1 seed beats all comers and you eventually have to face him. Is there anything about this that should give you pause or make you feel any less confident? You would seem to say yes. I would suggest no. I would suggest that you should feel that you played the game in an intelligent manner and even though it didn't work, nothing was lost -- and now you're going to shoot your ass off and beat the #1 seed!


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

oldreliable67 said:


> Perhaps you'd care to explain that? I don't quite see any logic there but would like to listen to how you see it. In fact, I would suggest that it supports the opposite viewpoint -- archers from down in the brackets got the benefit of someone else knocking off the #1 seed.
> 
> The #1 seed, Park, had shot 337 at 70m, the distance for the OR. Only the 2nd seed, Chung was higher, with a 341. The #64 seed, Carvahlo, shot 308 at 70m. Now, all else being equal, one would expect Park to best Carvalho at 70 meters. But, the OR being the OR, Carvahlo shot relatively well with a 158 and Park fell off to 154. In the 1/16 eliminations, Carvahlo fell back to a 152, which opened the door for the #33 seed, which happened to be our own Joe McGlyn. Unfortunately, Joe could only manage a 151. In the 1/8 eliminations, Cavalho lost to Custers on a tie break – both shot 159. Custers then lost to Moriya, the 24th seed, who now finds himself in the finals.
> 
> ...


im not sure which side of the debate anyones point is anymore....

however, unless archery is just totally backwards from any other sport in the seeding of competitors.....in almost all cases....a number 1 seed will have a very easy time on the first match....even if the first match is a bye, the first match that most number one seeds compete in, are usually nothing more than tune up matches....

and it is usually a very big surprise when someone so far back in the field knocks off a number one.....

and as in this case used as an example.....it appears that hardly anyone really expected the 64 seed to win...however, he forgot to listen to everyone and came to play.....and played well once he qualified for that 64 bracket....


----------



## TexARC (Mar 5, 2003)

>--gt--> said:


> No, I finished in 13th place in the team trials...not too good.


George - But a hell of a lot better than all but 12 other contenders, including most of the over-opinionated folks up here, including moi. Hope you are having a great time in Madrid, though.

On any given day, any archer in the very top echelons can win, or lose, to any other top level archer, in OR match play. Most of them will shrug and know that they can take it back next time.

But to be in that top level, the archer must reliably shoot at least a 51 or 52 on every 6 arrow end, no matter what the stress, no matter who the opponent. To take gold, you need a couple of points per 6 more - just do the math on the winning archers' rounds.  

Sure sounds simple, huh? 

So all of you back-row pips, go shoot 12 arrows at 70 meters, and if, under the very best conditions of your practice range, you cannot reliably shoot 108, well, that says it right there. You may have an opinion, but it doesn't much count cause you won't be having that opportunity to decide what you would really do when faced with Janet's choice.  Kudos to Alexander and or Janet for being perceptive enough to see the possibilities and deciding how to capitalize on it.

And anyone who doesn't take the strategy factor into account in "any competition" just isn't going into the game with a full quiver. 
Of course, that's just my opinion from the peanut gallery.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

oldreliable67 said:


> Perhaps you'd care to explain that? I don't quite see any logic there but would like to listen to how you see it. In fact, I would suggest that it supports the opposite viewpoint -- archers from down in the brackets got the benefit of someone else knocking off the #1 seed.
> 
> The #1 seed, Park, had shot 337 at 70m, the distance for the OR. Only the 2nd seed, Chung was higher, with a 341. The #64 seed, Carvahlo, shot 308 at 70m. Now, all else being equal, one would expect Park to best Carvalho at 70 meters. But, the OR being the OR, Carvahlo shot relatively well with a 158 and Park fell off to 154. In the 1/16 eliminations, Carvahlo fell back to a 152, which opened the door for the #33 seed, which happened to be our own Joe McGlyn. Unfortunately, Joe could only manage a 151. In the 1/8 eliminations, Cavalho lost to Custers on a tie break – both shot 159. Custers then lost to Moriya, the 24th seed, who now finds himself in the finals.
> 
> ...


Ok, I will try to explain it again.

Why throw arrows to get out of a facing the number one seed? They can be beat, so just beat them when you get to them. Why throw arrows and see if someone else beats them first so you don't have to shoot against them? Like you said you are shooting eliminator type rounds, not a full fita. Anything can happen and will and has if you look at the scores. You can't go by a average full fita score here. Anyone is capable of lighting it up for one of these shorter head to heads. Or on the other hand, even the best in the world can have a bad bracket score. They may over a course of a full round still shoot a hight score because on average they score very well. So a mediocre score at one distance doesn't hurt as much. They can burn up the other distances. Maybe a guy normally shoots a 155 at 70m in the course of shooting a full fita round, but now he doesn't have to shoot a full round. He just may light it up for that moment in time. Ever hear of a 1 arrow or 3 arrow game? Some like OBT can be competitive in that format.  A number one seeded team is just gonna get stronger most likely as they head through the brackets. Get them early if it works that way and beat them if you can, don't run from them. If you don't think you have the game to beat them, then don't throw arrows so you can hope someone else does your dirty work for you. If you eventually do face them later, it would seem that you are at a psychological disadvantage because you know you threw arrows to avoid them earlier because you didn't think you had the game then and now you have to face the music. They most likely know you threw arrows to avoid them early and would have the psychological advantage knowing you don't think you can take them down.

You can't understand that? I don't think you are looking at it from a pyschological standpoint.

Looks like some number seeds fell like rain at this shoot. Don't duck'em, pluck'em!!


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

Ivorytooth said:


> Ok, I will try to explain it again.
> 
> Why throw arrows to get out of a facing the number one seed? They can be beat, so just beat them when you get to them. Why throw arrows and see if someone else beats them first so you don't have to shoot against them? Like you said you are shooting eliminator type rounds, not a full fita. Anything can happen and will and has if you look at the scores. You can't go by a average full fita score here. Anyone is capable of lighting it up for one of these shorter head to heads. Or on the other hand, even the best in the world can have a bad bracket score. They may over a course of a full round still shoot a hight score because on average they score very well. So a mediocre score at one distance doesn't hurt as much. They can burn up the other distances. Maybe a guy normally shoots a 155 at 70m in the course of shooting a full fita round, but now he doesn't have to shoot a full round. He just may light it up for that moment in time. Ever hear of a 1 arrow or 3 arrow game? Some like OBT can be competitive in that format.  A number one seeded team is just gonna get stronger most likely as they head through the brackets. Get them early if it works that way and beat them if you can, don't run from them. If you don't think you have the game to beat them, then don't throw arrows so you can hope someone else does your dirty work for you. If you eventually do face them later, it would seem that you are at a psychological disadvantage because you know you threw arrows to avoid them earlier because you didn't think you had the game then and now you have to face the music. They most likely know you threw arrows to avoid them early and would have the psychological advantage knowing you don't think you can take them down.
> 
> ...


its great to be a one shot wonder :wink:


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Another problem with this is that eventually there will be entire teams of people dumping arrows into the dirt in an effort to place their teams in the preferred ranking position. There will be a competition to see who can shoot the lowest score and still make the cut.

Seems to me the way it's set up right now, the higher you place, the weaker the teams you have to face. I just don't get the point of it anyways.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

> Obviously, you, me or any, individual archer would like to be the one to knock off that #1 seed and the sooner the better. Beating the best, after all, is a real rush! But, first think strategically: your purpose in being on this team in this competition is to win a medal. Now think tactically: if you are not typically shooting the kind of scores that the #1 seed has demonstrated, which gives you the better chance of getting into the finals and a chance at a medal and thereby accomplishing your objective and your team's objective and justifying the money spent to send you there: shooting against the #1 seed right away, or giving other competitors the chance to knock him off before you get to him, perhaps (emphasize 'perhaps') giving you the opportunity to shoot against a competitor that might be more similar in typical scores to yourself?


So to me this is a chicken strategy. If you don't have the game, you don't have the game. Are you gonna have game if you meet the number 1 seed later? Is there some kind of sudden improvement that takes place? If someone does your dirty work for you and they win against the 1 seed and it lets in someone to shoot against you that you HOPE is a lesser opponent? Is that what I am hearing you say? If you want to beat lesser opponents and wins guaranteed, then stick to the easy shoots, don't be going to world championships. How can you expect to beat the best and be the best if you HOPE someone else takes care of them?


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

Stash said:


> Another problem with this is that eventually there will be entire teams of people dumping arrows into the dirt in an effort to place their teams in the preferred ranking position. There will be a competition to see who can shoot the lowest score and still make the cut.
> 
> Seems to me the way it's set up right now, the higher you place, the weaker the teams you have to face. I just don't get the point of it anyways.



Exactly!! This is counterproductive psychologically and I am sure that isn't spectator friendly either. 

They should call this type of round "Dump and Duck".


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

onebowtie said:


> its great to be a one shot wonder :wink:


Well you got to be something in this life I guess.


----------



## olympics84 (Nov 5, 2004)

This thread is a prime example of why top level competitors do not post here. There are now four of us and we all have the same conclusion - JANET DID THE RIGHT THING!!!!!


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

olympics84 said:


> This thread is a prime example of why top level competitors do not post here. There are now four of us and we all have the same conclusion - JANET DID THE RIGHT THING!!!!!



Yes, she did. She listened to her coach. I have nothing against our shooters at all. I just don't like this ducking stuff. I didn't bash anyone, I am just questioning the strategy used in these deals.

I will never have a coach that will want me to drop points in hope someone else will take out the toughies for me. 

Four of who? Weren't the 4 in Spain already?


----------



## bowbender7 (Jun 1, 2002)

Some of us know that the right thing was done.

You will never convince OBT that this crap is why the quality of posting has gone in the crapper, already tried to point that out. Now this place runs on talkers, not shooters for the most part.

Cant speak for anyone else, but I started out agreeing with the decision and still do. I also learned a few things along the way and have been well reminded of some other things that I would just as soon have forgotten about.

I really dont blame the been there- done that guys for not posting anymore.

Too bad though


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

bowbender7 said:


> Some of us know that the right thing was done.
> 
> You will never convince OBT that this crap is why the quality of posting has gone in the crapper, already tried to point that out. Now this place runs on talkers, not shooters for the most part.
> 
> ...


I am your Huckleberry.  So we all suck and can't shoot eh?


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

Ok, I see more of what you're driving at. And even though we are looking at the same 'fact set', we're coming to different conclusions. Which is why we have vanilla and chocolate, I suppose. My main difference with your scenario seems to be the psychological impact of dumping points to put yourself in a different bracket. If I've done my homework and have been properly coached, and I'm now facing the #1 seed, I'm not 'down' psychologically at all. Quite the contrary, I'm confident that I've done everything that I am supposed to do to give me the best chance to medal. Your assumptions as to psychological impact are quite different from mine. 

Someone mentioned the impact on World Ranking points and I pointed out that the ranking round has no influence on World Ranking points - they are determined by OR results only. It might be the case that by dumping a few points in the ranking round and getting in a different bracket, that even if I didn't medal, I lasted longer in the OR and thereby picked up a few World Ranking points that I might have given up otherwise.

A while back, I tabulated the OR results from the Olympics and WCs since introduction of the OR. I don't have those numbers in front of me at the moment, but IIRC, the #1 seed in both Olympics and WCs for mens recurve in only one or maybe two instances, came through to take the gold. In the other disciplines though, the #1 seed took gold more often than not but not unanimously. 

You mentioned training. When you get to the Olympics or the WCs, it aint training any more. If you don't have it when you get there, you ain't gonna find it on that field.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

bowbender......funny how you never think a topic that gets heated is any good...but you always offer your input in a jaded way....

and yet you come across as only your opinion is what is right....get real

if you dont think this topic is one worthy of discussion, i guess you really do live in a bubble....if ive ever seen a topic that was ripe for differing opinions this was it....

glen....no disrespect to you....but if you really think that there are only 4 top level shooters on the AT forums, your mistaken.....not sure if you actually meant for your post to come across as it did....

from what ive read on here....seems the dumping of arrows has long been a part of this venue....and if its not against any or all rules...i feel definately she did the right thing....however, not performing to your best also goes against the grain of what we are taught when we grow up....so this topic definately carrys a double edge sword with it....

like ive said, dont hate the players....hate the game.....


----------



## bowbender7 (Jun 1, 2002)

Ivorytooth, I said "for the most part" and chose those words carefully. I believe you are a capable shooter. The comment was not meant to ruffle any feathers in particular, but merely to point out that the majority of activity these days is shenanigans - most of the very accomplished shooters dont post much or at all any more.


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

> So to me this is a chicken strategy. If you don't have the game, you don't have the game. Are you gonna have game if you meet the number 1 seed later? Is there some kind of sudden improvement that takes place? If someone does your dirty work for you and they win against the 1 seed and it lets in someone to shoot against you that you HOPE is a lesser opponent? Is that what I am hearing you say? If you want to beat lesser opponents and wins guaranteed, then stick to the easy shoots, don't be going to world championships. How can you expect to beat the best and be the best if you HOPE someone else takes care of them?


You're kidding, right? Hey, this is not the schoolyard we're talkin' about here! "chicken"? "dirty work"? You want to take those kind of schoolyard trash talkin' attitudes into the Olympics and WCs? You don't get there with this kind of stuff. You get there by a lot of hard work, work that includes not shooting but anticipating what might give you the best chance under various conditions. Get real. Save the macho strutting for something else.


----------



## bowbender7 (Jun 1, 2002)

OBT, I never had a problem with heated topics - I love this one. I do grow tired of 16 smack threads on the 1st page of the general forum at one time however. I thought I made that clear.

Nor do I think only my opinion is right, except in this case  

Funny how everyone who has represented the US on a team agrees also.

Ditching some points to seed your team better does not show weakness - anyone who has shot an olympic elimination round ( yes I have) realizes very quick that ANYONE can win. Its only a very few arrows to determine a match and even the best shooters in world at any given time can be KO'd by any Joe Blow in an 18 arrow match. Why do you think big archery tournaments are 2 or more days long? Because it selects the more consistant shooters. The OR match is comprised of 50% talent and 50% luck. Why would someone want to chance dropping out in the first round when they know the momentum gained by succesful passes will only help their chances against the better seeded teams.


----------



## skybowman (Jan 31, 2004)

I'm not sure why some of the posters here are so concerned about whether or not the archers hit the mark when so few of the posts do. Let this thread die; it's cluttering my computer screen. To the bottom and off the page.

Good luck US Team.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

I am glad you are seeing what I mean.

If you are not worthy of the ranking points you got by using that method, you are going to lose them anyway eventually if you aren't of that caliber of shooter right?

Yeah our views are different on the pysch side. I believe, if it bleeds it can we can kill it.  Really though, I honestly believe that if you are good and confident, you want the high seeds early on. I don't want the doubt of thinking I can't handle them now or that I want to lose higher up in the brackets. I shoot to win. I am not gonna avoid the best, I want to cut my teeth on the best.

As far as bringing the game you got, you can't get it in competition, You are right, but you keep your ears, eyes open and your brain working because there are things to be learned you can't learn in practice. Even at the WC. Every competition is a class room. Like I said practice is for getting your game. Competition is for learning how to win and to compete and get tough mentally. It is a different type of practice. You don't usually win right out of the gate, you go and experience competition and learn by doing it.


----------



## olympics84 (Nov 5, 2004)

OBT,

My bad, there have been 5 responses from people with international experience to this thread (sorry Lloyd). I'm not trying to be disrespectful in any way but unless you've been there you don't understand all of the ramifications.

Teams are sent to international competitions to win medals. Why set yourself up to shoot against a team in the second round that hasn't lost in over 20 years?? I would rather meet them in the finals.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

oldreliable67 said:


> You're kidding, right? Hey, this is not the schoolyard we're talkin' about here! "chicken"? "dirty work"? You want to take those kind of schoolyard trash talkin' attitudes into the Olympics and WCs? You don't get there with this kind of stuff. You get there by a lot of hard work, work that includes not shooting but anticipating what might give you the best chance under various conditions. Get real. Save the macho strutting for something else.


It isn't macho strutting. I was giving you some credit with the civil discussion we were having. There was nothing wrong with the terms I used. Are we only supposed to use the Queen's proper English when discussing FITA? Now you attack me? Why does having a winning attitude distress you so. Maybe we need more schoolyard. No where did I say that you don't get there without hard work mister.

I guess you just don't understand the competitive spirit like I do and since you attacked me personally, it seems you just lost ground on your points with me. I was rather enjoying dicussing our views on the pyschological aspect of this kind of competition.


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

> like ive said, dont hate the players....hate the game.....


Like it or not, hate it or not, this is the 'game' that we have been dealt. Until its changed, if one aspires to be a world-class competitor, then one has to learn to play it to the best of one's ability. That includes being aware of every single nuance. There aren't really any 'gray areas' in the OR: you win or you go home - emptyhanded. 

If the 'game' is ever changed, then we learn all we can about that one, too.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

bowbender7 said:


> OBT, I never had a problem with heated topics - I love this one. I do grow tired of 16 smack threads on the 1st page of the general forum at one time however. I thought I made that clear.
> 
> Nor do I think only my opinion is right, except in this case
> 
> ...


So if anyone can win at anytime, why ditch the points? You may draw Joe Blow and he takes you down. But you may have caught the 1 seed offguard had you not ditched the points and faced him. If you beat them, then you feel good about your chances with the rest of the field.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

bowbender7 said:


> OBT, I never had a problem with heated topics - I love this one. I do grow tired of 16 smack threads on the 1st page of the general forum at one time however. I thought I made that clear.
> 
> Nor do I think only my opinion is right, except in this case
> 
> ...


bowbender....i guess you need to view the 2nd or 3rd pages or other forums when things arent going to your liking....because if there are 16smack threads going on page one, it should tell you, the people have spoken, on what they want to....

this is a great topic....and because whether everyone who has represented a US team agrees...doesnt mean that others dont see it that way....

ive stated, if its part of the game, so be it....but i also see the other side of the issue.....

and if your such a competitor, certainly you would have to admit...dumping arrow or dumping matches does go against the grain of what you were taught as a youngster....because i would believe there is a code of conduct in archery like all other olympic sports....to play the game fairly and with integrity...and dumping arrows or matches does seem to go against sportsmanship and conduct of sport, does it not??????

i would say that the OR rounds from what i can tell, are about the only thing exciting and keeping archery infront of the small audiences we enjoy.....so it was set up to be what it is....full of excitement and upsets....correct me if im wrong (as im sure you will :wink: )

i just find it a bit odd that most of you....matter fact, especially you, come across as so pure and sporting...yet find it hard to even look at the others opinion on this issue....because as i stated...archers tend to talk about how much honor and integrity in archery there is....yet i find not competing to your fullest as going against that althletic code of conduct or even good sportsmanship......


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

olympics84 said:


> OBT,
> 
> My bad, there have been 5 responses from people with international experience to this thread (sorry Lloyd). I'm not trying to be disrespectful in any way but unless you've been there you don't understand all of the ramifications.
> 
> Teams are sent to international competitions to win medals. Why set yourself up to shoot against a team in the second round that hasn't lost in over 20 years?? I would rather meet them in the finals.


So you are saying you are competing just for silver????? Like I said, wouldn't be easier to meet them early when they are more vunerable to upset?

Why do people get so mad when methods are questioned? No one is questioning the talent and the work the shooters have and have done to get there. Why not shoot to win?


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

Like it or not, intended or not, your "chicken" post came across as pretty offensive. This thread has been one of the more interesting threads on AT in quite a long while. Lots of good discussion and participation. Pretty disappointing to be suddenly hit with something like that.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

oldreliable67 said:


> Like it or not, hate it or not, this is the 'game' that we have been dealt. Until its changed, if one aspires to be a world-class competitor, then one has to learn to play it to the best of one's ability. That includes being aware of every single nuance. There aren't really any 'gray areas' in the OR: you win or you go home - emptyhanded.
> 
> If the 'game' is ever changed, then we learn all we can about that one, too.


look....i agree.....i cant be any more clear.....if everyone else is doing it....do it yourself.....

and again, i think the OR is there to make it more exciting...and if its anybodys game in the OR...than really seeding makes little or no difference...so why would you need to try to get out of your position????

again, oldreliable, help me out here....is there not the olympic creed to compete fairly and with integrity.....when did this dumping game come into play???? and is sportsmanship called into question on this topic???? or am i just wrong and off base.....

i will say this as a spectator....the OR round sounds like something or about the only part of a archery competition that could capture my attention to watch.....the rest of it is too boring and hard to follow.....so do you think that the OR round is in place to try to make archery more exciting and keep its place in the olympics??????


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

oldreliable67 said:


> Like it or not, intended or not, your "chicken" post came across as pretty offensive. This thread has been one of the more interesting threads on AT in quite a long while. Lots of good discussion and participation. Pretty disappointing to be suddenly hit with something like that.


i see your point....and i doubt if tooth meant it to be offensive.....

and i agree, if there ever was a thread that had or has two sides....this topic is it....

some very interesting and valid points....and i could be swayed from one side to the other....

or better yet...find this thread easy to be devils advocate.....


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

oldreliable67 said:


> Like it or not, intended or not, your "chicken" post came across as pretty offensive. This thread has been one of the more interesting threads on AT in quite a long while. Lots of good discussion and participation. Pretty disappointing to be suddenly hit with something like that.


What should have I called it????  I wore out the term ducking. Is there another bird term I should use?   

I play to win, if I throw a game, it is being chicken to me. I wasn't talking about the shooters, they are following orders.

If I have to shoot against Dave Cousins at some point in a competition and in a format where I can duck him, you think I will do that? I will relish the chance to go up against a good shooter and learn and win if I am ready. I want the best out there to compete against. If I duck them, to me I am shorting myself. Yeah I think it is a chicken method. 

Maybe I should have said, "followed the path of least resistance."


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

> Like I said, wouldn't be easier to meet them early when they are more vunerable to upset?


The eliminations are 18 arrow matches. The finals are 12 arrow matches. Which suggests that each arrow in the finals is more crucial, meaning that any individual archer is more vulnerable to the impact of the 'one bad arrow' , not less.

Is there some other reason that you think that they are more vulnerable early?


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

olympics84 said:


> OBT,
> 
> My bad, there have been 5 responses from people with international experience to this thread (sorry Lloyd). I'm not trying to be disrespectful in any way but unless you've been there you don't understand all of the ramifications.
> 
> Teams are sent to international competitions to win medals. Why set yourself up to shoot against a team in the second round that hasn't lost in over 20 years?? I would rather meet them in the finals.


glenn, i havent been there in archery...but believe me, i fully understand competiton...been involved with it all my life...whether getting out of the getto....or as a full scholarship athlete in your home state by the way....and in everyday business.....

however....if you think that only people with international archery experience has a opinion that is valuable or valid...i respectfully disagree....

now, i will agree that i dont fully understand these venues and the inner demons that appear to play a large part in the outcomes...but i am enjoying learning :wink: 

now i will agree....if you can get out of a bracket to set up a major showdown in the finals or so, yes, by all means its a good move....as long as it doesnt violate any code of conducts.....and you as a past olympian, i would like to know in your opinion, is there any conduct or sportsmanship rules being violated or skirted here????

thanks for your input....and would love to see you continue to post here instead of acting like because me or someone else has no international experience in archery, has no clue.......because, i am going to sleep in a holiday inn express tommorrow, in grand rapids of all places.....if your around tommorrow evening, would love to buy you dinner and carry on this discussion....or breakfeast sat morning.....


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

hey reliable.....i see your from NJ...i like your style...how about you coming to the maryland field shoot next weekend.....i believe even you could have some fun.....and not too mention, this mere less than average 3d shooter may be able to show you a 3 arrow game :tongue: :wink: 

come on what do you say.......


----------



## olympics84 (Nov 5, 2004)

Here's one to think about...

1. Would you rather shoot against a team in the first round who has not been beaten in 20 years. If you do this and loose, funding for the NAA programs would be cut significantly thus letting down the whole nation.

or

2. Set your team up so if the team members all shoot their averages they should be able to advance to the medal rounds and secure funding before medal rounds begin. This way the shooters can relax and perform to their potential for the medal round.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

Ok, I apologize for using the term chicken. I will call it the "playing it safe" strategy.

We got great shooters out there in this country. Some are known, some are not. I think we can win gold medals, but I don't think we can win them this way.

Those shooters can win, but we need to give them better strategies and mentally prepare them better and that is my opinion as someone familiar to competition in lots of sports.

Is that so bad to say? Is this topic taboo unless you are of the 4?


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2005)

Well it is a "chicken strategy" plain and simple. Yuo train and train, shoot the trials make the World team to represent your country only to cut and run from your competition in the hopes someone else will take them out. I fully understand why it is done and why it is important for future funding in your country, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still a chicken stategy


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

oldreliable67 said:


> The eliminations are 18 arrow matches. The finals are 12 arrow matches. Which suggests that each arrow in the finals is more crucial, meaning that any individual archer is more vulnerable to the impact of the 'one bad arrow' , not less.
> 
> Is there some other reason that you think that they are more vulnerable early?



Yeah the higher seed could be over confident and not putting as much consideration to their lower seeded adversary. It happens all the time and it happened at this event. Take the high seed out and you will have much more confidence and should be able to relax and not shoot defensively which is bad. You got to let it all hang out.


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

Remember, we're talking strictly about national teams at Olympics or WCs here (or at least I am!).

Any other event, one absolutely wants to go head-to-head with the best. No difference of opinion there, I don't believe.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

olympics84 said:


> Here's one to think about...
> 
> 1. Would you rather shoot against a team in the first round who has not been beaten in 20 years. If you do this and loose, funding for the NAA programs would be cut significantly thus letting down the whole nation.
> 
> ...


listen, i knew that somehow money would work its way into this.....so you see, this non international dummy, aint so dumb after all....

and what i say is.....its really too bad that money makes everyone do things that may or may not be right, eithical, or of spirit......

and without money, there would be no teams...so the answer is kind of easy with that in mind....

but more importantly, the sad thing for archery is....that it is one of the last few sports in olympics that is under funded or one of the poor sports....and there are so many other sports out there that generate so much more money....so is the writing on the wall??????


----------



## olympics84 (Nov 5, 2004)

Also, it hasn't been said, but I believe Janet was 4th at the trials. That means that she probably will not be competing on the actual team for the team round - only 3 actually shoot. But since she would have been one of the top 3 in the qualification round her score would count for the seeding.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

olympics84 said:


> Here's one to think about...
> 
> 1. Would you rather shoot against a team in the first round who has not been beaten in 20 years. If you do this and loose, funding for the NAA programs would be cut significantly thus letting down the whole nation.
> 
> ...


Glenn,

I would only want them to worry about the task at hand and that is winning, not all this funding stuff, they don't need that burden along with the pressure of competition. I want them to shoot their best, wish their competitors to do the same and shoot and see where it all comes out. There is no way I want them shooting in a competition worrying about funding!!!!! That isn't what they are there for. They are there to shoot and to shoot their best and have fun and gain valuable lessons to be learned to apply in the next competition.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

oldreliable67 said:


> Remember, we're talking strictly about national teams at Olympics or WCs here (or at least I am!).
> 
> Any other event, one absolutely wants to go head-to-head with the best. No difference of opinion there, I don't believe.


You don't want to go head to head with the best at the biggest venues? Why change that? Where would your confidence be as a shooter if you got to those and then avoided the best? Yeah, I am talking about WC and the olympics.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

ok, i have to apologize to you uppity fita types  ...never in my wildest dreams would i have ever thought i would rather camp out and debate with yall than be on the good ole smack talking threads :wink: 

some of you are even showing that you must be altitude adjusted..cause i dont see any nose bleeds from your noses being stuck so high up in the air  :tongue: 

:beer: :beer: heres to yall


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

> Those shooters can win, but we need to give them better strategies and mentally prepare them better and that is my opinion as someone familiar to competition in lots of sports.


Certainly no disagreement there. That is exactly why the USOC has mandated a High Performance Director and a National Coach for U. S. Olympic and WC archery. The disappointing results of recent years has been noticed and improvements/changes demanded. 

And especially for obt, as you may or may not know, the USOC is the single largest funding source for U S Archery. Its the 'golden rule', you know: he who has the gold makes the rules.


----------



## olympics84 (Nov 5, 2004)

Tooth,

I agree the funding thing can be difficult to deal with when you're competing. It can make you shoot very well or make you very nervous.

OBT,

Thanks for the compliment

So when are you guys going to pick up recurves and come to nationals??


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

oldreliable67 said:


> Certainly no disagreement there. That is exactly why the USOC has mandated a High Performance Director and a National Coach for U. S. Olympic and WC archery. The disappointing results of recent years has been noticed and improvements/changes demanded.
> 
> And especially for obt, as you may or may not know, the USOC is the single largest funding source for U S Archery. Its the 'golden rule', you know: he who has the gold makes the rules.


Finally, my point is made. That is all I am saying. This ducking thing don't work. We didn't have a good WC this time. It is time for a different approach to competition.

We have the shooters, now lets help them toughen up enough to withstand the rigors of competition. The coaches need to emphasize this part of competiton. The mental game is very, very important. We can't go walking around thinking the Koreans can't be beat. Wrong attitude. Can't win if you don't believe you can and these shooters of ours can do it!!! I know it, why doesn't most others know it?


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

olympics84 said:


> Tooth,
> 
> I agree the funding thing can be difficult to deal with when you're competing. It can make you shoot very well or make you very nervous.
> 
> ...


ill let the cat out of the bag right here and now....my sky recurve has been ordered....i will be breaking out my road to victory at vegas....just because i cant finish, what no worse than 12th.... :tongue: 

man, who is going to be the unlucky bleeders who draw me to their bails :wink:


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

olympics84 said:


> Tooth,
> 
> I agree the funding thing can be difficult to deal with when you're competing. It can make you shoot very well or make you very nervous.
> 
> ...


Trust me I really want to do the oly curve thing!! I just dropped a load of dough on an Apex, so I am committed to competing in the compound arena. I will be working hard to make these kind of teams. I am very new to the sport, have game and been working very hard to get there. I need tournament experience. I can shoot world class scores in practice, but I am green in the arena for archery. I love the head to head stuff.

I shot an oly recurve and I like it. I didn't think it was any harder than freestyle with back tension, but it is different and some things have to be more exact. I feel I can be competitive with one, but one goal at a time. I don't have all the patches, sponsers or people looking out for me. I am on my own mostly and old.


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

Certainly I want to go head-to-head with the best at the Olympics and WCs -- especially, but not only, when I can work it to my advantage to do so. By definition, if the #1 seed is taken out by the 64th seed, then that 64th seed is now the best there is at that point in time (as far as I'm concerned) and if he is my next opponent, fine, bring him on. If the #1 seed has survived and is my next opponent, fine, bring him on. 

Thats the whole point, I guess: maximize whatever advantages you can; take advantage of whatever nuances the OR rules permit. Sometimes you can; more often you cannot. But if an advantage is offered -- one that is totally within the rules and bounds of the competition -- and not taken, and you are eliminated, what then? You mention learning from the experience, now there is a learning experience. A real 'character-builder'. And have you not done a dis-service to your teammates and your NGB?


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

oldreliable67 said:


> Certainly I want to go head-to-head with the best at the Olympics and WCs -- especially, but not only, when I can work it to my advantage to do so. By definition, if the #1 seed is taken out by the 64th seed, then that 64th seed is now the best there is at that point in time (as far as I'm concerned) and if he is my next opponent, fine, bring him on. If the #1 seed has survived and is my next opponent, fine, bring him on.
> 
> Thats the whole point, I guess: maximize whatever advantages you can; take advantage of whatever nuances the OR rules permit. Sometimes you can; more often you cannot. But if an advantage is offered -- one that is totally within the rules and bounds of the competition -- and not taken, and you are eliminated, what then? You mention learning from the experience, now there is a learning experience. A real 'character-builder'. And have you not done a dis-service to your teammates and your NGB?


I don't believe in throwing arrows away whatever the reason. It goes against my idea of the spirit of competition. I will face who ever they put in front of me and will do my best. I expect my teamates to do it as well. If we don't medal, we gave it our best shot. I don't want my teamates to throw and arrow to help me out or others on the team. ya dig?


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

olympics84 said:


> Tooth,
> 
> I agree the funding thing can be difficult to deal with when you're competing. It can make you shoot very well or make you very nervous.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I saw several people having problems breathing at tournaments from just the competion.  I love and cherish the atmosphere.  I love the pressure. But most avoid it. Not all can focus with those thoughts in their head. Better to leave the shooters out of the money stuff.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

oldreliable67 said:


> Certainly I want to go head-to-head with the best at the Olympics and WCs -- especially, but not only, when I can work it to my advantage to do so. By definition, if the #1 seed is taken out by the 64th seed, then that 64th seed is now the best there is at that point in time (as far as I'm concerned) and if he is my next opponent, fine, bring him on. If the #1 seed has survived and is my next opponent, fine, bring him on.
> 
> Thats the whole point, I guess: maximize whatever advantages you can; take advantage of whatever nuances the OR rules permit. Sometimes you can; more often you cannot. But if an advantage is offered -- one that is totally within the rules and bounds of the competition -- and not taken, and you are eliminated, what then? You mention learning from the experience, now there is a learning experience. A real 'character-builder'. And have you not done a dis-service to your teammates and your NGB?


You didn't mention throwing arrows. Good.  Shoot and compete against who you happen to draw. I feel the team competition should be the same way. It should be that every point counts.


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

> Finally, my point is made. That is all I am saying. This ducking thing don't work. We didn't have a good WC this time. It is time for a different approach to competition.


Point made? Not! The WCs are not over. Team rounds left to go. It might yet happen that the womens recurve team medals and Janet's dumping might yet pay off.

And lets be clear: as far as I know, this 'ducking thing' was used for the first time in WC competition by the US in this WC. Perhaps some of the lurkers with more specific knowledge could correct/enlighten us if that is erroneous? And to suggest that 'ducking' is our 'approach to competition' is I believe, incorrect -- it exagerrates the importance just one part of the overall effort.

However, as I said before, I do agree that new coaching methods and new training methods are called for. We're just not getting the job done in international, world-class competition. When not one of our compound folks even places in the individual rounds, you know there is a problem.

Here's hoping for better results from the team rounds.


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

obt,

You mentioned a field event in Md next weekend. Have never shot a field event but hope to remedy that sad situation someday. But, right now in the middle of relocating from NJ to northern VA (now working in DC), so my participation in anything archery ('cept AT) is pretty scarce right now. Appreciate the thought, though!


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

bowbender7 said:


> Ivorytooth, I said "for the most part" and chose those words carefully. I believe you are a capable shooter. The comment was not meant to ruffle any feathers in particular, but merely to point out that the majority of activity these days is shenanigans - most of the very accomplished shooters dont post much or at all any more.


There are many accomplished shooters here. You would be suprised.

Did you know BillyRay can shoot???  

Never judge a book by its cover. OBT can shoot too. He was on a 1480 pace at Redding. That is way better than average. I shot with him so I was watching. He has the game to break 1500 if he would work on his game some. 

Don't make the mistake of underestimating people, unless you like suprises. 

Now, lets get back to the callout. Well? When and where? Vegas, Redding? NFAA national indoor? Pittsburgh?  

It will only cost you a signed one.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

oldreliable67 said:


> Point made? Not! The WCs are not over. Team rounds left to go. It might yet happen that the womens recurve team medals and Janet's dumping might yet pay off.
> 
> And lets be clear: as far as I know, this 'ducking thing' was used for the first time in WC competition by the US in this WC. Perhaps some of the lurkers with more specific knowledge could correct/enlighten us if that is erroneous? And to suggest that 'ducking' is our 'approach to competition' is I believe, incorrect -- it exagerrates the importance just one part of the overall effort.
> 
> ...



I think the wind had something to do with it.  GT said 30 knots. That is some tough wind to shoot in. And if conditions were like that, then dumping arrows is very iffy even if you believe it would help. It is anyone's ballgame in the bad wind I am thinking.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

oldreliable67 said:


> Point made? Not! The WCs are not over. Team rounds left to go. It might yet happen that the womens recurve team medals and Janet's dumping might yet pay off.
> 
> And lets be clear: as far as I know, this 'ducking thing' was used for the first time in WC competition by the US in this WC. Perhaps some of the lurkers with more specific knowledge could correct/enlighten us if that is erroneous? And to suggest that 'ducking' is our 'approach to competition' is I believe, incorrect -- it exagerrates the importance just one part of the overall effort.
> 
> ...


You agreed again. You said coaching methods. Ducking is one of those.


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

Good grief! Its late! Gotta work tomorrow!

To all who participated in this thread today and tonite: good stuff, whatever your viewpoint. Agree, disagree or just plain don't know: it was fun exchanging thoughts and ideas with all.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

oldreliable67 said:


> And lets be clear: as far as I know, this 'ducking thing' was used for the first time in WC competition by the US in this WC. Perhaps some of the lurkers with more specific knowledge could correct/enlighten us if that is erroneous?
> .


It's been going on ever since there were elimination rounds. It's also done during individual qualification.

Anyway, there's a lot of armchair quarterbacking going on in this thread. I know that Stash has been there, done that, but do any of the other anti-strategy people ever shoot any competitions?


----------



## iceman77_7 (May 5, 2005)

oldreliable67 said:


> Good grief! Its late! Gotta work tomorrow!
> 
> To all who participated in this thread today and tonite: good stuff, whatever your viewpoint. Agree, disagree or just plain don't know: it was fun exchanging thoughts and ideas with all.


I agree. I'm exhausted just from reading the thread. By the time most of us wakeup in the morning, we'll have a better idea how the strategy worked. I've been quiet in this thread, but I'll contribute my insignificant two cents. I believe you do what you can to place the best you can and I"ll leave the ambiguity at that. ;-)


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

TER said:


> It's been going on ever since there were elimination rounds. It's also done during individual qualification.
> 
> Anyway, there's a lot of armchair quarterbacking going on in this thread. I know that Stash has been there, done that, but do any of the other anti-strategy people ever shoot any competitions?


Yep, and someday hopefully this one.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

Ivorytooth said:


> Yep, and someday hopefully this one.


Then sell those 3-D bows and use the money to buy a FITA rig! :wink:


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

TER said:


> Then sell those 3-D bows and use the money to buy a FITA rig! :wink:


3D? I bought my apex specifically for FITA and indoors. My other is me field slash marked yardage bow that I USE for 3D.

Haven't you heard, the 3D'ers call me a spottie foreigner.  

I wil get a curve some day, never fear. And a longbow.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

Sorry, I shouldn't assume that all Mutants are dyed in the wool 3-Ders.  I don't shoot compound, but I hear the apex shoots ridiculously awesome. Someday I will add compound and longbow to my repetoire. :shade:


----------



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

Last word from me on this- Janet asked me to tell you all she finds this discussion to be pretty silly...


----------



## toxoph (Mar 24, 2005)

>--gt--> said:


> Last word from me on this- Janet asked me to tell you all she finds this discussion to be pretty silly...


agreed


----------



## baldmountain (Apr 21, 2003)

I'm coming into this discussion way late but i thought I'd add my $0.02.

I'm having trouble understanding why this discussion is taking place at all. When you go to a competition, you go to win. When I shoot at a local tournament I do my best to shoot the highest score possible. But I don't shoot elimination tournaments and I'm not part of a team. Janet is. If the best thing she can do is drop a couple arrows to put the team in the best possible postion to advance then that is what she should do. To be honest is she wasn't willing to drop those arrows to help the team then she doesn't belong on that team. Good work Janet. And good luck to you and the rest of the team in the team competition!

Here's another senario. If I was shooting in an elimination round kind of tournamnet and someone like Butch Johnson was also shooting, you can bet that I'm going to place in the bottom half after the first round. I KNOW that I'm competing for second place and don't want to compete against Butch until I absolutely have to. He'd kick my butt.


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2005)

Doesn't look like the strategy paid off at all for the womens anyway, the US still lost their first round in womans recurve and the US mens got smoked on the second round which really surprised me. I didn't think they would get by India in round 2 but to get handed their lunch by almost 20 points was a shock to me anyway. No real surprises in compound US dominating there.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

Well, after reading about half of the posts on this thread....I can honestly say that I have never heard of this tactic before. 

But, never having participated in an archery format similar to this.......I guess if this is the way the game is played, then it is nothing new.

A great big thanks to all of the good folks who represented us on the US team! :thumbs_up 

BTW, hey Toothy, don`t let OBT fool ya brother.....I heard him tell Darrin that he threw a few arrows at the last smackdown so he could set us up for the big bucks next time!


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

U S compound teams, both Men and Women, in the Gold Medal matches! Outstanding! Way to go!


----------



## bowbender7 (Jun 1, 2002)

> =
> 
> Don't make the mistake of underestimating people, unless you like suprises.
> 
> ...



I know who can shoot for the most part. I would have handily won another dollar from OBT at Louisville, but I still had not been paid the last one I earned so I did not make the offer.

My comment has nothing to do with calling anyone out - just pointing the inarguable fact that many of the best shooters use to post regularly and now do not. Yes there are still some good shooters offering help but in contrast to years ago it is a rarity.

I agree with Janet, and think that should have been kept a little more on the hush-hush simply because of its potential to be misconstrued.


----------



## OneBowTie (Jun 14, 2002)

bowbender7 said:


> I know who can shoot for the most part. I would have handily won another dollar from OBT at Louisville, but I still had not been paid the last one I earned so I did not make the offer.
> 
> My comment has nothing to do with calling anyone out - just pointing the inarguable fact that many of the best shooters use to post regularly and now do not. Yes there are still some good shooters offering help but in contrast to years ago it is a rarity.
> 
> I agree with Janet, and think that should have been kept a little more on the hush-hush simply because of its potential to be misconstrued.


well bowbender....i only had about 50 people at louisville come up to me with there hand out....they all got paid...believe me, i wasnt avoiding you....actually would have love to met you.....im sure that we today would have been sharing more laughs than jabs.....

and dont take my kindness as a weakness....sure i have been letting alot of you cupcakes gain some confidence (as it is appears the whole lot of you need-as it has been explained on here  ).....but next year is a whole new can opening  

as for janet, when things happen today in a internet society....it will always be taken way out of context.....as a world competitor im sure she knows this by now.....

personally, i think this thread has been a very productive and eye opening thread for AT....even the 4 top elite guys continued to post on it  ....

and let me know what shoots your going to be at.....if im there i promise, you'll get that dang cousin dollar....remind me to kick his butt when i see him too  

cheers everyone, have a great weekend....

even you GT, cause its a bright sunshiny day here in the carolinas


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

*Sometimes it works, sometimes it don't...*

U S womens recurve team loses to Japan, 238 - 231. U S women's score of 231 surprisingly low given expectations suggested by ranking round results. In the ranking round, the top 3 U S women shot 336, 325, and 309 at 70m, which would give a very (emphasize *very*) rough suggestion of a team score in the 242 - 243 neighborhood. Note also that the average winning scores from the bracket in which the U S team was shooting was approx. 240, which suggests that the team should have been competitive in this bracket. In comparison, the #1 seed posted winning scores that averaged 247. Conclusion: the U S team was most likely in the right bracket -- the bracket that gave them their best chance to get into a medal round. But, this is an OR and anything can and usually does happen. Changing wind and weather conditions, too, might have been a factor.

Mens recurve (#10 seed) won their first round, beating Japan 252 - 245. Unfortunately, their 236 in the second round was no match for India's 255, the best score thus far in the team competition and only 5 off the world record of 260. 

Recurve teams from India have produced perhaps the best story out of the team competition. Indian men (#2 seed) will meet Korea (#1 seed) in the Gold Medal match, while the Indian women (#5 seed) will meet the Russian Fed.(#6 seed) in the Bronze medal match. The #1 and #2 seeds meeting in the men's Gold Medal match is not too surprising. The women's team got by Georgia (#12 seed) in the first round, 230 - 225. Their winning score of 230 was the lowest winning score in the first round. In the second round, India defeated Italy, 233 - 229. Again, their score was the lowest winning score in the round. But it was good enough to get them into the semi-finals, which guaranteed them a spot in either the Gold or Bronze medal match. A loss to #1 seed Korea, 244 - 233 put India in the Bronze medal match.

So even though their women's team won by the lowest scores of any of the winners, and even though they lost in the semi's to the #1 seed, they still find themselves in the Bronze medal match. And the men's team shot consistent with their seeding and have a chance for a Gold. A good result for them. Congrats!


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

> I KNOW that I'm competing for second place and don't want to compete against Butch until I absolutely have to. He'd kick my butt.


Geez, you're beat even before you nock an arrow. Be more positive than that.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

>--gt--> said:


> Last word from me on this- Janet asked me to tell you all she finds this discussion to be pretty silly...


Geez, I guess we had better stop then? Didn't people learn something? Didn't people show some interest in this event? Maybe helped someone?

Sorry Janet.  We are just silly posters with no merit and you have just confirmed it.  

Even some of your fellow blue blooded recurvers here thought it was a noteworthy discussion.

I think your type of archery competition could only benefit from exposure good or bad. It seems to be a dying thing here in the U.S.

I for one would love to see it more popular in the states. Maybe we can get more shooters doing it and even strengthen the available pool of talent for the olympics and WCs etc.

I am sorry this strategy didn't pay off. I wish you all better luck next time. We still back and root for our teams no matter the method of strategy used.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

Big Country said:


> Well, after reading about half of the posts on this thread....I can honestly say that I have never heard of this tactic before.
> 
> But, never having participated in an archery format similar to this.......I guess if this is the way the game is played, then it is nothing new.
> 
> ...


No OBT is a real competitor. There is no way in Hades he would ever just hand anything over. Especially to me.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

bowbender7 said:


> I know who can shoot for the most part. I would have handily won another dollar from OBT at Louisville, but I still had not been paid the last one I earned so I did not make the offer.
> 
> My comment has nothing to do with calling anyone out - just pointing the inarguable fact that many of the best shooters use to post regularly and now do not. Yes there are still some good shooters offering help but in contrast to years ago it is a rarity.
> 
> I agree with Janet, and think that should have been kept a little more on the hush-hush simply because of its potential to be misconstrued.


I was just sticking up for all the great shooters on here that talk since they weren't here to defend themselves. You know, kind of like what like what Doc Holliday did for Wyatt Earp in Tombstone against Johnny Ringo.    

You didn't call anyone out, I called you out.  Like I said, I am your Huckleberry. 

If they wanted it hush, hush, they should have let this be known to whomever reported it so Stash would know. 

I guess we ain't worthy enough to know how the matches work or they don't want us to care about this type of archery so they can keep it to themselves? Don't they want exposure and grow the ranks of this type of archery?


----------



## palmer (Sep 23, 2003)

I can't believe this is still going. Why does anybody honestly care if somebody "dumps" points or not? In the end, you still have to shoot the scores to win. If you want to play strategy to position the team or yourself better, more power to 'ya and I'd probably do the same.

I mean really, it's NOT cheating. Like I said, in the end you have to shoot the scores to put yourself on the podium. If dropping a couple arrows would help me actually get to a medal match I'd do it in a heartbeat. I think alot of others here would too if put in that situation. :wink:


----------



## FtCPhill (Jun 24, 2005)

Indeed, its not cheating. It just seems like a waste of energy to me. If everyone is shooting thier best, or to thier skill lvl, then there is no need for throwing arrows. If you get a higher seed then that means you should be better than the person you are competing against (assuming EVERYONE shoots at thier actual skill lvl).
The only reason I can see to throw arrows to position yourself is if you are targeting a particular shooter to knock him/her out early for the sake of humiliaiton. That, in my opinion, is horrible sportsmanship.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

No one mentioned anything about cheating but about the mental aspects and the strategy behind it. Read the posts again.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

palmer said:


> I can't believe this is still going. Why does anybody honestly care if somebody "dumps" points or not? In the end, you still have to shoot the scores to win. If you want to play strategy to position the team or yourself better, more power to 'ya and I'd probably do the same.
> 
> I mean really, it's NOT cheating. Like I said, in the end you have to shoot the scores to put yourself on the podium. If dropping a couple arrows would help me actually get to a medal match I'd do it in a heartbeat. I think alot of others here would too if put in that situation. :wink:


I would want to get to the podium by going through the best shooters, not avoiding them. If I don't make it, well, I go home and work on improving my game.

I bet there are more recurvers and compounders that don't like the ducking and dodging than you think. They just don't want to go against the opinions of those elite guys on here. Why it seems that the sun rises and sets with these people. Heck, people on this site are even afraid to compete and beat them.  No shooter is too sacred, no ground is too hallowed. Shoot well or get taken down.

Fear or be feared as a competitor on the line. You don't have to be some crude Oakland Raider fan type either. 

But in my eyes, there isn't any place for being passive or submissive in competition. Go after it aggressively and be proud of your effort win, lose or draw. You can still be respectful towards others and their abilities. Be a good winner and a good loser. 


Ducking ain't much of a livin'.


----------



## stodr (Sep 4, 2002)

Ivorytooth said:


> I would want to get to the podium by going through the best shooters, not avoiding them. If I don't make it, well, I go home and work on improving my game.
> 
> I bet there are more recurvers and compounders that don't like the ducking and dodging than you think. They just don't want to go against the opinions of those elite guys on here. Why it seems that the sun rises and sets with these people. Heck, people on this site are even afraid to compete and beat them.  No shooter is too sacred, no ground is too hallowed. Shoot well or get taken down.
> 
> ...


What your problem is and what a lot of peoples problem in this country is THIS WAS FOR THE TEAM NOT FOR I.



> I would want to get to the podium


 She gave up some positions in her personal position (sacraficed some points for the team) to possibly help theTEAM in the short run to possibly help the team in the long run. Archery is not always an individual sport. Final finishes by individuals and teams determines how much Archery gets from the Olympic commitee, it also determines how many members we have on an olympic team.

I have also seen Archers in ranking rounds drop points so they didn't have to face and eliminate a teammate. It was so they could both make it to the medal round if they shot good. With them both in the same bracket they could not do that.


----------



## palmer (Sep 23, 2003)

Ivorytooth said:


> No one mentioned anything about cheating but about the mental aspects and the strategy behind it. Read the posts again.


I didn't say anybody mentioned cheating. I was merely trying to make a point that it is within the rules and I would think expected in an elimination bracket format. Happens all the time as some others have already mentioned. Why would it be a negative in the mental aspect anyway? If you have a goal and a plan to get there, and you accomplish that goal....I don't see the negative behind it. Purposely making a bad shot is tiny in the grand scheme of things with respect to a person's mental game.

Does Miguel Tejada suffer mentally when he lays down a bunt to advance a runner when he knows he can put it over the fence? I doubt it.


----------



## palmer (Sep 23, 2003)

Here's a good question/analogy......How many of you think intentional walks in baseball are unsportsmanlike? Purposely avoiding a batter to face another? Same thing, right? :wink:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Just saw this discussion today. Strategy is strategy. If it works, then use it. It worked for us in Athens. Frank knew what he was doing, and because of that, we were able to make the medal rounds.

I for one appreciate it. 

Janet is right. This is a silly discussion.

John.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

stodr said:


> What your problem is and what a lot of peoples problem in this country is THIS WAS FOR THE TEAM NOT FOR I.
> 
> 
> She gave up some positions in her personal position (sacraficed some points for the team) to possibly help theTEAM in the short run to possibly help the team in the long run. Archery is not always an individual sport. Final finishes by individuals and teams determines how much Archery gets from the Olympic commitee, it also determines how many members we have on an olympic team.
> ...


No, I understand this was for a team thing. Did it work???? Getting the seed they wanted by dumping arrows, came out and beat them. Tell me how this worked????

People have come on here and posted that it this strategy is crucial because of the seeding and rankings in one breath and then say that seeds don't matter, anyone can be beaten on any given day in another. Which is it???

So you have a team dumping arrows to get a particular seed. What you may not know is another team is also dumping arrows to get that same seed. What happens if they outdump you? How many teams could there be dumping to get the same opponent?????

I see this strategy backfiring (like it did this weekend) more often than not so why do it?

It looks like the compound teams the ones that others are dumping arrows to avoid. 

Shoot well as a team and then let others worry about you. Shooters should be thinking of the arrow they got to shoot, not who are they going to draw or what team do they need to dump arrows for and how much.

So Jeff, I have to disagree with you.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> Just saw this discussion today. Strategy is strategy. If it works, then use it. It worked for us in Athens. Frank knew what he was doing, and because of that, we were able to make the medal rounds.
> 
> I for one appreciate it.
> 
> ...



Well that is your opinion and I can't ding you for that. But I doubt discussing strategy in trying to win something is silly.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> Just saw this discussion today. Strategy is strategy. If it works, then use it. It worked for us in Athens. Frank knew what he was doing, and because of that, we were able to make the medal rounds.
> 
> I for one appreciate it.
> 
> ...


Glad it worked for you. It would have sucked if you tried it and it failed and your team didn't medal. All's well that ends well right?

Keep up the good shooting!


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

palmer said:


> Here's a good question/analogy......How many of you think intentional walks in baseball are unsportsmanlike? Purposely avoiding a batter to face another? Same thing, right? :wink:


Nope it ain't quite the same. You dealing with a known opponent in baseball. It has nothing to do with deciding what team you face like this does. You are already competing with the team. Intentional walking is avoiding someone to get an easier out, I will give you that, but not quite the same. What they do in dumping arrows to get a certain team is more like gambling. You can't be sure this is the team you will get and that they are any easier since you all keep saying and it is proven at this tournament that any seed can win at any given time. 

In Baseball this is why you need a strong team to protect your hitters in your batting lineup. Strong teams win, weak teams lose. If the team you play against is walking your guy or guys to get to another that is easier to get out, then you need a better, more well rounded team. Did you play competitve baseball?

The National league had to put their pitchers in the box or use a DH and make a switch. So, you will see lots of that walking business going on there.


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

I think the point IS THE FACT anybody can be beat on any given day in that format.

So If I can put my team in the position to let 2 or 3 others have first crack at doing it why not? The more people shoot the more chance something may go wrong with equipment , Mental attitude, Weather.. IF you wait in line something might just happen to help you out.

But I will admit there are plenty of opportunities for those factors to work against you as well in the later rounds. Frankly as a coach if it would not hurt anybody individually I think I would go for it. I think it would be MORE advantageous to keep my team in longer and getting more experience then being thrown out in the first round. I guess it would be equally important to learn to crawl up from a less favorable position as well as learning to take on the top and survive as well . All experience that needs to be had. I'll save the "learning to take on the top and survive lesson" for when the individuals outcome was on the line and use other opportunities to help gather a win and teach other lesson as well.

I also agree it's not a silly conversation. It's interesting to know the inter workings of international competition and if a little controversy can get some FITA competitions some attention … so be it . The last time FITA received some pretty good press coverage was when BAD BOY Huish was involved … then again with Genna Davis


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

> Getting the seed they wanted by dumping arrows, came out and beat them. Tell me how this worked????


Actually, it worked to the extent that they got the seed they wanted. If the team had shot up to the levels suggested by their 70m ranking round scores, they would *probably* (emphasis *probably* ) have gotten into a medal round. The archer that dumped arrows did not shoot in the team round, so dumping arrows had nothing to do with not shooting up to the levels suggested by their ranking round scores. 

Bottom line: the strategy got them the seed that they wanted. That part was successful. For reasons having nothing to do with dumping arrows to get into that bracket, they failed to execute and were unable to get to a medal round. That part was not successful.

For an example where the strategy worked and the team executed successfully, read limbwalkers comments about Athens 2004. 

This discussion understandably seems silly to those relative few who have significant national team OR experience. For the majority of the archery community, though, which doesn't have that depth of experience, it seems to be something totally alien. This suggests and supports the veracity in something Lloyd Brown has long maintained: we in the US just don't shoot enough of the Olympic Round. (There are legitimate reasons why this is so, but that doesn't make it right -- but thats another thread.)


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

> Shooters should be thinking of the arrow they got to shoot, not who are they going to draw or what team do they need to dump arrows for and how much.


Absolutely right. Shooting is the archer's task. The archer's only task. In world-level competition, it is the coaches job to anticipate and evaluate brackets and seedings. Together, the archers and the coach make a team. There is no 'I' in 'team'. (An old cliche, I know, but it seems appropriate to this thread!)

Also worth repeating: 'aggresive' and 'smart' are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

Good posts reliable and centerX!

I hope you both don't feel silly for posting.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

> Bottom line: the strategy got them the seed that they wanted. That part was successful. For reasons having nothing to do with dumping arrows to get into that bracket, they failed to execute and were unable to get to a medal round. That part was not successful.


Maybe it was because they weren't as fired up as they may have been for a better seeded team? Only the shooters know hopefully why. Hard to say, but if you do this to get a team you think you have a shot at and don't pull it off most of the time, then maybe shouldn't do this?


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

I always feel silly........

It's the no merit thing that bothers me :mg: 

Oh well soembody must burden the load of all this no merit silliness. Is that how you spell siliiness?? Crap... add bad speller to the list as well :embarasse


----------



## stodr (Sep 4, 2002)

Ivorytooth said:


> Nope it ain't quite the same. You dealing with a known opponent in baseball. It has nothing to do with deciding what team you face like this does. You are already competing with the team. Intentional walking is avoiding someone to get an easier out, I will give you that, but not quite the same. What they do in dumping arrows to get a certain team is more like gambling. You can't be sure this is the team you will get and that they are any easier since you all keep saying and it is proven at this tournament that any seed can win at any given time.
> 
> In Baseball this is why you need a strong team to protect your hitters in your batting lineup. Strong teams win, weak teams lose. If the team you play against is walking your guy or guys to get to another that is easier to get out, then you need a better, more well rounded team. Did you play competitve baseball?
> 
> The National league had to put their pitchers in the box or use a DH and make a switch. So, you will see lots of that walking business going on there.


And the next person can get up and hit a homerun. It doesn't work there all the time either. But mangers get their team in the playoffs by playing the odds. Just like this coach was playing the odds to give them the best shot at winning a medal. They were not dumping arrows to face a team they were dumping arrows to not have to face a team early which is easy. I already showed you an example of when it work right once with two individuals. They both ended up medaling. There in no way for them to do that if they meet early in the same bracket period.



> If the team you play against is walking your guy or guys to get to another that is easier to get out, then you need a better, more well rounded team


You dance with who you brought, and give them the best opportunity to win.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

stodr said:


> And the next person can get up and hit a homerun. It doesn't work there all the time either. But mangers get their team in the playoffs by playing the odds. Just like this coach was playing the odds to give them the best shot at winning a medal. They were not dumping arrows to face a team they were dumping arrows to not have to face a team early which is easy. I already showed you an example of when it work right once with two individuals. They both ended up medaling. There in no way for them to do that if they meet early in the same bracket period.
> 
> 
> 
> You dance with who you brought, and give them the best opportunity to win.


You're right, it goes both ways, but seems to me here to be more of a gamble because on the intangibles involved here. They could have just as easily advanced against the team they would have faced if they didn't dump arrows.


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

> but if you do this to get a team you think you have a shot at and don't pull it off most of the time, then maybe shouldn't do this?


Nothing works 100% of the time and in the OR there are certainly no guarantees. I maintain that the correct approach is to be confident that I have given my team every advantage that I can think of, including training, knowledge of possible and likely opponents and their strengths/weaknesses and knowledge about the round that I am shooting. Anything and everything that I can legally do to maximize my teams chances of getting into a medal round is fair game. Sure, some tactics/strategies are less likely to work than others, and none are guaranteed. But if you don't make the effort, you maximize regrets (Jeez, if only I had tried this or that, then maybe...!). If you know that you have done everything possible, you minimize regrets (I gave it my best shot; I left no stone unturned.).


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

The thing that cracks me up is that since some don't agree with the opinions of others, then they are deemed silly for discussing opposite opinions.


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

Well I see you get it .... I was starting to wonder if any of the bad merritless posters still did :embarasse 

I find it intereisting the coach ( not going to try to spell is name as the attempt would have no merrit) Is one of the best and what makes his mind tick and how others will follow along is indeed interesting and worthwile information...

Me on the other hand some how some way I would try to blank a target and shoot myself in the foot, Hit an electrical wire.. Something would sureley happen without the desired outcome :wink:


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

The Korean women have not been beaten in the last umpteen major events. Anything that can be done to avoid shooting against them early on is sound team menagement. The "Anyone can be beaten" statement is foolish. When a large portion of NAA funding is from major event results...it is up to the team managers to ensure that they do all they can to give their team the best chance for success.


----------



## skybowman (Jan 31, 2004)

Heard from Ivorytooth:

"The thing that cracks me up is that since some don't agree with the opinions of others, then they are deemed silly for discussing opposite opinions."

Perhaps they question why posters with no experience in international archery team competition would have the basis for forming a valid opinion.


----------



## Tyler88 (Mar 9, 2003)

Whoever said that the coaches play the odds, I COMPLETELY AGREE. 

If someone thinks that it is bad to gain a competitive edge by dropping to a lower bracket, do you think that it is bad to fold a bad hand when playing poker?? 

In poker, folding and holding onto more chips gives you more to bet with when you do have a good hand, in this case, archery is the same thing. 

If you have to drop some points to get to a lower bracket where you have a better chance of winning, why not? 

If you dont, your putting yourself at a dissadvantage in this case. If you arent getting that competitive edge, somebody else is, and that person might beat you. 


And if you are a real competitor, you will do anything (within the rules) to win, the thought of trying to be righteous and putting yourself at a dissadvantage should make you sick.


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

> They could have just as easily advanced against the team they would have faced if they didn't dump arrows.


But thats not true, at least not the way you have expressed it. You just can't say that "they could have just as easily"... Lets walk through this, by the numbers. In excruciating detail, here is sort of how the thought process *might* have played out:

Remember that in the recurve team competition, we began with the 1/8th eliminations (16 teams). That means that the #1 seeds first match is against the 16th seed. The winner of that match meets the winner of the match between the 8th and 9th seed. Now, if I have this straight, the U S team was looking as if it were going to be the 8th or 9th seed, meaning that if they won their first match (in the 1/8 eliminations), they would most likely then face the #1 seed, Korea (the appropriate assumption is to assume no upset by the #16 seed) in their second match (the 1/4 finals). Based on their qualification round scores, the Korean team could be reasonably expected to shoot scores in the 250 neighborhood, significantly better than one would reasonably expect the U S team to shoot based on their qualification round scores. (And presumably the coach has a pretty good idea of his teams capabilities, a considerably better idea based on more than just qualification round scores.)

The coach realizes this and in fact had most likely made himself and the team aware of the possibility before taking the field. He has studied the pairings and he knows that in this situation, the 'sweet spots' are the #6, #7, #10 and #11 seeds. These positions in the brackets face each other in the first round, meaning that they are competing against teams that likely have roughly similar scoring expectations, or at least less of a difference between their scoring expectations as compared to the theirs versus the top 4 seeds. Moreover, competitors in this bracket, seeded #6, #7, #10 and #11 don't meet the winner from the bracket containing the #1 seed until the semi-finals. They do have to meet the winner from the bracked containing the #2 seed, however, so one shouldn't think it becomes 'automatic' just because you get in the lower bracket. Thus, the #6 and #11 seeds are the 'sweetest of the sweet' spots in this situation.

So, the decision is made: lets try to drop to the #10 or even better, the #11 seed (the #11 seed doesn't meet the winner coming from the bracket with the #2 seed until the semis). And we can't go for the #6 or #7 seed because as noted above, we're already too far below them. So we go for the #10 or #11 seed, preferably #11 (for the reason noted above). 

Here is the tricky (and most difficult, IMHO) part: when do you make the decision? Do it too early and you leave yourself open to surprises from other teams that might have a similar strategy. Do it too late and you may not have enough 'room' or points left to play with to get it done. So, do you do it with 4 arrows left, 3 arrows left, 2 arrows left, or just 1 arrow left. Obviously, the number of points needed to be dropped is the single largest deteminant, but that is an estimate -- you have to be aware of where the other guys are heading as well (drop too many and you find yourself the #15 or #16 seed, facing the #1 and #2 seeds in the first round). That means that you, as the coach, have to have a pretty darned good handle on where the other teams competitors are now and estimates of how they are likely to end up. Not easy.

Ok, so we drop some points and wind up seeded 10th. We missed the #11 seed, but we have nonetheless significantly improved our chances of gettting into a medal round. Now all that we have to do is shoot the best scores of which we are capable, and let the other teams do the same. 

All of the foregoing is of course a gross simplification. Others with more experience can no doubt find reasons to criticize and correct -- and are requested to feel free to do so and share them with us. In fact, I feel like I've left something out that I had intended to mention, but its 2:00 am --cant believe I'm awake and doin' this -- and I can't think of what it might be. It is a whole bunch easier to talk about it than to do it!


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

Tyler88 said:


> Whoever said that the coaches play the odds, I COMPLETELY AGREE.
> 
> If someone thinks that it is bad to gain a competitive edge by dropping to a lower bracket, do you think that it is bad to fold a bad hand when playing poker??
> 
> ...


The problem with this analogy is that while you should probably fold a bad hand in poker, positioning the archery team in this instance was done at the sacrifice of a team member in the individual competition.

Yes, I understand Janet was not going to make the cut. And yes, i understand that she was willing to sacrifice for the team...she's a great person, archer, and team member. But this sacrifice may be more than just her score.

Sponsors see these scores, and Janet's will be some 20 points lower than it could have been. NAA donors (individual and corporate), see these scores. All likely without knowing what really happened. Not to mention that the strategy did not work. I am not second guessing the coach, but I think that for all archers to agree and follow blindly would be foolish.


----------



## monty53 (Jun 19, 2002)

I am positive; the Koreans don’t have to resort to this practice!…

Who do they have to fear??..

So I guess not everyone is doing it!!.. Go USA!


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

> Here is the tricky (and most difficult, IMHO) part: when do you make the decision? Do it too early and you leave yourself open to surprises from other teams that might have a similar strategy. Do it too late and you may not have enough 'room' or points left to play with to get it done. So, do you do it with 4 arrows left, 3 arrows left, 2 arrows left, or just 1 arrow left. Obviously, the number of points needed to be dropped is the single largest deteminant, but that is an estimate -- you have to be aware of where the other guys are heading as well (drop too many and you find yourself the #15 or #16 seed, facing the #1 and #2 seeds in the first round). That means that you, as the coach, have to have a pretty darned good handle on where the other teams competitors are now and estimates of how they are likely to end up. Not easy.


Well, the way I see it, is that this is a contest of who can drop the most arrows to get to who. Something I don't like to see. 

If I was the coach of the 10th seed team that got the U.S. in the pairing, then I would be telling them, "Look, these guys dropped arrows to face you because they think they can beat you. Lets show them how wrong they are. Relax and shoot, show your country that you are no pushover that is just in the way of the U.S."

Doesn't this make sense to anyone? There are lots of things that work both ways here. If some team did that to face my team, I could take advantage of this and give my team a pyschological boost etc.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

skybowman said:


> Heard from Ivorytooth:
> 
> "The thing that cracks me up is that since some don't agree with the opinions of others, then they are deemed silly for discussing opposite opinions."
> 
> Perhaps they question why posters with no experience in international archery team competition would have the basis for forming a valid opinion.


I have competed overseas, just not in archery, but in other team or individual sports. Have you?????? I am a fairly intelligent person and strategy isn't mutually exclusive to archery and neither is using pyschology and having the right mental strategy to help your team. Head to head competition isn't unique to archery as well. To me it seems the only things being considered here is the strategy of getting an opponent you think you can handle while AVOIDING the ones that have ALREADY beaten you in your mind.  Most times teams have no problem getting fired up to face the Americans and want to beat them. Dumping arrows to face these teams is adding to that fire. Trust me, I have lived abroad and I know this and if these other countries' coaches don't take advantage of this when it happens, they are missing out.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

Xs24-7 said:


> The Korean women have not been beaten in the last umpteen major events. Anything that can be done to avoid shooting against them early on is sound team menagement. The "Anyone can be beaten" statement is foolish. When a large portion of NAA funding is from major event results...it is up to the team managers to ensure that they do all they can to give their team the best chance for success.



Anyone that thinks like that to me is beaten even before they start.

If the term anyone can be beaten is foolish, then why even hold these events? Why compete? We should just all get together and concede victory over to the koreans at every event including the olympics.

So Xs24-7, this really isn't an event about competition and shooting to win. This is an event to generate funds. Lets call it a World Archery Fundraiser then. Medals go out to the teams and individuals that get the most funding.

Medal should say, "Best Money Raiser of 2005".

Doesn't anyone compete to win anymore or they just happy with being there???????


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

monty53 said:


> I am positive; the Koreans don’t have to resort to this practice!…
> 
> Who do they have to fear??..
> 
> So I guess not everyone is doing it!!.. Go USA!


Right, they know they are feared, thus even more of a pyschological advantage. What they need is to find out they are not feared and that others are going to try to beat them and grind it out tooth and nail. They need to find out every match they are going to have a dogfight. They need to understand that teams look forward to competing with them, not trying to duck them so they get more money funded if they take the easy way out and just lose later down the road. Then they won't be as strong mentally or they will be more susceptible to doubts or negative thoughts.

What team out there will be the one that plays to win??

Go USA!!!! Don't duck anyone, give'em your best shot and respect all of your opponents, they will in turn respect you. No fear!!!


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

"So Xs24-7, this really isn't an event about competition and shooting to win. This is an event to generate funds. Lets call it a World Archery Fundraiser then. Medals go out to the teams and individuals that get the most funding."

Yep. Exactly. The NAA relies on results in these events to raise funds. The team management must do what they can to generate the best possible results. Plain, simple. To do anything less would be irresponcible of them. 

I will let you know a little secret...the American womens team isnt even on the same planet as the Koreans women team. Positive thought only goes so far....then it becomes delusional. The American Women(or pretty much any other team in the world) could shoot 50 matches against the Korean womens team...and loose every single one. That is the disparity. To put it in perspective...the American Compound Men/Women would be a solid match for them. The American women were as likely to beat the Koreans as I am to beat Tiger Woods...So...if they aint gonna beat them...better to leave that till the medal matches...it is only logical. To leave it to blind luck would be irresponcible. Many teams strategically plae themselve sin this manner. It is a part of the game. In fact, the Koreans have done it on occasion in order to avoid having their archers meet in the early rounds. It is the way successful teams are run. It is a part of the game.


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

Justin, I think your fighting a losing battle on this one. I'll put it this way. 

The Korean womens recurve team out qualified all but two of the womens compound teams and then they were only down by 18 points.

Again in the team eliminations the Korean women recurvers would have beaten all womens compound teams, but for the US and France.

I don't think your thesis on archery psychology is silly to talk about, it just foolish from every perpective given the facts of how good the Korean women are right now 

When the U.S. has a junior archery system like Korea, we could talk about taking on anyone in any round. Until then, archery is still just a hobby for a very limited few of us who choose to do it for the pure joy of slinging arrows every day.

Hope to see you with that recurve this fall 

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## Metal Tiger (Apr 10, 2005)

Xs24-7 said:


> "So Xs24-7, this really isn't an event about competition and shooting to win. This is an event to generate funds. Lets call it a World Archery Fundraiser then. Medals go out to the teams and individuals that get the most funding."
> 
> Yep. Exactly. The NAA relies on results in these events to raise funds. The team management must do what they can to generate the best possible results. Plain, simple. To do anything less would be irresponcible of them.
> 
> I will let you know a little secret...the American womens team isnt even on the same planet as the Koreans women team. Positive thought only goes so far....then it becomes delusional. The American Women(or pretty much any other team in the world) could shoot 50 matches against the Korean womens team...and loose every single one. That is the disparity. To put it in perspective...the American Compound Men/Women would be a solid match for them. The American women were as likely to beat the Koreans as I am to beat Tiger Woods...So...if they aint gonna beat them...better to leave that till the medal matches...it is only logical. To leave it to blind luck would be irresponcible. Many teams strategically plae themselve sin this manner. It is a part of the game. In fact, the Koreans have done it on occasion in order to avoid having their archers meet in the early rounds. It is the way successful teams are run. It is a part of the game.



All of these posts make so much sense there isn't a dispute. Great post and thanks for the insight Ed.


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

> Don't duck anyone, give'em your best shot and respect all of your opponents


Once again,nobody is "ducking" anybody. Trying to manage your team so that you face the #1 seed in a medal round instead of the 1/8, 1/4, or semi's is not "ducking". If you come out of the lower bracket, you meet them in the semi's, which means that you know you will be in a medal round, you just don't know if it will be Gold or Bronze. You meet them in the semi's and go after them with all you've got and if successful, you're in the Gold Medal match. If you're not successful, you're in the Bronze. But if, before you meet them in the semi's, some other team gets the (in)famous OR "hot for a round" syndrome and knocks them off, or one member of the #1 seed suffers the (in)famous "one bad arrow" and they get knocked off, even better: you've improved your Gold Medal chances by a bunch. 



> If I was the coach of the 10th seed team that got the U.S. in the pairing, then I would be telling them, "Look, these guys dropped arrows to face you because they think they can beat you. Lets show them how wrong they are. Relax and shoot, show your country that you are no pushover that is just in the way of the U.S."


Sure, thats exactly what the coach of the team that faced the US in the pairings should have said. And the US coach, at the same time, should be saying something like, "Ok, our strategy worked. We are where we want to be. Now lets go out and knock these guys out and bring it home". Psychology works both ways. You seem to be giving 100% credence to the opposing team(s) psychological efforts, 0% to the efforts of the U S coach. Doesn't work that way and from your experiences you've described, you know that. You make it sound like to win, all you have to do is have the coach that is the best psychologists. Don't think so.

Back to the baseball analogy: sometimes a batter is intentionally walked to get to the next guy, 'cause the stats and history suggest you have a better chance at getting the next guy out and ending the inning. Or maybe there is only one out and first base is open and your pitcher gets a lot of ground balls -- the opportunity for a double play has just presented itself. The batter that follows the guy that was intentionally walked doesn't always oblige and perform as expected. Its not a sure thing. But the stats confirm that these strategies work more often than not. 

Conclusion: even though the batter that follows gets 'cranked up' psychologically because they passed on someone else just to get to him, expecting an easier out, doesn't mean that this guy can suddenly perform beyond his capabilities, psychological boost or not. Neither can an archery team.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

c3hammer said:


> Justin, I think your fighting a losing battle on this one. I'll put it this way.
> 
> The Korean womens recurve team out qualified all but two of the womens compound teams and then they were only down by 18 points.
> 
> ...


Well, I don't think I will win the lottery or I would have one now.

Maybe we ain't in the same league, but we have to quit stressing how good they are and start focusing more on our team and what we need to do to get better. Me, I would rather lose against the best instead of losing to teams I dump arrows to meet up against. That is just me and how I would want my teammates to be. We got to start somewhere with some positive thinking.

I wish the recurve shooting was more popular here in the U.S. So we have a deeper "gene pool" to draw from. I know we have the talent here. No, we will never have the archery robots trained from childhood like some countries, but lets not say all is lost. I am sure our future generations of recurve archers are going to get smaller unless we make it more popular here. People are going where the competition is... Compound.

If I took up the recurve, who would I compete against here? I would have to go to Utah to bump heads with you Pete. Also Ed, Mike too and some others.

It would be no fun to compete in a class of just me or 1 or 2 others here. 

What would the purists think of me shooting 3D with an oly getup??  Blasphemy? Sacriledge??  LOL! 

Dr. GT says I am obsessed and tiring him. His mental game needs some work.   

Sorry GT, you are waaaaay too easy of a mark.  Don't worry, I do it to my friends as well as to you. 

Can't wait to shoot with you again Pete!!! Get that 1340 Dude! Chase it down and kill it with an arrow. I have faith in you bro. Don't let anyone say you can't do it.


----------



## Silver Dingo (May 27, 2003)

You oughta try hangin with the anal sob for a few days gt. Its enuff to drive a foamy to recurve.


----------



## Welshman (Oct 5, 2002)

I thing it's fascinating how the coaches can calculate where their archers will be in the OR slots while the qualifications are going on and be able to tell those archers when to put an arrow in the red or blue. 
Now the archer has to be good enough to get that arrow in the red or blue on demand. If they can, I don't see why they should feel ashamed of hitting the spot they were aiming at. It's all part of the game.

At my low skill level, I'd be aiming at the blue and probably hit the gold.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

Ivorytooth said:


> Well, I don't think I will win the lottery or I would have one now.
> 
> Maybe we ain't in the same league, but we have to quit stressing how good they are and start focusing more on our team and what we need to do to get better. Me, I would rather lose against the best instead of losing to teams I dump arrows to meet up against. That is just me and how I would want my teammates to be. We got to start somewhere with some positive thinking.
> 
> ...


There were about 150 'curve shooters in Vegas, Tooth! Pleanty of competition on the national level (local is different, although here in north Alabama there are several Olympic style shooters).

As for 3D, I've threatened many times to throw some fixed pins and a 12" stabilizer on my 'curve and go out and try my luck with the ASA crowd in the Novice class. I bet I'd get some serious stares!


----------



## stodr (Sep 4, 2002)

monty53 said:


> I am positive; the Koreans don’t have to resort to this practice!…
> 
> Who do they have to fear??..
> 
> So I guess not everyone is doing it!!.. Go USA!


That is not true. The examples I gave of of Korean women doing it in individual matches, so they would not face each other.


----------



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

Does anyone else wonder whether it's a good idea to have someone who has made fifty-eight posts on this subject... many responding to himself... have access to sharp, pointy objects such as arrows ?

Just wondering.

Personally I think the guy's lost it.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

sfa said:


> You oughta try hangin with the anal sob for a few days gt. Its enuff to drive a foamy to recurve.


You're just a sore loser SFA.  You know spotties rule.  


See GT, you're coming around.  That is more like it. Loosen up the bowtie around your neck and have some fun, discuss our sport with us. 

Now Jeff, that makes more sense than anything. The only thing they are afraid of is themselves. LOL!  I know, they just want all the medals, not happy with just one are they?


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

olsenck said:


> There were about 150 'curve shooters in Vegas, Tooth! Pleanty of competition on the national level (local is different, although here in north Alabama there are several Olympic style shooters).
> 
> As for 3D, I've threatened many times to throw some fixed pins and a 12" stabilizer on my 'curve and go out and try my luck with the ASA crowd in the Novice class. I bet I'd get some serious stares!


They must all run to their rooms when they are done or they have them shoot in their own private range.    Actually, I had the pleasure of shooting the same bale with a very nice gal in Vegas. I think she is from Canada. She was a looker too.  She had short hair and she was originally from Denmark or something like that. HOT!!!

I did see the G33k running around the casino looking for her keys, camera and anything else that wasn't tied to her. She needs a full time nanny to keep track of her toys so they don't get misplaced.   LOL!

Why shoot fixed pins? Use the same get up you use for FITA and shoot open class. The only difference is you have a curve, using fingers with no peep.

Well, GT is right, this discussion has gone on long enough. I have heard some good points for either side of this subject. Time to start another discussion on another subject perhaps. Many did have some good things to add to it. Some just didn't want it discussed at all and didn't add anything to it other than saying it was silly etc. You all know who you are.  

Thanks Stash for bringing it up. It has been a long time since I seriously discussed archery like this. Most of the time I do clown around.   But I am serious about archery, so I like these subjects.


----------



## FEN TIGER (Mar 13, 2005)

Hey SFA
remember the score Bangadesh 1, aussi 0
heck you should have been there, well done bangy   :thumbs_up


----------



## RJDII (Jul 8, 2003)

seattlepop,
as i understand it, the sac fly and sac bunt are within the rules of the game. intentionally dropping an arrow isn't??


----------

