# Politics in archery



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

its idiotic. we constantly see people who get a certification and get the next one as soon as possible yet they never turn out kids who win anything. they collect a lot of certificates and that supposedly means more than people who have been out recruiting, sponsoring, training kids who end up being on teams or on the podium state, local and national tournaments. There is no requirement that people actually do anything with that certificate. its just years. SO what counts more, someone who coaches hours and hours every week of the year or someone who has this NTS designation and has no evidence of any of their students doing anything? 


Liz put in at least 100 unpaid hours every year for the NAA (oops USA) she has been at JOAD almost very session since 2000. She has run summer camps and worked individually with almost every kid in our club. In 06 she was at the BEST system in CS with Coach Lee and then at Chula with Don Rabska for Level III. Since then she has had over 2000 hours of actual coaching. 

One day the USA is going to wake up and wonder why people like us are no longer involved in its organization. I remember some newly minted level IV arguing with me over some point-something I had learned 20 years ago From Charlie Pierson. A well known Olympian listened to it for 40 seconds and wondered aloud how many students this supposedly higher ranked coach had put on the podium or how many star FITAS he had shot. the answer was ZERO. 

USA has to start recognizing people who actually are turning out archers as opposed to those spending lots of money for certificates 

its inane that this organization is that disrespectful of people who have been coaching for years. Its like USA telling Tom DeBerry of Cleveland he cannot teach classes any more because he isn't an NTS Level IV. A guy who was coaching top archers before any of the JDT coaches even were shooting archery. 

As Liz knows, there are plenty of other sports people like us can do.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jim, Liz, I feel your pain. I think we were all declared "Regional High Performance" coaches by our national head coach once upon a time, right?  I think only 2 people know why that's different than a L4 "Regional" coach today. I'll let you guess their names.

As for politics, right now I'm more curious why Hoytshooter's KSL shot cycle thread got whacked. That's very interesting.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

There just isn't much to say about this other than it is a major own goal on the part of USAA, one that sends the message to other JOADs around the country about what USAA's priorities are: tow the line.

High level certs should be about being a good, knowledgeable, _capable_ coach, not politics.



limbwalker said:


> As for politics, right now I'm more curious why Hoytshooter's KSL shot cycle thread got whacked. That's very interesting.


I was rather surprised by that. The thread seemed to be pretty fact-based and tame. I considered PMing HS and asking him if he had the thread closed (OPs do that sometimes) or if it was arbitrarily closed by the mods. :dontknow:


----------



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

Jim, the JDT program has nothing to do with this so I don't know why you referenced the JDT coaches. Maybe I'm missing something. 

Terry


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Jim, Liz, I feel your pain. I think we were all declared "Regional High Performance" coaches by our national head coach once upon a time, right?  I think only 2 people know why that's different than a L4 "Regional" coach today. I'll let you guess their names.
> 
> As for politics, right now I'm more curious why Hoytshooter's KSL shot cycle thread got whacked. That's very interesting.


yeah I just read that thread and I saw nothing that was objectionable. I wonder why it was closed?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

bownut-tl. said:


> Jim, the JDT program has nothing to do with this so I don't know why you referenced the JDT coaches. Maybe I'm missing something.
> 
> Terry


I understand that-my point was a bit more subtle.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

hotyshooter probably closed it. Our humble little fita forum here has great mods that I've only seen close things when it's get hostile between people - not over calm discussion such as that thread.



On topic:

Sometimes you people make me want my $50 back. At the same time though I understand when an organization grows and so to does it bureaucracy fewer exceptions are given where they once were. Though clearly it's a little odd as there are those of you who are clearly high performance coaches. 

Maybe the politics are so blinding because you all are so close to the Sun?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Dacer said:


> hotyshooter probably closed it. Our humble little fita forum here has great mods that I've only seen close things when it's get hostile between people - not over calm discussion such as that thread.


that makes sense. however, its an interesting topic that should be explored.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I wasn't aware we had the option to close threads. And why would Hoytshooter close it right after asking a question? Strange.



> Maybe the politics are so blinding because you all are so close to the Sun?


I'm going with that. LOL!


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

limbwalker said:


> I wasn't aware we had the option to close threads. And why would Hoytshooter close it right after asking a question? Strange.


 Yep. If you are the OP there is an "administrative" tab at the top of the thread with the option. You can reopen them too. Perhaps he was just frustrated with the replies that didn't really tell him what the problem/solution was for the issue he was trying to explain. 

I suspect he is chasing after the feeling of holding and perhaps has never really taken holding before - so it's like looking for a part in a junk yard you've never seen before. You know it's rusty colored and somewhere in the back.

Anyway...


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Yes we were John, I even have the shirt that proclaims that, but then something happened....What that was, I don't know.
"Regional High Performance Coach" sounded really cool. Anyway, on we roll. We will see you in a couple of weeks! :smile:



limbwalker said:


> Jim, Liz, I feel your pain. I think we were all declared "Regional High Performance" coaches by our national head coach once upon a time, right?  I think only 2 people know why that's different than a L4 "Regional" coach today. I'll let you guess their names.
> 
> As for politics, right now I'm more curious why Hoytshooter's KSL shot cycle thread got whacked. That's very interesting.


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

So let me get this straight.
They are making you wait 2 more years just because you are newly certified in a new module that was just introduced.
They are not even recognizing the previous 8 years of dedication?
I would be upset as well. 
Obviously you have the knowledge to pass this course. Why are they denying you? You would think they would want more dedicated people on the coaching team.
I am only a level 2 but really would like to take the level 3 NTS course but have learned that most level 4 cannot present this course any longer.
On a side note, looking forward to meeting some of you at Nationals and possibly picking up some valuable information and tips.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

What boggles my mind is that Lee certifies the Level 4s himself. You have to explain back to him the NTS method to his satisfaction before he'll let you have your piece of paper. Why are these same people who have already gotten the KSL stamp of approval not able to teach Level 3 courses?

Liz, I'm really surprised they aren't letting you take the level 4 course given your list of accomplishments. If i were you, I would corner Coach Lee when he is in your neck of the woods here in about 2 weeks and put the question to him. You may get an entirely different reaction out of him that'll get you right in the door!


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Mulcade said:


> What boggles my mind is that Lee certifies the Level 4s himself. You have to explain back to him the NTS method to his satisfaction before he'll let you have your piece of paper. Why are these same people who have already gotten the KSL stamp of approval not able to teach Level 3 courses?
> 
> Liz, I'm really surprised they aren't letting you take the level 4 course given your list of accomplishments. If i were you, I would corner Coach Lee when he is in your neck of the woods here in about 2 weeks and put the question to him. You may get an entirely different reaction out of him that'll get you right in the door!


it appears that some in the club don't want others to join "too easily"

I also note that back in 06, when Liz, Me, and a bunch of others went to CS to get approved by then New Head Coach Lee, we went through several days of this stuff only to find out that a couple years later, it was no longer the best and the biggest, but there was a new system which really doesn't require complete re-training to get it. Its insulting that someone who has been as active coaching and CREATING members for the USA has been told she has to spend another 16 months doing what she has been doing for 15+ years when there are people who get a level III "NTS" and do almost nothing with it and yet 24 months pass and they are attending level Four. 

in cars the adage its not the YEAR but the MILEAGE that counts and I doubt there are as many people with Level IIIs who have put on as much mileage as Liz. we coach year round several days a week and have been doing that for close to 20 years now.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Liz, If you get 2 people in a room together you'll have to deal with politics. It is just the nature of things. 

Anyway, I'm guessing most shooters would be more interested in Darrell's methods and the exposure you've had working with him. The certs are nice, but I don't think Coach Kim has a level 4, or Dick Tone, or Darrell Pace, or Rick McKinney, or Terry Wunderle, or, well, I think everyone gets it


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Liz, Me, and a bunch of others went to CS to get approved by then New Head Coach Lee, we went through several days of this stuff only to find out that a couple years later, it was no longer the best and the biggest, but there was a new system which really doesn't require complete re-training to get it.


IIRC, even McKinney - who I sat next to for most of that week in CS, was told he wasn't L4 qualified. By none other than you-know-who. LOL.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

maybe it's tiime to start a new org?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Or just bring back the NAA.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

XForcce Girl, come find me at the concessions tent that is run by our club, Cincinnati Junior Olympians!!! I'll be lurking there, or running around encouraging our CJO archers! 

Yes what you state is exactly what they are doing. I'm frustrated and don't understand why. :-/ othe than "rules" which, I am certain, would be broken for others, but not for lil' ol' me.




XForce Girl said:


> So let me get this straight.
> They are making you wait 2 more years just because you are newly certified in a new module that was just introduced.
> They are not even recognizing the previous 8 years of dedication?
> I would be upset as well.
> ...


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

I will talk to him, but he said in an email that he was not the one to make that decision, and that the "national coach co-ordinator" was the one to make that decision. Let me say that the "NCC" wouldn't be where he is without CJO! Just saying! IS it really that big a deal to get my dander up about this or to let me go ahead and ge the level 4 and go and support and promote ARCHERY & USA Archery? JOAD is all about getting more members for USAA, and I have to say CJO has down a pretty darn good job over the years Jim, Darrell, Steve Cornell and I have run the club. One of us the "NCC." I'm just miffed and wanted to put this out there! Jim FINALLY got lifted up to LEVEL4 (no NTS-he'd have to take the module) AND MASTER level as well! Yeah JIM! Thanks to Steve Cornell for doing that for Jim, if anyone deserves it, Jim certainly does.
It was said, but the head coach of our USAA JOAD ARCHERY CAMP, the "Jim and Liz are two of the most giving people in archery." Thnaks Rich, but it is totally true! We have equipment we donated to the soldiers in Iraq, bows in Germany, all over the USA people know if they need anything they can PM or email either of us and we will do what we can, if we don't have it we will find it.
SO, yeah, here I sit all broken hearted....I will talk to Coach Lee face-to-face! Maybe that will work.
Thanks for the advice!



Mulcade said:


> What boggles my mind is that Lee certifies the Level 4s himself. You have to explain back to him the NTS method to his satisfaction before he'll let you have your piece of paper. Why are these same people who have already gotten the KSL stamp of approval not able to teach Level 3 courses?
> 
> Liz, I'm really surprised they aren't letting you take the level 4 course given your list of accomplishments. If i were you, I would corner Coach Lee when he is in your neck of the woods here in about 2 weeks and put the question to him. You may get an entirely different reaction out of him that'll get you right in the door!


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Include the ten years of camps I have done as well, and you have a year consumed by coaching archery to every sort of person.



Jim C said:


> it appears that some in the club don't want others to join "too easily"
> 
> I also note that back in 06, when Liz, Me, and a bunch of others went to CS to get approved by then New Head Coach Lee, we went through several days of this stuff only to find out that a couple years later, it was no longer the best and the biggest, but there was a new system which really doesn't require complete re-training to get it. Its insulting that someone who has been as active coaching and CREATING members for the USA has been told she has to spend another 16 months doing what she has been doing for 15+ years when there are people who get a level III "NTS" and do almost nothing with it and yet 24 months pass and they are attending level Four.
> 
> in cars the adage its not the YEAR but the MILEAGE that counts and I doubt there are as many people with Level IIIs who have put on as much mileage as Liz. we coach year round several days a week and have been doing that for close to 20 years now.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Yes, Terry is who I call my "coach"! I have been to see him and he is terrific! 

Darrell works with me from time to time.

BUT STILL, I know when you get two or more people together there will be politics. It still bothers me that, as you well know, we have been towing the line pretty well, and have done m=nothing but good things for archery, and still the red tape.

See you this weekend Gabe!



I realize that certification is not an important thing, obviously, because when I told TW, I was changing my form a bit after


midwayarcherywi said:


> Liz, If you get 2 people in a room together you'll have to deal with politics. It is just the nature of things.
> 
> Anyway, I'm guessing most shooters would be more interested in Darrell's methods and the exposure you've had working with him. The certs are nice, but I don't think Coach Kim has a level 4, or Dick Tone, or Darrell Pace, or Rick McKinney, or Terry Wunderle, or, well, I think everyone gets it


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> You have to explain back to him the NTS method to his satisfaction before he'll let you have your piece of paper.


I just want one answer. How many times does a person have to explain his own method back to him? If a person only has to do it once, then Jim, Liz, Rick and I (and others) are already level 4 "Regional" coaches.


----------



## deadeyedickwc (Jan 10, 2010)

I'm almost sure of someone here in colorado who just finished their level 2 and got pushed to level 3 with out waiting by the coach , its political , id love to go on to level 4 but not sure i want to go through what i heard you have to to pass , id rather keep my respect


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

So what about the pressure on L4s to volunteer to work JDT and such? I remember something like that came up in a thread about a recent L4 class, where people were sort of discouraged from getting L4s to learn something but rather more as an expectation of enrollment as volunteer coaches directly for USAA projects?


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

target1 said:


> maybe it's tiime to start a new org?


I'm being serious...if none of the other orgs. are meeting needs, why not? 99% are not going to the olympics.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

target1 said:


> I'm being serious...if none of the other orgs. are meeting needs, why not? 99% are not going to the olympics.


Being blunt... Do you know how much that would really cost to do? 

This is me being somewhat of a snarky smartalec here, do you or anyone else have deep enough pockets to create the organization, get and pay for staff, insurance, create the rules and bylaws, and whatnot? 

I find it far easier to change an existing organization than create a new one. 

And, after the fun seen with the USCA, do you really think Easton will pay for ANOTHER organization? I don't think so.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> do you really think Easton will pay for ANOTHER organization?


Whew! Good thing our state org's don't need something like that to exist.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> Whew! Good thing our state org's don't need something like that to exist.


Agreed. But on a national level, my question still stands.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Beastmaster said:


> Agreed. But on a national level, my question still stands.


They all started somewhere. All I hear is whining about (insert org here), stop whining or do something. If it cannot be changed, then replace it.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Beastmaster said:


> Being blunt... Do you know how much that would really cost to do?
> 
> This is me being somewhat of a snarky smartalec here, do you or anyone else have deep enough pockets to create the organization, get and pay for staff, insurance, create the rules and bylaws, and whatnot?
> 
> ...


Why would anyone want to be another EASTON financed organization?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

target1 said:


> They all started somewhere. All I hear is whining about (insert org here), stop whining or do something. If it cannot be changed, then replace it.


In 1988, at the US Olympic Trials, several shotgun athletes were making noise about the NRA short changing shotgun athletes in favor of rifle and pistol shooters. Add several debacles in the 1988 team selection (including the head of the NRA shooting division picking his daughter's college roommate for the team one year ahead of a higher scoring candidate) and people wanted a change. and yes, the NRA was decertified as the NGB.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Beastmaster said:


> Agreed. But on a national level, my question still stands.


My point is that an archery organization supported by the membership CAN exist, and can in fact, thrive.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Beastmaster said:


> And, after the fun seen with the USCA, do you really think Easton will pay for ANOTHER organization? I don't think so.


Well, it will be interesting to see how long the USCA lasts now that USAA has its guns back on collegiate archery. USAA's selection process for the last international team has not made them seem especially competent at what should be its core mission.


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

I've seen the same thing, I was awarded a level 3 certificate and a year later I setup a level II class and went to order the materials and was informed that because the previous person didn't document my background check properly that I needed to re-take it. Ok well I paid for the first one but because of a computer crash I had lost the documents from the first one my self . So I offered to pay for another background check but they refused to ship me the materials until the 2nd background check arrived. This caused me to have to cancel the class and and apologize to all the people who were counting on me that I would need to re-schedule. USA agreed I was a level 3 coach which you cannot get without the background check but they would not give me the benefit of the doubt to ship the books while I submitted the 2nd background check. To top it all off they didn't tell me to stop teaching so I continued to host JOAD classes but I wasn't allowed to teach adults, Very frustrating. Which one of those two groups the adults or the kids are more vulnerable to someone who couldn't pass a background check? Very Frustrating

If there was another choice I would certainly avail my self of it.


While we are on the subject, in the 21st century why am I paying to ship a paper book. If they were using PDF's we could educate a lot more people with a lot less trouble. They told me at the USA office that that was how they made their money. I called BS, and explained that people were not paying for the books they were paying for the certification and that they would make a lot more money if they stopped wasting it on paper and ink. I was not taken seriously.


----------



## hoytshooter15 (Aug 13, 2012)

For any confusion that still exists here, I asked my coach, who is a Level 4 NTS coach about this and she said to get the Level 4 you have to be certified NTS for two years. If you were just a regular L3 before, thats why they're making you go longer. You have to be L3 NTS specifically for two years.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

hoytshooter15 said:


> For any confusion that still exists here, I asked my coach, who is a Level 4 NTS coach about this and she said to get the Level 4 you have to be certified NTS for two years. If you were just a regular L3 before, thats why they're making you go longer. You have to be L3 NTS specifically for two years.


and that is completely idiotic when there is no evidence that some people do anything in those two years and other people are turning out kids who are on national podiums constantly that is a moronic requirement that has no factual or logical reason for it


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

b0w_bender said:


> While we are on the subject, in the 21st century why am I paying to ship a paper book. If they were using PDF's we could educate a lot more people with a lot less trouble. They told me at the USA office that that was how they made their money. I called BS, and explained that people were not paying for the books they were paying for the certification and that they would make a lot more money if they stopped wasting it on paper and ink. I was not taken seriously.


Yeah, I'm not getting that either. How can someone not get that there is *more* profit in providing a cert without having to pay for printing and distribution of the L2 manual via a 3d party?

I've had this discussion with the previous management of the L2 certs, NADA, back when USAA outsourced the L1 and L2 stuff and before they bought NADA and brought the lower level training back in house. I suggested to Dough Engh, then the head of NADA, that the training materials should be made available free, on-line, because USAA has *no* training material whatsoever on online for anybody, and the manual gets updated but L2s never know what's in the new manual. Engh made the same claim, that the manuals where how they made money, which is ridiculous. 

With PDFs, an instructor can have students read the material ahead of class so the contents won't be new to them on the day of the training. Granted, some people will still want paper manuals, but it is just beyond silly that a non-profit who's mission includes promoting the sport of archery is doing all it can to get that information out to as many people as possible.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Hmmm, never thought of it THAT way, maybe I'll reconsider...but wouldn't you think with what CJO has turned out in the past few Uear's, that Coach Lee would want MORE of our coaches to come and be part of "the Olympic Movement?" I mean, after all we are in this for GOLD MEDALS, aren't we? He asked me last year to sign up, but when I made the decision, the class was full. Wonder what has changed...



Warbow said:


> So what about the pressure on L4s to volunteer to work JDT and such? I remember something like that came up in a thread about a recent L4 class, where people were sort of discouraged from getting L4s to learn something but rather more as an expectation of enrollment as volunteer coaches directly for USAA projects?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jim C said:


> and that is completely idiotic when there is no evidence that some people do anything in those two years and other people are turning out kids who are on national podiums constantly that is a moronic requirement that has no factual or logical reason for it


Yup. It's not what you've done, it's how you do it that matters apparently. 

I'd love to see a requirement that you show you have had success coaching kids that live within 100 miles of your home.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Yup. It's not what you've done, it's how you do it that matters apparently.
> 
> I'd love to see a requirement that you show you have had success coaching kids that live within 100 miles of your home.


there is no rational argument for this 2 year waiting period for someone who has been part of a coaching staff that has been consistently producing quality youth archers for the almost two decades that we started with the program we run. I can see it for those people who start collecting certificates with no history of coaching but applying this to Liz is nothing more than the sign of a "zero tolerance" small minded bit of nonsense. the kids we have sent to JDT who learned with us are doing rather well


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Warbow, this is simply stated BRILLIANT, but I ask, if they sent the material ahead of time, would they have anything to teach? Seems most who have responded to my nice little thread have either been shooting for ten++++years or have been coaching for ten+++years, save maybe hoytshooter. If materials were sent out electronically for say level 1,2,3 NTS, and demos were done via SKYPE, like the JDT kids have to do, directly to Coach Lee, then all the MONEY all of us spent on TRAVEL TO OTCs at CV and COS, would have remained in our pockets, not that I minded going to either, I'm just saying, with those TWO trips! pretty much in the same 365 day span, we supported DELTA AIRLINES, the CVG airport, the COS and SAN airports, and emptied our wallets of a substantial amount of buckaroos. So electronic courses makes sense to me, up to level 4. I also think, if you have, been a part of turning out JDT members and OTC RAs, some consideration should be made as well, as to your "continuing ed" that is how I looked at level 4 NTS trying to get more info and improve my coaching skills. Where there is a will...you'll find a way! :wink: now I just gotta find THAT PATHWAY!




Warbow said:


> Yeah, I'm not getting that either. How can someone not get that there is *more* profit in providing a cert without having to pay for printing and distribution of the L2 manual via a 3d party?
> 
> I've had this discussion with the previous management of the L2 certs, NADA, back when USAA outsourced the L1 and L2 stuff and before they bought NADA and brought the lower level training back in house. I suggested to Dough Engh, then the head of NADA, that the training materials should be made available free, on-line, because USAA has *no* training material whatsoever on online for anybody, and the manual gets updated but L2s never know what's in the new manual. Engh made the same claim, that the manuals where how they made money, which is ridiculous.
> 
> With PDFs, an instructor can have students read the material ahead of class so the contents won't be new to them on the day of the training. Granted, some people will still want paper manuals, but it is just beyond silly that a non-profit who's mission includes promoting the sport of archery is doing all it can to get that information out to as many people as possible.


----------



## hoytshooter15 (Aug 13, 2012)

Jim C said:


> and that is completely idiotic when there is no evidence that some people do anything in those two years and other people are turning out kids who are on national podiums constantly that is a moronic requirement that has no factual or logical reason for it


Hey if it were up to me you'd have it but I guess K. Lee is super incredibly picky. Rather than rant here, why not bring this directly to USA Archery?


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

Let me play devils advocate a bit here and stir the pot. We need to be careful about wanting to toss out basic requirements like a 2 year waiting period or hour requirement for volunteer coaching or... If you allow a person to override the basic rules even if it is a decision by the lead coach or even by a committee then that becomes 100% political. Anyone who lords over the masses, who is the sole decision maker for advancement has an opportunity to "politicize" or corrupt the process. It's a wide open door for favoritism and back scratching. If however everyone is required to jump through the same hoops then even those who may be great coaches that have not had an opportunity to show their stuff have the same chance of rising to the top. Now I see the head coaches job to encourage and promote those he thinks have the right stuff but only if they meet the basic requirements. 

The role of a coach In my experience to get the most out of their students. Lets be honest though some student's "most" is not going to be enough. As perfect example I had one student who from the very first night you could tell he had the acumen for the sport. He went on to shoot a state record a quarter of the way through his second year. Now I teach all my kids the same techniques and the same mental perspective and preparation and most are competitive in their scoring but the vast majority will not be elite even with the best coaching in the world. So if you make the requirement based on who turns out the best kids then you'll have coaches back stabbing each other (even more then we do) to steel the elite kids from each other. So there is an argument for basic requirements to ensure that the process is fair and promotes honest ethical coaching behavior.

There we go pot stirred.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

b0w_bender said:


> Let me play devils advocate a bit here and stir the pot. We need to be careful about wanting to toss out basic requirements like a 2 year waiting period or hour requirement for volunteer coaching or... If you allow a person to override the basic rules even if it is a decision by the lead coach or even by a committee then that becomes 100% political. Anyone who lords over the masses, who is the sole decision maker for advancement has an opportunity to "politicize" or corrupt the process. It's a wide open door for favoritism and back scratching. If however everyone is required to jump through the same hoops then even those who may be great coaches that have not had an opportunity to show their stuff have the same chance of rising to the top. Now I see the head coaches job to encourage and promote those he thinks have the right stuff but only if they meet the basic requirements.
> 
> The role of a coach In my experience to get the most out of their students. Lets be honest though some student's "most" is not going to be enough. As perfect example I had one student who from the very first night you could tell he had the acumen for the sport. He went on to shoot a state record a quarter of the way through his second year. Now I teach all my kids the same techniques and the same mental perspective and preparation and most are competitive in their scoring but the vast majority will not be elite even with the best coaching in the world. So if you make the requirement based on who turns out the best kids then you'll have coaches back stabbing each other (even more then we do) to steel the elite kids from each other. So there is an argument for basic requirements to ensure that the process is fair and promotes honest ethical coaching behavior.
> 
> There we go pot stirred.


lets have a rational argument why someone with 8 years as a level III, 14 years total with over 5000 hours of documented coaching needs to wait two years. treating someone who has only been coaching two years as a level three the same as someone like LIZ is MORONIC as is the fact that we all went through best EIGHT YEARS AGO


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

hoytshooter15 said:


> Hey if it were up to me you'd have it but I guess K. Lee is super incredibly picky. Rather than rant here, why not bring this directly to USA Archery?



its not coach Lee who is doing this

what we NEED to do is what is best for the membership-not a few people who really are not acting in the best interest of archery in the USA


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

Jim C said:


> lets have a rational argument why someone with 8 years as a level III, 14 years total with over 5000 hours of documented coaching needs to wait two years. treating someone who has only been coaching two years as a level three the same as someone like LIZ is MORONIC as is the fact that we all went through best EIGHT YEARS AGO


Because those are the rules set forth by the organization and to bypass the rules for special privileges is the exact Epitome of politics. So if that is what you are advocating then what you are really saying is that there isn't enough politics in the USA Archery system. Of course there is an argument that perhaps some folks should be grand fathered in and I do see that point but that is not what they decided to do primarily I suppose that they didn't want to be in a position where they were accused of showing favoritism. Either way being rules sticklers and making everyone wait 2 years or playing favorites both gets them thrown under the buss. I just thought I should point out that asking for special treatment is by definition politics. This is precisely why they developed the rules to remove the politics from the selection process.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

b0w_bender said:


> Because those are the rules set forth by the organization and to bypass the rules for special privileges is the exact Epitome of politics. So if that is what you are advocating then what you are really saying is that there isn't enough politics in the USA Archery system. Of course there is an argument that perhaps some folks should be grand fathered in and I do see that point but that is not what they decided to do primarily I suppose that they didn't want to be in a position where they were accused of showing favoritism. Either way being rules sticklers and making everyone wait 2 years or playing favorites both gets them thrown under the buss. I just thought I should point out that asking for special treatment is by definition politics. This is precisely why they developed the rules to remove the politics from the selection process.


LOL, rules are to be obeyed because they exist. Sorry dude that doesn't cut it for me. Its not special treatment. I don't had much use for protocol droid type answers that are silly, Coaches should be able to move up based on what they have done, not mere time since they got their last certificate. I am curious, what level coach or competitor are you?

SELECTION PROCESS-that sounds like there are only so many slots and we need to limit access-that's why this organization is having so many problems.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

I thought there were USAA Level 4 NTS certified and Level 5 NTS certified coaches and separate USAA Level 4 and 5 coaches to accommodate coaches that have and continue to do it their way. When searching for coaches using the USAA coach locator, Arizona is listed as having six Level 4 NTS coaches and one “plain” Level 4 coach. I like the idea of having a place for those that choose to do it differently than the unified system. Diversity provides the opportunity to hold on to past successes and test new ideas.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Serious Fun said:


> I thought there were USAA Level 4 NTS certified and Level 5 NTS certified coaches and separate USAA Level 4 and 5 coaches to accommodate coaches that have and continue to do it their way. When searching for coaches using the USAA coach locator, Arizona is listed as having six Level 4 NTS coaches and one “plain” Level 4 coach. I like the idea of having a place for those that choose to do it differently than the unified system. Diversity provides the opportunity to hold on to past successes and test new ideas.



some of us who spent lots of money and then were told that "BEST" is no longer "Best" but now NTS is the best didn't get 'recertified even though we are turning out top kids. What is idiotic is that top coaches I know are told because they won't or cannot make the trip to CHULA even though the were putting people on national and olympic teams long before many of the current level 5s were in archery, are told they they can no longer run Level II courses.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

I'm reading all this and currently I'm not sure if people are upset that they weren't granted exception to current USaA regulation/rule based on their coaching merit, or if they are upset that they were politically targeted and not allowed to do something with-in the rules if USAA - aka "political" target - or what.

If USAA says you have to be NTS cert for two years before going to Level 4 then that is the rule. Are they not following that rule with others wanting to become L4 and letting them skip the 2 year rule? It seems there is a desire for an exception to this rule with the argument being that past experience and merit should count as "time served". Is their any usaa regulation that allows for such a protocol? 

Though I do understand the frustration with needing to be recertified & waiting the 2 years. Especially time and money spent on past training. 

However - if they aren't modifying the rules for others then there is no political targeting against the individuals in question. But rather there are just no current protocols for dealing with grandfathering in those with past training now that the training has - I assume - been changed. To me - using influence to get an exception to a rule where others can't is politicking.

It seems like it's really just an unfortunate rule change from past years rather than malevolent politics to keep people out and down.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Dacer said:


> I'm reading all this and currently I'm not sure if people are upset that they weren't granted exception to current USaA regulation/rule based on their coaching merit, or if they are upset that they were politically targeted and not allowed to do something with-in the rules if USAA - aka "political" target - or what.
> 
> If USAA says you have to be NTS cert for two years before going to Level 4 then that is the rule. Are they not following that rule with others wanting to become L4 and letting them skip the 2 year rule? It seems there is a desire for an exception to this rule with the argument being that past experience and merit should count as "time served". Is their any usaa regulation that allows for such a protocol?
> 
> ...




the point is that the alleged requirement has no rational basis and is contrary to the interests of the membership or the organization

treating some newly minted coach with no experience the same as someone with more than a decade of proven results who did do what was required (until it was decided that BEST was no longer "BEST" and people had to travel-on their own dime etc again) is IDIOTIC

its also insulting to people who have been turning out good archers for years. 


NOTHING is more intellectually bankrupt than claims "ITS THE RULES" rather than telling us who made the rule and why

Frankly I am getting tired of being told that we should be good little children and trust the wisdom of the "parents" when those running things really don't have a really good track record of being all that wise.


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

Jim C said:


> LOL, rules are to be obeyed because they exist. Sorry dude that doesn't cut it for me. *Its not special treatment*. I don't had much use for protocol droid type answers that are silly, Coaches should be able to move up based on what they have done, not mere time since they got their last certificate. I am curious, what level coach or competitor are you?
> 
> SELECTION PROCESS-that sounds like there are only so many slots and we need to limit access-that's why this organization is having so many problems.


I don't suppose you need to be a level 4 coach to understand what the definition of politics is? Wait hold on *"Its not special treatment"* are you serious you are advocating that the coach set aside the rules for a select few, again that is the definition of special treatment. Actually, it's OK for you to say you want the process to be more political just understand what you are asking for is in fact special consideration i.e. politics. Oh and don't forget special privileges go both ways.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

b0w_bender said:


> I don't suppose you need to be a level 4 coach to understand what the definition of politics is? Wait hold on *"Its not special treatment"* are you serious you are advocating that the coach set aside the rules for a select few, again that is the definition of special treatment. Actually, it's OK for you to say you want the process to be more political just understand what you are asking for is in fact special consideration i.e. politics. Oh and don't forget special privileges go both ways.


that is idiotic. to say that someone with no track level of coaching is the same as someone who as been coaching for over a decade is silly. 
its stupid to treat a long time experienced coach the same as someone with no track record. Its also moronic to claim its special privileges to recognize someone who has been a level III with BEST For 8 years as the same as someone who just got Level III NTS in april 

and yes, I believe people who have proven themselves as coaches ought to be promoted faster than those who have no track record.

you are arguing for a rule that has no basis in rationality. I note you didn't answer my question as to your level

BTW the BEST coach in our club doesn't have any "credentials" any more.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Jim C said:


> BTW the BEST coach in our club doesn't have any "credentials" any more.


Ah, but thanks to USA Archery, he'll need a USAA "range pass" to be near any athletes at your club. See, problem solved. 

/sarcasm


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Warbow said:


> Ah, but thanks to USA Archery, he'll need a USAA "range pass" to be near any athletes at your club. See, problem solved.
> 
> /sarcasm




LOL, he's a state official with clearance. BTW who do you think would have a better chance (assuming they wanted to do it) to be hired as say the national coach of some aspiring Olympic contending archery nation. Our "uncredentialed" director or say some of the level 5s that have been promoted recently?

Should our "uncredentialed" director be told he'd have to wait two years to take 4 NTS? :wink:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Warbow said:


> Ah, but thanks to USA Archery, he'll need a USAA "range pass" to be near any athletes at your club. See, problem solved.
> 
> /sarcasm


Even though he was the one the Koreans studied in the first place. 

Hmm. Let's copy your product and sell it back to you... Where have I heard that before?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Even though he was the one the Koreans studied in the first place.
> 
> Hmm. Let's copy your product and sell it back to you... Where have I heard that before?


I sort of prefer the sun source over a moon when it comes to enlightenment if you get my planetary drift!


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

Dacer said:


> I'm reading all this and currently I'm not sure if people are upset that they weren't granted exception to current USaA regulation/rule based on their coaching merit, or if they are upset that they were politically targeted and not allowed to do something with-in the rules if USAA - aka "political" target - or what.
> 
> If USAA says you have to be NTS cert for two years before going to Level 4 then that is the rule. Are they not following that rule with others wanting to become L4 and letting them skip the 2 year rule? It seems there is a desire for an exception to this rule with the argument being that past experience and merit should count as "time served". Is their any usaa regulation that allows for such a protocol?
> 
> ...


Well said thank you.


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

Jim C said:


> that is idiotic. to say that someone with no track level of coaching is the same as someone who as been coaching for over a decade is silly.
> its stupid to treat a long time experienced coach the same as someone with no track record. Its also moronic to claim its special privileges to recognize someone who has been a level III with BEST For 8 years as the same as someone who just got Level III NTS in april
> 
> and yes, I believe people who have proven themselves as coaches ought to be promoted faster than those who have no track record.
> ...


Actually I already mentioned it early on in the thread I am\was a level three but I don't pay too much attention to the levels because I have no interest in going any further.
However I think you have missed my point. I'm not arguing that the rules are right or correct just that they are being fairly applied. If people were skirting the rules to jump ahead of other archers then we would be screening politics as usual...
My point was that they are not being political they are being rule sticklers. (Honestly rules sticklers are better but the rules do need to make sense)

I completely understand your frustration that they keep making this coaching thing a moving goal post with ever changing requirements it's part of the reason why I've made a conscious decision to do only what is necessary to be able to keep my coaching status and to be able to continue to run my program. I believe it should be a much more open process and I think it could and should be made a lot easier to get certified. What would help us to field a better Olympic team is not better training of our coaches but to increase the number of archers entering the pipeline. If we were able to triple or quadruple the number of archers we would be far better off then to have another 20 or 30 level 4 coaches. That being said I'm not sure the rules sticklers are doing the best for the sport. Nor do I see USArchery increasing the number of shooting facilities or making it easier and enjoyable to for more interested parties to become coaches. So I will continue to help young archers get introduced to the sport and the ones that show promise I encourage them to get a person coach. I make no apologies for the USArchery not do I insist that my students join. I don't discourage them but if they prefer to shoot in local NFAA and IBO tournaments instead of JOAD or FITA then so be it.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Let me clarify something here folks,since I am the one who started this discussion.
I was asked TWO YEARS AGO, by KSL, HIMSELF, to come take level 4, Before "NTS" was even a thought. There has not been much tweaking to B.E.S.T., except for shoulder rotation into the bow, to produce more "shot rotation". This addition, and to raise the bow at a slight "angle" (that is the only way I can describe it), so that you have to rotate into the bow to get the shoulder to lock in, are the "NTS." I think I am reconsidering, even pursuing level 4 or 4NTS, since I can watch, "THE MASTER," any time he shoots. What an honor it is being aOn the same range with our living archery legend. He learned from Charlie and Mildred Pierson, who taught him what body alignment, skeleton' supporting your form makes a stronger, better shot. After I decided I wanted to spend that kind of money and time, the class had filled up. I then spoke to TW, AFTER I had attained L3NTS, and he asked why I had decided to change to "NTS" when things were working pretty good, and he said I had pretty good form, and to not mess with it too much! 
But, I wanted to progress to level 4, couldn't do it, now, until I had L3NTS. Club has a proven track record. I've been busting my hump for years running my own learn about archery camp, promoting archery in every way I possibly can, ON MY OWN. My desire is to continue my education in coaching, to be able to promote the sport further, with our track record, by attaining a higher level coaching certificate, resume building some would call it. In many professions you are required to have CE credits to stay current on trends in your chosen field. All I want to do is get MORE INFORMATION, and fast track it so I can be a "better informed" coach. Is that wrong? Where there is a desire there should be a way. Instead I have run up against a brick wall of rules that won't be broken for anyone. Even though, as many of you know, our club's record stands on its coaches ability to produce some pretty darn good archers. So, I suppose I can get all KSL's material from his books and site, read the Human Kinetics ARCHERY book put out by USAA, and read other archery coaching material, and continue my education that way. The really interesting part of being in our club is, each coach can help with various aspects of the shot. Wanting MORE KNOWLEDGE, is not a bad thing. I'll just have to figure out a different way around this brick wall! Any suggestions of good coaching information, would be appreciated. BTW, a the North Regional shoot I was chatting with some "old timers" about this, and they thought it was idiotic that a 2 year restriction on upping one's coaching certification was even a rule. 
I think if someone is eager,and able to progress, why hold them back if they have been extremely active in the archery community. Folk, Jim and I open our property to our CJO archers EVERY DAY in the outdoor season, we built an indoor range on our "little piece of heaven." We give away equipment to our archers, and, when asked, will help out anyone who needs anything to do with equipment. There aren't many like us in the archery world, who will do something for no pay. 
That said, for all the good will, I get shot down for wanting to further my coaching level...something's wrong with that picture, don't you think?


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

So me being a Level 2 and wanting my level 3.
Would I have to first get my Level 3, wait the required time and then get my Level 3 NTS?
And who is allowed to present the Level 3 NTS, not a level 4?
But rather someone higher?

Aren't there requirements in place for the higher levels that you have to attend shoots and have archers on the podium to progress to higher levels?
Why cant they take this into consideration when a coach has proven success with many archers.
I see many other Level 2 from our area who don't do anything with it nor do they continue to learn and grow the sport.
I think USA Archery sees this as well and doesn't want these instructors to be able to easily advance if they aren't going to prove themselves or at least be involved in programs.
My programs are active 4 days a week and many of the more dedicated archers are at our facility everyday practicing.
I'm a fairly new coach but feel I go above and beyond the others in our area. 
I strongly feel USAA should take into consideration the merits of instructors when considering them for the next level.
I live archery everyday of my life, its what I do. When I see other Level 2, push through archers without holding them to a higher standard it makes me sad.
I have been reading, studying, and practicing NTS. If I get my Level 3 will I be able to teach the Level 2's?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Given the subjectivity of getting Level IV NTS and even more subjectivity in getting Level Five, its funny watching the defense of the silly 2 year rule which has no relevance to how much a person actually knows

someone with years of coaching in concert with the top archer in history is far different than people who come from areas that do not have a many decades long tradition of turning out top archers and that should be taken into account.


----------



## gonehuntin (Dec 2, 2004)

Well..... just hang in there a little longer.... one thing is for sure.... the current policy (which was not the current policy just a short time ago)... and yet..... WAS the current policy before that... might. or might not........ just be the next current policy..... until next time it changes..........


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

XForce Girl said:


> So me being a Level 2 and wanting my level 3.
> Would I have to first get my Level 3, wait the required time and then get my Level 3 NTS?
> And who is allowed to present the Level 3 NTS, not a level 4?
> But rather someone higher?
> ...


The steps that we recommend here in Arizona are:

Level 2
Teach and get involved... 
Get your Level 3 NTS
Teach and get involved
Get your Level 4 NTS at the OTC 

Level 4 NTS can teach level 3,2,and 1
Level 3 NTS trainers can teach level 3,2,and 1
Level 3 NTS can teach level 2 and 1. 
Level 2 can teach level 1. 

Hope that helps, 
Steve

(see you in Ohio!)


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

With regards to a "coaching MQS", there used to be a requirement for level 4 and 5 coaches to have had students on the podium on a national stage or in a top 10 USAT ranking before they qualified to advance beyond level 3.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

gonehuntin said:


> Well..... just hang in there a little longer.... one thing is for sure.... the current policy (which was not the current policy just a short time ago)... and yet..... WAS the current policy before that... might. or might not........ just be the next current policy..... until next time it changes..........


that's what really grates me and many others-the ever constant changing goal posts. Its not like this 2 year requirement was set in stone. It has no rational basis and we have to decide if

1) we want as many people as willing to move up the ranks to spread knowledge

2) or people who think they are "elites" should control access to the club so they can pretend they are elites. it appears the policy is based on the latter

LIke the removal of BB from Nationals, I doubt we will ever get a straight answer as to who made this policy and why. I suspect within the next couple years there are going to be lots of changes to everything involving USA


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Beastmaster said:


> With regards to a "coaching MQS", there used to be a requirement for level 4 and 5 coaches to have had students on the podium on a national stage or in a top 10 USAT ranking before they qualified to advance beyond level 3.


well we got that covered.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

why is USAA only certifying NTS?

since USAA is insurance and trying to have a lock on all kid archery programs, they should just certify coaching. 

the koreans dont all shoot exactly the same form. They shoot the basics the same, but individually you will find many different styles. 

i have a level 2 certification for the background check and insurance purposes. But i dont shoot the NTS method and i dont teach it. Other than Brady, almost no one else is successful with it. 

I am not interested in going any higher, but if it were a coaching certification without the NTS part, i would continue. 

as it is, the kids i am currently coaching (who are shooting great), i dont want them to go to the OTC or dream team camps for fear they will get messed up with changing to the NTS system. thats sad when the dream would be to go to the OTC to train. 


why in the world USAA would exempt everything except NTS is beyond me. 

chris


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Beastmaster said:


> Level 4 NTS can teach level 3,2,and 1
> Level 3 NTS trainers can teach level 3,2,and 1
> Level 3 NTS can teach level 2 and 1.
> Level 2 can teach level 1.


A useful summary. I'd add that last I heard L4 coaches can't teach L3 courses without special initial approval - I forget the details, something about having an already approved to teach L4 supervise their first L3? :dontknow:


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

chrstphr said:


> why is USAA only certifying NTS?
> 
> since USAA is insurance and trying to have a lock on all kid archery programs, they should just certify coaching.
> 
> ...


Do you not consider an olympic team silver and gold at the world championships successful? Brady wasn't alone and all 4 men between those two events are products of the OTC


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Dacer said:


> Do you not consider an olympic team silver and gold at the world championships successful? Brady wasn't alone and all 4 men between those two events are products of the OTC


that was successful. However, as John Magera correctly noted, our women haven't done anything in years. maybe NTS works for a super talent like Brady but our women haven't been on a podium at a worlds or olympics in years. I think 88 was the last time our women got anything in the Olympics and other than Jenny at a world indoor (actually two Jennies-Jennifer O'Donell won the world indoor in 93 IIRC) with a silver, I don't recall any world titles or medals for our women. 

so maybe the current system may work with strong young men like Brady but i don't see it doing as well with our ladies. And right now, there are as many girls shooting recurve as boys from what I have seen


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Dacer said:


> Do you not consider an olympic team silver and gold at the world championships successful? Brady wasn't alone and all 4 men between those two events are products of the OTC


Vic Wunderle shoots NTS?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Jim C said:


> that was successful. However, as John Magera correctly noted, our women haven't done anything in years. maybe NTS works for a super talent like Brady


I still have to wonder if NTS specifically "works" for Brady, or Brady is driven and talented enough that he could have been brought into pretty much any system and still have been successful? Would he really have been less of an archer if taught by any of the top coaches in any of the other competitive archery countries? How does one separate the success of the mental game coaching, from the shot cycle coaching and from the talent and drive of the archer?


----------



## gonehuntin (Dec 2, 2004)

chrstphr said:


> why is USAA only certifying NTS?
> 
> why in the world USAA would exempt everything except NTS is beyond me.
> 
> chris


Practically EVERY ENDEAVOR in life begins and/or ends with the wallet......Cha- Ching...... Easton money will determine what will be procedure and what will not...... not you, or me, or any other of the "regular" guys.....and when you produce a champion these days..... well.... from my own personal experience just let me caution you "watch your back" 

consider the beginning of the end of the US Archery (NAA) education (or lack there of) program - the pre- Lee era......... They now tell us that US archery's focus is to develop predictable coaching.......we are all told that the goal is now to standarize the foundation of the US coaching community.... for the benefit of ALL..... anyone ever met a predicitable mindset elite athlete? 

Meanwhile..... the very people that were the foundation of successful program building and teaching for (NAA).....introducing archery to newcomers, building and maintaining good JOAD programs, taking the difficult but rewarding journey with the developing elite athlete, the Olympic hopeful, again and again and again....... have always been bypassed and ignored, for years and years... no one ever gave much consideration to our needs or visions, much less any recgonizion. Your expecting something different now? Now that BIG money is in the mix, driving the ship to insure that all goes the way that they deem appropriate?

So, this is nothing new.... same ole, same ole, same ole....... old NAA...... new USAA.... whats the difference? Only thing I see different is $

All those guys and gals that are now "on top rungs of the ladder" can thump their chests all they want, certainly not all of them, but..........so many of them are still the "rookies, the newbies".... they have a very long way to go to catch up with what we have accomplished..........in my world, no one can take away your ownership of your own work.....good, or bad...... and truly, do you really need to be annointed a Level anything in order to continue to carry on your fine work? I sure do hope not.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

Jim C said:


> that was successful. However, as John Magera correctly noted, our women haven't done anything in years. maybe NTS works for a super talent like Brady but our women haven't been on a podium at a worlds or olympics in years. I think 88 was the last time our women got anything in the Olympics and other than Jenny at a world indoor (actually two Jennies-Jennifer O'Donell won the world indoor in 93 IIRC) with a silver, I don't recall any world titles or medals for our women.
> 
> so maybe the current system may work with strong young men like Brady but i don't see it doing as well with our ladies. And right now, there are as many girls shooting recurve as boys from what I have seen


That's pretty fair on the women's side. From what I understand the two women that were regularly shooting in medal matches of the mixed teams in world cups are not products of the OTC or NTS adherents. That being lorig and Hardy?(Nichols?)




Warbow said:


> Vic Wunderle shoots NTS?


Pretty sure the 2012 olympic team was Jacob, jake, & Brady and last years world championship was jake, Brady, and joe Fanchin*


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Dacer said:


> That's pretty fair on the women's side. From what I understand the two women that were regularly shooting in medal matches of the mixed teams in world cups are not products of the OTC or NTS adherents. That being lorig and Hardy?(Nichols?)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Brady, Jake and Jacob Wukie
WCT-Joe Fanchin instead of Jacob Wukie.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Dacer said:


> Do you not consider an olympic team silver and gold at the world championships successful? Brady wasn't alone and all 4 men between those two events are products of the OTC


yes, i dont consider that successful. go to world archery at look at the top 10. only one of those 4 men in the top ten.

and where are our womens team? we have had NTS since before Bejing Olympics. 

Brady knocked out by 16. Katuna and Wunderle both going the furthest in Olympic heads up, and neither shooting NTS. 

Jake has been great lately, but struggled before.

at international events, if you are not top 30, youre not competitive. and NTS is not showing me it works for the ladies as well as the men. 

China, India, Chinese Taipei, Netherlands, Korea, all using a linear shooting method are dominating us.


chris


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Warbow said:


> A useful summary. I'd add that last I heard L4 coaches can't teach L3 courses without special initial approval - I forget the details, something about having an already approved to teach L4 supervise their first L3? :dontknow:


That used to be the case. I don't know if that still is the case now because in the Arizona area, we haven't had a Level 3 course in over a year. Under what I would call the "Old" system, L4 NTS coaches that wanted to teach L3 classes did have to be observed by another L4 or L5. And, out of all the L4 NTS and the lone L5 NTS we have here in Arizona, only one (Ed Votruba) teaches it. The others are too busy or in the case of one L4 - lives in a rural area.

And, in talking with Steve Cornell, it seems that current L4 NTS coaches are able to teach L3 NTS classes without observation.

In the time period when I got out of my last serious chemo run and when I take my Level 4 NTS (note - I had to delay my Level 4 NTS class for a year because of the fact that I had to get ready for a Bone Marrow Transplant...gee, that kinda takes priority for things), I asked to take my Level 3 Trainer cert, but the new L3 Trainer course criteria is still in process of being re-written, so by the time it's finished being written, I would have already taken my L4...so there's no reason for me to pursue it.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

gonehuntin said:


> (snip)
> All those guys and gals that are now "on top rungs of the ladder" can thump their chests all they want, certainly not all of them, but..........so many of them are still the "rookies, the newbies".... they have a very long way to go to catch up with what we have accomplished..........in my world, no one can take away your ownership of your own work.....good, or bad...... and truly, do you really need to be annointed a Level anything in order to continue to carry on your fine work? I sure do hope not.


In today's overly litigious society, the unfortunate need for either reputation PLUS certification is something that you pretty much have to have to survive today's environment.

On one side of the coin - you have long time coaches like Dick Tone, Rick McKinney, and Darrell Pace. Do they *really* need the certification? Not really - their performance and reputation speak for themselves. However, if they participate in any sort of JOAD situation, they eventually need to at least get a Range Pass AND SafeSport.

On the other side of the coin - you have new coaches who rely on the certification like a crutch to establish their reputation...because they don't have the performance nor any sort of reputation to fall back upon. 

Some of us have a track record of working with students, taking and developing those that rise to the occasion and having them excel. Others are starting off, and can merely spout the NTS by rote enough to pass the tests and show some level of physical/mental competency. Again - two extremes.

Somewhere in between lies the majority of us. And the current system (as it is currently written) is designed for the middle of the road.

-Steve


----------



## gonehuntin (Dec 2, 2004)

Beastmaster said:


> In today's overly litigious society, the unfortunate need for either reputation PLUS certification is something that you pretty much have to have to survive today's environment.
> 
> On one side of the coin - you have long time coaches like Dick Tone, Rick McKinney, and Darrell Pace. Do they *really* need the certification? Not really - their performance and reputation speak for themselves. However, if they participate in any sort of JOAD situation, they eventually need to at least get a Range Pass AND SafeSport.
> 
> ...


Very true..... having said that....... if one has a good track record....(which these guys on this thread certainly do)...... with or without certification..... there is plenty of work out there in today's archery world....not only helping people to experience archery as a new and exciting sport... but many people will require our attention to repair and make right some of what I have seen as the product of some of the currently NTS certified that have no clue what they are doing.... and goodness knows there are a fair share of those around.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> at international events, if you are not top 30, youre not competitive. and NTS is not showing me it works for the ladies as well as the men.
> 
> China, India, Chinese Taipei, Netherlands, Korea, all using a linear shooting method are dominating us.
> 
> ...


Wurd.

Interesting question for those who coach cadet and junior-level archers...

Since we're all so concerned about developing young archers, who was the last U.S. recurve archer to shoot in an individual medal match at the Jr. World Championships, when was it, and who was their coach?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Beastmaster said:


> With regards to a "coaching MQS", there used to be a requirement for level 4 and 5 coaches to have had students on the podium on a national stage or in a top 10 USAT ranking before they qualified to advance beyond level 3.


I would agree with that.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I still have to wonder if NTS specifically "works" for Brady, or Brady is driven and talented enough that he could have been brought into pretty much any system and still have been successful?


An excellent, and very relevant question.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

I'm sure if we had an archery culture( such as Korea does) like we have baseball or football then we'd have a much deeper pool of talent to pull from like Korea. Once we do I think we will then be in a better position to know if NTS is a failure or not.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Wurd.
> 
> Interesting question for those who coach cadet and junior-level archers...
> 
> Since we're all so concerned about developing young archers, who was the last U.S. recurve archer to shoot in an individual medal match at the Jr. World Championships, when was it, and who was their coach?


I recall Aaron Tedford won a couple bronzes in indoor worlds.

Aya used to work with him. that was back in 07 IIRC.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> Wurd.
> 
> Interesting question for those who coach cadet and junior-level archers...
> 
> Since we're all so concerned about developing young archers, who was the last U.S. recurve archer to shoot in an individual medal match at the Jr. World Championships, when was it, and who was their coach?


Shoot in or win it?

Vic won it in 1994.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> I would agree with that.


That requirement (a "Coaching MQS") still seems to be there for a Level 5 coach. I know something used to be there for Level 4 at one point in time.

Heck, when I got my L3 NTS, I was even grilled (by Sheri Rhodes) as to how many kids I had shooting National level events (USA Archery, NFAA, and Games of America) and how many ended up on the podium. So even a few years ago, the preparation for a MQS for coaches was a reality. Now? Who knows...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Make the final four and shoot for an individual medal. Cadet or Junior.

And Vic won it twice.  '91 and '94


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Why do I find myself starting to respond to threads on AT these days, only to just stop mid-sentence and go find something better to do. 

I'm afraid the law of diminishing returns is starting to kick in here for me. And topics like this are one of the main reasons.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Make the final four and shoot for an individual medal. Cadet or Junior.
> 
> And Vic won it twice.  '91 and '94



Aaron Tedford won individual bronze indoor worlds in two successive world indoor championships


http://www.worldarchery.org/Portals/1/Documents/Results/Medallists/Junior_Indoor_Medalists.pdf


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

That's cool Jim! I was thinking outdoors however. I wasn't aware of Aaron's accomplishments. Was he ever JDT?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> That's cool Jim! I was thinking outdoors however. I wasn't aware of Aaron's accomplishments. Was he ever JDT?


nope, I will PM


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Wurd.
> 
> Interesting question for those who coach cadet and junior-level archers...
> 
> Since we're all so concerned about developing young archers, who was the last U.S. recurve archer to shoot in an individual medal match at the Jr. World Championships, when was it, and who was their coach?


it seems we did not send ANY kids to the qualifers for the Youth Olympics.

chris


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Dacer said:


> I'm sure if we had an archery culture( such as Korea does) like we have baseball or football then we'd have a much deeper pool of talent to pull from like Korea. Once we do I think we will then be in a better position to know if NTS is a failure or not.


then let me know how well it is doing in Australia. and 12 years ago Chinese Taipei couldnt buy a podium spot much like India. Now look where they are.


to say US is too big and not fair for the NTS system, i say the numbers of olympic recurve shooters are on par. you think chinese taipei has a deep pool? India?



chris


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

chrstphr said:


> then let me know how well it is doing in Australia. and 12 years ago Chinese Taipei couldnt buy a podium spot much like India. Now look where they are.
> 
> 
> to say US is too big and not fair for the NTS system, i say the numbers of olympic recurve shooters are on par. you think chinese taipei has a deep pool? India?
> ...


I don't want get into a circular debate when cleanly neither party is going to be convinced. We have different ideas of success. Personally I see making an olympic team and getting an olympic medal as a great success.

You clearly don't like NTS at all, and that's fine. If you believe that not using NTS is the way to the podium - if that is your and your students goal - then no one is saying you have to use it. trials are open you don't have to be a RA or JDT member.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Dacer said:


> Pretty sure the 2012 olympic team was Jacob, jake, & Brady and last years world championship was jake, Brady, and joe Fanchin*


Sorry, I was looking at the 2014 team.



Beastmaster said:


> Heck, when I got my L3 NTS, I was even grilled (by Sheri Rhodes) as to how many kids I had shooting National level events (USA Archery, NFAA, and Games of America) and how many ended up on the podium. So even a few years ago, the preparation for a MQS for coaches was a reality. Now? Who knows...


That seems a little weird. They don't even teach enough NTS in the L2 to expect you to have national podium winners, and L2s aren't considered certified "coaches" (even if they are otherwise qualified to be coaches), so asking you that stuff doesn't seem appropriate in an L3 course (unless they are just asking to get an idea of what skill level to adjust the presentation level of the course to).


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Dacer said:


> I don't want get into a circular debate when cleanly neither party is going to be convinced. We have different ideas of success. Personally I see making an olympic team and getting an olympic medal as a great success.
> 
> You clearly don't like NTS at all, and that's fine. If you believe that not using NTS is the way to the podium - if that is your and your students goal - then no one is saying you have to use it. trials are open you don't have to be a RA or JDT member.



correct, but to be a USAA certified coach and work with JOAD kids, you do have to be taught the NTS system. that is the problem.
or you can not be certified as a coach and must abandon USAA.

i am the first to cheer for a Korean coach and Korean shooting method, and Coach Lee is a great guy. i just have a problem with the NTS system and angular draw.

chris


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Oh Jin Hyek uses the NTS method.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

I'm sorry, I mean, he uses the BEST method, but not through NTS.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

chrstphr said:


> correct, but to be a USAA certified coach and work with JOAD kids, you do have to be taught the NTS system. that is the problem.
> or you can not be certified as a coach and must abandon USAA.
> 
> i am the first to cheer for a Korean coach and Korean shooting method, and Coach Lee is a great guy. i just have a problem with the NTS system and angular draw.
> ...


You have to be trained in the NTS in order to receive certification. You do NOT have to teach NTS.

I have a personal philosophy where if one system does not work for a student, I am going to teach another system lest I lose that student due to frustration. One former student (who is still doing this system with his current coach) was taught push/pull because his physical structure and coordination was more suited to push/pull than to NTS. He got his Bronze Olympian under my watch, so obviously I was doing something right with him...


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

I got clarification on Level 4's teaching L3 classes.

Short version: you need to take the ASEP Coaching Principals course, then you do need to be shadowed by someone. So, a L4 cannot just merely teach the L3 class. They do have to go through some minor on the job training.


----------



## Moebow (Jul 8, 2010)

Beastmaster,

This has been the requirement for L4's teaching L3 for at least 3 years. My squawk about that is it is not so minor OJT. The ASEP is a coaching course offered online and certainly not a show stopper... BUT it is ALL team coaching and (for me) hard to see too many relationships or applications to individual coaching. 

Then, Yes, you must "student teach" or "team teach" a L3 class to get the blessing. SOOO, you must find a L4 or 5 that is willing to be the supervisor (good luck!), AND a L3 class Offering AND location that is accessible.

I'm not arguing for or against the requirements but if you are somewhat remote (as I am) it is impossible to get qualified to offer L3 classes. And after several years of offering L2 training in this area there are some here in the area that are interested in L3. But this summer for example, the nearest L3 class is in southern Michigan, a not so minor road trip from Northern Minnesota (there are a couple small lakes in the way).

Not so minor OJT!! IMO!

Arne


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

Moebow said:


> Beastmaster,
> 
> This has been the requirement for L4's teaching L3 for at least 3 years. My squawk about that is it is not so minor OJT. The ASEP is a coaching course offered online and certainly not a show stopper... BUT it is ALL team coaching and (for me) hard to see too many relationships or applications to individual coaching.
> 
> ...


Good info and that explains a lot as I have contacted many L4 Coaches asking if they would be interested in presenting the L3 to myself and my employees. Money is not a big deal and I was prepared to pay expenses to bring them here.
I was told no or "I don't have time"
Or "I need a minimum of 8 people"
And as I continued my search I found out that some of them were not allowed to present the L3 NTS for whatever reason. 
There are only about 4 L2 in my area who can or want to take the L3 course to coming up with 8 is very difficult.
I have found an old friend who is a L5 and is willing to come and do this but it took a lot of asking as he is very busy.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Dacer said:


> I don't want get into a circular debate when cleanly neither party is going to be convinced. We have different ideas of success. Personally I see making an olympic team and getting an olympic medal as a great success.


And there are those of us who see half a team being fielded, year after year. I see the poor performance and lack of attention given to our women a major failure. 

Also, HUGE difference between team medals and individual medals. Trust me. Even an archer like myself - ranked 40th in the world at the time - had a chance of medaling in the team event, and very nearly did. But an individual medal? 

In the 10 years prior to '06, US men won individual gold, individual silver, team gold and team bronze, and shot for a team Bronze. Since then, a team silver and team gold. Where are the individual Olympic or World Championship medals? Isn't this system supposed to shine under pressure? Where is the pressure more severe than in the individual event? (answer: nowhere). 

The strength of U.S. athletes is their individuality. Archery is primarily an individual sport. A Nation like the U.S. should have no problem fielding competitive individual archers because of this combination. Look at Jay and Justin and Vic. Our strength always lied in the ability of individual archers to excel. Now we're satisified with just team medals? 

Again, huge, huge difference between team and individual medals. Individual medals are 4X harder to earn, at least, merely from a statistical standpoint. Perhaps more if you consider the number of countries who can field competitive teams vs. competitive individuals. So IMO, those individual medals won by Justin and Vic are worth 4 team medals in statistical terms.

My point about the Jr. World Championships is this - we've not had a single JDT/OTC-trained recurve youth archer make it to the medal rounds in a Jr. World Championship event. That is actually quite shocking to me. Reports of "57 medals won" in places like Mexico disguise this fact, and IMO mislead the membership.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

And not to take anything away from our indoor medalists, but I'm specifically focusing on outdoor events, as historically, the level of competition at the Olympics and Outdoor World Championships has always been the highest in the sport, with other events lacking participation by many countries. 

But back to the politics in coaching... 

I will admit that many of us thought it was bad prior to '06, and I recall many discussions on this forum and others, about how so many coaches were "paper coaches" and merely had the money and time to go get their certifications, but had not turned out any real competitive archers. Many of us were all-in to see a change in that. When Lee was given control over who received their certifications and who did not, it seemed for a time that we were poised to really make some headway. But apparently the momentum of money and power is too much for even him to overcome, and we're back to where we started once again. We have L4's who have never even coached a kid to a USAT/Jr. USAT squad, an international team at any level, or were ever competitive archers themselves. Meanwhile, many of the greatest coaches in the country are level 3's or level 2's, or don't even carry any certification at all. It's pitiful.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Moebow said:


> Then, Yes, you must "student teach" or "team teach" a L3 class to get the blessing. SOOO, you must find a L4 or 5 that is willing to be the supervisor (good luck!), AND a L3 class Offering AND location that is accessible.
> 
> I'm not arguing for or against the requirements but if you are somewhat remote (as I am) it is impossible to get qualified to offer L3 classes. And after several years of offering L2 training in this area there are some here in the area that are interested in L3. But this summer for example, the nearest L3 class is in southern Michigan, a not so minor road trip from Northern Minnesota (there are a couple small lakes in the way).


I gotta say I appreciate the quality control intent behind the requirement, and it makes sense to a degree. But, on the other hand, I'm sure you aren't the only L4 who has run into this cost/logistics bottleneck in trying to put on your first L3. I'm guessing that this is a pretty common and significant bottleneck in the USA Archery system. I wonder what percentage of L4's have manged to make it through? I know that it is a problem even in the Bay Area. So, add in your experience, that of XForce Girl, and you have evidence of a nation wide problem.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

I'd be willing to bet if you could get a few "pro" coaches, meaning non-usaa certified, together, they could put together a super team and do some real damage. The "pros" have proven they can shoot, but their intersts are not on medals and such.

IMO the whole USAA coaching system is a hoax (sorry coaches), it exists to produce revenue. It hasn't produced anything else. I used to be an NFAA intermediate coach, but as soon as they sold out (thanks Jim Easton), to the USAA, I let both my membership and credential lapse. I won't go back into the fray, period. And guess what, I still teach and coach on occasion, without the USAA...my, my my. ( I am still a USAA member for now).


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

In my line of work you take x amount of continuing learning credits a year to maintain your credentials. There are some progression items based on how long you've been working, but they don't up or down the progression periods because the learning updates. You just have to do your annual due. The learning always updates in any field. Since I think the years-based requirement is already intended as a (poor but objective) substitute for making sure that the teacher is actually doing some teaching in between credential levels, that should be fulfilled objectively by having done her two years (sounds like more like ten). If you want specific content, that should be separated into the credential-earning or maintenance process, from basic tenure requirements. We want 5s to now understand some approach to be 5s, ok, you have to go to a camp to learn that, to stay a 5 or earn a 5. You go to camp, the period of tenure for that 4 doesn't start over. You're just a tenured 4 with more knowledge. Every few years I'm sure the orthodoxy shifts. Do the teachers have to start re-earning tenure every time the idea of how to shoot an arrow changes?

This sounds like a bureaucratic distortion of well meant intent. I'd bet KSL said he wanted coaches at particular levels to be trained in his way. Then some bureaucratic drudge implements a requirement not only forcing the training but re-booting tenure for people not trained that way. If you know your stuff I'd seriously doubt KSL wants you diverted from the coaching pipeline for a bureaucratic waiting period, he just wants you trained to his spec. He might not want people speeding up the ladder without the experience, but I doubt he wantsgood, experienced people diverted back into abstract waiting periods. This is a distortion by the middlemen again.

The more I hear these tales of BB and such, the more it sounds like these decisions are being made in a bureaucratic ivory tower in isolation from the coaching staff or the archers.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

In every activity, there are "joiners" and then there are folks who just pursue the activity, through whatever means. We'll call them the "home-schoolers"  . You see it in every sport or organized activity. Chess, Bass fishing, Archery, Golf, Cross-stitch. Some folks have a real strong need to "belong" to an affiliated or organized group, and seek recognition through that affiliation. These people tend to be agreeable for the sake of getting along.

"Home-schoolers" (and I would put myself in this group) just focus more on the activity itself, and don't worry so much about which bowling shirt to wear, which credentials to carry, etc., so long as the job is getting done. These people tend to question everything, even if that means annoying those who have all the answers. 

Not saying one or the other is the better way. There is value to each. Just a different approach to participating in the activity. The real trouble begins when one group tries to influence the other group, and looks down on them. I know I'm guilty of that myself, criticizing the "joiners" too much at times. I admit it. Likewise, the joiners tend to gaggle up and gain control over the process, to which all the Home-schoolers are then subject to. And therein lies the rub.

There really needs to be a way an independent coach can receive formal recognition for their work, for their accomplishments and contributions, without having to stop, bow, and pay the toll. There should be an independent review process where a coach can be evaluated on their merits and not on whether they have the time, expendable income, and willingness to subscribe to a specific method in order to show they know how to produce a top quality student.

If your students stand toe-to-toe with every student in the JDT program and beats them all, does that not count for anything? Right now, the answer is apparently no. And that's simply not right. It illustrates just how biased the program is toward the chosen few. And speaking as a one-time "chosen" of the chosen few, it's fairly easy to know it when I see it. 

Some folks new to the sport or new to coaching and the current credentialing system really have no idea why there are those of us who feel this way. They look at us as though were just crazy, disgruntled coaches clinging onto some long-forgotten way of doing things. What they don't realize is that there are still quite a few of us around who saw this thing from the inception. We were coaching at a high level before the new Sheriff ever came to town, were in those initial meetings and on those boards of review and we've seen how things have shape-shifted for the past 8 years to get to where we are now. So, while we're still here willing to do everything we've done in the past, along with that experience comes a perspective that not everyone has. And that's why I feel there is so much misunderstanding when one of us chooses to speak up and question the process.

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

target1 said:


> IMO the whole USAA coaching system is a hoax (sorry coaches), it exists to produce revenue. It hasn't produced anything else. I used to be an NFAA intermediate coach, but as soon as they sold out (thanks Jim Easton), to the USAA, I let both my membership and credential lapse.


Let's work that hypothesis: Given how few L4 sessions they put on, and how it is left up to the instructors how much to charge for L3 classes, I can't see any direct revenue windfall from the high level coaching classes compared to the bureaucratic and logistics costs it incurs. Even there is a net profit, it would be a pittance compared to the Easton Foundation and USOC money. So while I won't dismiss your hypothesis out of hand, I don't think the numbers add up. USAA doesn't even give much of a crap about *members* even though they pay membership money because the membership funding is a fraction of the budget. Take a look at the publicly posted financials, I don't think you'll find a big, direct net income from L3 and L4 instruction. If there was, they'd put them on more often, charge more, and not funnel all of them through the Coach Lee bottleneck.



Azzurri said:


> In my line of work you take x amount of continuing learning credits a year to maintain your credentials. There are some progression items based on how long you've been working, but they don't up or down the progression periods because the learning updates. You just have to do your annual due. The learning always updates in any field. Since I think the years-based requirement is already intended as a (poor but objective) substitute for making sure that the teacher is actually doing some teaching in between credential levels, that should be fulfilled objectively by having done her two years (sounds like more like ten). If you want specific content, that should be separated into the credential-earning or maintenance process, from basic tenure requirements. We want 5s to now understand some approach to be 5s, ok, you have to go to a camp to learn that, to stay a 5 or earn a 5. You go to camp, the period of tenure for that 4 doesn't start over. You're just a tenured 4 with more knowledge. Every few years I'm sure the orthodoxy shifts. Do the teachers have to start re-earning tenure every time the idea of how to shoot an arrow changes?


I think that is an interesting point. If someone is qualified to be a Level 4 coach, why 1 day after their 3 years would they no longer be qualified? Have bows magically become different? Has the mental game changed? Whereas the NTS shot cycle does change. Perhaps the NTS shot cycle should be separate, and separately renewed with continuing education credits? Or is that just complicating matters? :dontknow:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> If someone is qualified to be a Level 4 coach, why 1 day after their 3 years would they no longer be qualified?


Yes, technically I was eligible to renew my Non-NTS L4 credential (despite being appointed a "Regional High Performance Coach" by Lee himself). However, I didn't apply for renewal within the allotted time, and now I'm not eligible. Meanwhile, my students were on podiums at the EJN and making World Championship teams... Good thing I taught them what I knew before that deadline was up, huh?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Yes, technically I'm qualified to be a Non-NTS L4 coach. However, I didn't apply for renewal within the allotted time, and now I'm not eligible. Meanwhile, my students were on podiums at the EJN and making World Championship teams... Good thing I taught them what I knew before that deadline was up.


That was close, otherwise they'd have to give their medals back :mg: :wink:


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Yes, technically I was eligible to renew my Non-NTS L4 credential (despite being appointed a "Regional High Performance Coach" by Lee himself). However, I didn't apply for renewal within the allotted time, and now I'm not eligible. Meanwhile, my students were on podiums at the EJN and making World Championship teams... Good thing I taught them what I knew before that deadline was up, huh?


$$$$$$$


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

T1, I wish it was that simple. I would actually prefer that explanation to the real answer.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

target1 said:


> $$$$$$$


Show it to me, target1. I want to know why they do this, but show me the numbers. Here are the USAA Financials, show me how they are making big net profits off of the L3 and L4 courses:

http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/Resources/Governance/Financials

Revenue:
Coach certification income 72,268 [likely mostly from level 1 and 2 certs since those are the vast bulk of the certs]

Expenses:
Coach development 243,669

I'm not seeing the big windfall you are, especially not compared to the other income. Coach certs are down at the *bottom* of the list of income compared to other sources.

The real issue, I think, isn't direct income, but control.


----------



## tjk009 (Feb 15, 2007)

We need a "super cool" Steve Yee style spreadsheet/diagram that lists the top ten recurve kids from each division from EJN and Indoor Nationals showing the archer, coach, style (NTS, BEST, linear, etc.) and location (prior to Chula Vista). With several years of data we might be able to have a discussion about youth archery and coaching. I suspect some might not like the results. 

What matters for serious archers and sponsors are podiums, and coaches can either put kids on top of them or not. Coaches who have actually taken a kid from near the beginning to the podium would be a pretty short list. In the last decade even shorter. Those coaches should be Level 5, they have many things to teach kids and other coaches who might listen.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> T1, I wish it was that simple. I would actually prefer that explanation to the real answer.


It really is that simple...its's always about the Benjamins



Warbow said:


> Show it to me, target1. I want to know why they do this, but show me the numbers. Here are the USAA Financials, show me how they are making big net profits off of the L3 and L4 courses:
> 
> http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/Resources/Governance/Financials
> 
> ...


First off I said it was my opinion...nothing more.

Secondly, I said revenue, which means stream, cash flow, NOT profit. It's a non-profit org BTW.

Thirdly, I was an NFAA insider for more than 5 years. I've seen how these orgs work. The financials seldom reflect reality. So USAA financials are probably creativly put together to get a desired outcome.

Lastly. control comes from power which comes from control of $$$$$


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

target1 said:


> It really is that simple...its's always about the Benjamins
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hmm...


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

GH, you've got some great points between those dots! My coach, along with those I see at JOAD is Vic's pop. Terry, and I'll tell you one thing that guy knows how to coach, how to get in your head, and how to prpduce WORLD CHAMPIONS! I don't think he is a level anything, but I do know Terry KNOWS how to COACH! 



gonehuntin said:


> Practically EVERY ENDEAVOR in life begins and/or ends with the wallet......Cha- Ching...... Easton money will determine what will be procedure and what will not...... not you, or me, or any other of the "regular" guys.....and when you produce a champion these days..... well.... from my own personal experience just let me caution you "watch your back"
> 
> consider the beginning of the end of the US Archery (NAA) education (or lack there of) program - the pre- Lee era......... They now tell us that US archery's focus is to develop predictable coaching.......we are all told that the goal is now to standarize the foundation of the US coaching community.... for the benefit of ALL..... anyone ever met a predicitable mindset elite athlete?
> 
> ...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

target1 said:


> It really is that simple...its's always about the Benjamins
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think you're overlooking those who seek control for the sake of control. Sure, in some cases that control is protecting sources of income, but in other cases, it's just about ego. 

tjk009 - I think you're right. But anyone who put that data together would have to be a disinterested 3rd party. Because as target1 points out, it's pretty easy for those in control to manipulate the figures to show what they want to show.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Warbow said:


> I think that is an interesting point. If someone is qualified to be a Level 4 coach, why 1 day after their 3 years would they no longer be qualified? Have bows magically become different? Has the mental game changed? Whereas the NTS shot cycle does change. Perhaps the NTS shot cycle should be separate, and separately renewed with continuing education credits? Or is that just complicating matters? :dontknow:


Renewing the coach/instructor cert is probably more about the insurance coverage than anything. They need some way of maintaining a list of covered persons so that list doesn't just grow each year. If a renewal isn't made, insurance coverage isn't provided, hence the expiration of the cert.

Also, we have to be very careful about requiring continuing education credits for our coaches. Many, MANY, of the coaches and instructors do this as volunteers and don't see a dime for their effort. If USAA starts requiring CE every year, a good number of those people are going to decide it's no longer worth it and not renew their certs. I'm one of those people. I give my time to the club to coach these kids. If I'm going to have to pay money to get CE credits on something that doesn't generate that money. Getting my Level 3-NTS designation was a stretch when I went through the class. I'm glad I didn't wait, though. The price has gone up since I took it.

Cost and time are the two big factors in why I'll probably never get up to level 4. $1000 and an entire week of my time is a huge cost for something I'm volunteering to do.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Mulcade said:


> Renewing the coach/instructor cert is probably more about the insurance coverage than anything. They need some way of maintaining a list of covered persons so that list doesn't just grow each year. If a renewal isn't made, insurance coverage isn't provided, hence the expiration of the cert.
> 
> Also, we have to be very careful about requiring continuing education credits for our coaches. Many, MANY, of the coaches and instructors do this as volunteers and don't see a dime for their effort. If USAA starts requiring CE every year, a good number of those people are going to decide it's no longer worth it and not renew their certs. I'm one of those people. I give my time to the club to coach these kids. If I'm going to have to pay money to get CE credits on something that doesn't generate that money. Getting my Level 3-NTS designation was a stretch when I went through the class. I'm glad I didn't wait, though. The price has gone up since I took it.
> 
> Cost and time are the two big factors in why I'll probably never get up to level 4. $1000 and an entire week of my time is a huge cost for something I'm volunteering to do.


+1,+2 and +3 on all points


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Agreed on the insurance thing. That seems to be driving a lot of the annoying changes we're having to deal with right now, including membership requirements, event sanctioning, etc. 



> Cost and time are the two big factors in why I'll probably never get up to level 4. $1000 and an entire week of my time is a huge cost for something I'm volunteering to do.


+1 

But Kevin, the thing you and I often forget is that many of the newly-minted L4's are turning around and charging a ton of money for coaching, so for them it's considered a small buy-in to another income stream.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Mulcade said:


> Renewing the coach/instructor cert is probably more about the insurance coverage than anything. They need some way of maintaining a list of covered persons so that list doesn't just grow each year. If a renewal isn't made, insurance coverage isn't provided, hence the expiration of the cert.


That isn't tied to the level, though, just the background check and paying cash to USAA. So it is a separate issue, or should be.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> But Kevin, the thing you and I often forget is that many of the newly-minted L4's are turning around and charging a ton of money for coaching, so for them it's considered a small buy-in to another income stream.


Absolutely and that's great for them! Being able to do what you love and love what you do is the ultimate goal in life, I think. So, you're right, for them it's an investment that can and will hopefully pay off.

This goes in with the whole music as a job thing we talked about on Sunday. Just like music, I LOVE archery but have no desire to do it as a job. I don't need that extra pressure put on the things that I enjoy doing just for me. Some people like that extra pressure, I don't.

The other part is, as a volunteer, I can walk away if something comes along and I no longer have time. If I'm getting paid, there's a higher level of responsibility to the process. I'm not saying I wouldn't do anything and everything that I could for my archers, but there are a couple of things more important than archery that are going to get in the way at some point.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Warbow said:


> That isn't tied to the level, though, just the background check and paying cash to USAA. So it is a separate issue, or should be.


No, it isn't tied to the level, but then again they charge the same amount of money whether you're renewing a level 1 or a level 4. We pay $30 every 3 years to maintain a certification and our insurance coverage. That's a tiny drop in the bucket for USAA. At $10 a year, I imagine USAA is spending some of its own money to cover our insurance as coaches. So in reality, I would wager they're not only not making any money directly off certifications, but are actually losing $$.

EDIT: It's worth it though as they wouldn't have hardly any membership without the coaches they have on the books.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Mulcade said:


> No, it isn't tied to the level, but then again they charge the same amount of money whether you're renewing a level 1 or a level 4. We pay $30 every 3 years to maintain a certification and our insurance coverage. That's a tiny drop in the bucket for USAA. At $10 a year, I imagine USAA is spending some of its own money to cover our insurance as coaches. So in reality, I would wager they're not only not making any money directly off certifications, but are actually losing $$.
> 
> EDIT: It's worth it though as they wouldn't have hardly any membership without the coaches they have on the books.


Given that all the people we instruct now have to be members, the incremental cost of insurance to coaches, who also have to be members, is minimal.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> But Kevin, the thing you and I often forget is that many of the newly-minted L4's are turning around and charging a ton of money for coaching, so for them it's considered a small buy-in to another income stream.


Here in Phoenix, the more experienced L3's to L5's charge 25-30 dollars an hour for kids under 18. Yes, even Mel charges that amount. And the students get far more than one hour of time out of the coach most times.

There's one L4 (recently minted) that charges more. But this coach works out of a shop and their net profit is...you guessed it...25 bucks for that student. The rest goes to the shop for lane fees.

I really can't say that the fee is a ton of money.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

With regards to me generating stats on archers, I actually have a contract with an archery group (I cannot say who due to non-disclosure reasons) to do statistical analysis regarding archery. You all have seen some of the results...and I can disclose that the customer is not USA Archery.

I don't have a problem doing the work. I do want to get paid for it. I may throw some statistics out for free, but eventually the TANSTAAFL rule comes into play.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

Beastmaster said:


> With regards to me generating stats on archers, I actually have a contract with an archery group (I cannot say who due to non-disclosure reasons) to do statistical analysis regarding archery. You all have seen some of the results...and I can disclose that the customer is not USA Archery.
> 
> I don't have a problem doing the work. I do want to get paid for it. I may throw some statistics out for free, but eventually the *TANSTAAFL* rule comes into play.


I had to google that one.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch

Nice, I am going to have to use that.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

bobnikon said:


> I had to google that one.
> There ain't no such thing as a free lunch
> 
> Nice, I am going to have to use that.


If your either a classic SciFi fan (Robert Heinlein, in fact), or a Milton Economics fan, it's used quite often.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> The other part is, as a volunteer, I can walk away if something comes along and I no longer have time. If I'm getting paid, there's a higher level of responsibility to the process. I'm not saying I wouldn't do anything and everything that I could for my archers, but there are a couple of things more important than archery that are going to get in the way at some point.


Totally agree, which is why I've approached coaching and charging for private lessons the way I have. 

However, everyone should be aware that there are those in positions of authority who will look at that statement as a "lack of dedication" and say that someone with that attitude doesn't "deserve" to be a L4 coach. At least, that's their justification for denying it. And to that I'd say this - what the He!! does that have to do with their experience and knowledge? The levels should be based on merit, not on some perceived amount of "dedication" or how many L3,2,1 coaches that individual will turn out for the organization. 

When a prospective student looks at those levels, they trust USArchery to tell them HOW qualified that person is to coach. Right now, the only difference between many (if not most) level 1's and level 3's is a little bit of time and a little bit of money. That's it. And that's not serving the customer (the archers).

Personally, I'd like to see some performance related criteria for L4 coaches. Either having turned out (personally, not as part of a group of camp coaches) a USAT or Jr. USAT level archer (or JOAD or AA Olympian level so as not to penalize those who don't have students with enough money to travel), or having been one themselves. I think that's MORE than fair. And any prospective student could look at that L4 rating and know that coach understands what it takes to get an archer to that level.

Why should anyone have any confidence that a L4 coach who has neither been on a USAT squad, nor coached an archer to one, understands what it takes to get there?

I know that's not the politically correct answer, and there are plenty of L3's who are looking forward to sitting through a seminar, taking a few tests and picking up their L4 sheepskin, but I'm sorry. At some point, the rubber has to meet the road.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Why should anyone have any confidence that a L4 coach who has neither been on a USAT squad, nor coached an archer to one, understands what it takes to get there?
> 
> I know that's not the politically correct answer, and there are plenty of L3's who are looking forward to sitting through a seminar, taking a few tests and picking up their L4 sheepskin, but I'm sorry. At some point, the rubber has to meet the road.


So, how many slots would that limit the L4s to?

I can see the reasoning behind what you say, but there is also a cart before the horse thing, too. What would the point of the week long seminar of L4 training be if you've already put an archery on a USAT? I think you are being consistent, though, since you've also proposed that L4 certs be based on accomplishments rather than "training".

Frankly, the seminars are a big problem. Seminars are one of the worst ways to learn. You get a lot of stuff crammed into your head over the course of a few days, then you forget much of it. We don't teach archers that way - a 3-5 seminar every three years and then leave them alone - so why do we teach coaches that way? Granted, it is already expensive for coaches, especially volunteer coaches, to take extended, out of area seminars every three years; however, much of the material doesn't need to be covered in person. The seminars should be reserved for only the stuff that specifically needs to be hands on. (I think Ron and Miranda Carmichael's L3 course, that told people to start studying the book Archery a month in advance was a great idea.)


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> So, how many slots would that limit the L4s to?


Actually, quite a few. If you consider how many USAT and Jr. USAT archers there have been in the past 10 years (every year there are 70 or more) and how many coaches are working with those archers, that alone is a big number. If you threw in coaches who have guided archers to the Olympian pin level for JOAD and AA, then there would be a whole lot more. 

Look, level 4 should mean something. Not everyone SHOULD get a level 4 because not everyone has that much experience or the skills to offer. That's not being mean, it's just the facts. Right now, you just pay your money, study for a few nights, regurgitate some material and BAM! You're a newly-minted L4 NTS coach. They aren't studying your interaction with your students (if you even have any... do you even have to have students to become a L4?) You aren't being asked to set up a competitive bow for an individual or guide them through an entire season (much less 2 or 3 or 4 back to back). 

There is so much that goes into developing a truly competitive archer at the national level. This is what a L4 should be capable of, and a L5 should be capable of developing international-level archers. 

Level 3's should be our journeymen coaches, who eventually become L4's through the experience of producing a national-caliber archer, or if they cannot, then handing off their archers to a L4 coach.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Look, level 4 should mean something. Not everyone SHOULD get a level 4 because not everyone has that much experience or the skills to offer. That's not being mean, it's just the facts. Right now, you just pay your money, study for a few nights, regurgitate some material and BAM! You're a newly-minted L4 NTS coach. They aren't studying your interaction with your students (if you even have any... do you even have to have students to become a L4?) You aren't being asked to set up a competitive bow for an individual or guide them through an entire season (much less 2 or 3 or 4 back to back).


I'm not disagreeing with you*, I'm wondering if there is any point to having a week long L4 seminar *after* you've put a student on a USAT. If USAA were to adopt your criteria, should the week long seminar be eliminated as being "after the fact"? Perhaps the 3 cert could be loaded up with more instruction and more tools and more requirements to help coaches get to the L4 level? :dontknow:


*Right to disagree with you reserved


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

What I'm saying is that having that experience (of being on, or having coached an archer to the USAT/Jr. USAT/JOAD/AA Olympian level) should be a prerequisite for attending a L4 course. Because believe me, if you have a room full of coaches who already have that experience, you can then teach that course at a whole different speed. 

You don't have to be a L4 to coach an archer to a USAT or Jr. USAT or JOAD/AA Olympian level. There are plenty of L3's who have, some L2's who have, an then there are a whole bunch of "unwashed" coaches who have - no certification required. 

John


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

To be an engineer, you have to get a BS in engineering, pass a test, then serve under a PE for 4 years, then take another test. The engineering profession can tweak what it wants in the BS, or either professional test, to address change in the field. But it would be silly to make people re-serve the 4 years due to a paradigm shift or leadership change, when they've had to repeatedly show in various ways knowledge in the field. It's better addressed as curriculum within the degree/test/maintain qualification process than within the tenure/apprenticeship process, which is already forcing you to work through a progression over time, spending chunks of your life working up a ladder.

It strikes me as contradictory to say, you have too much experience so you are trained in the old ways so you have to wait while we pretend you must learn more new stuff. It would emphasize the new teaching but it would be at the expense of experienced teachers who happen to be more engaged in the teaching side of the process and less speed demons who are trying to rapidly speed up credentials despite lack of real teaching experience. This is precisely the sort of thing that should be addressed in "qualification" or "maintenance" and not making people re-boot the ladder process itself.

I don't necessarily disagree with ramping up what it takes to make or retain a step -- you can always say we want it to mean more, we want more current/trendy knowledge -- I just can't imagine a lot of other professions would re-start tenure for a curriculum change, because that's dragging out one's life's work. Like with the PE, they may increase class hours, required classes, continuing education, etc., but they don't say we won't count your work/apprenticeship, starts over.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Excellent point, and you just described precisely what USArchery has decided to do. 

Nobody has explained to me how an entire class of experienced, veteran coaches who were declared "Regional High Performance" coaches by none other than Lee himself, are now no longer qualified to be a regional coach. It's so absurd all you can do is laugh about it. 

John


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Dee Falks had talked about setting up a mentoring program for the different levels so that there is some sort of follow-up to the seminar. I liked the idea when he was running for the board position and I still like it now. I think it would solve some of the issues we've been seeing with the shotgun seminar approach. Maybe we need to just run with that here in Texas like we've done with the TOTS series.


No, John, that wasn't directed specifically at you. You've done your work (well, I might add), this may be something for either someone else, or the next in line. :grin:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Mentoring programs are great, and I'd support that, but sooner or later the rubber has to meet the road and if a coach seeks a higher certification, they need to produce an archer(s) that are competitive. Otherwise, if they can't, or aren't interested in working with higher-level archers, they don't really need the higher level certification. I mean, it really is that simple. Everyone isn't "entitled" to a L4 or L5 cert. I don't think they should be. But they should be able to earn it. And the great thing about this sport is that it's pretty easy to see which coaches are producing top archers, and which ones aren't. 

If it were up to me, I'd institute a 100 mile rule too.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I mean, look at it this way. There are going to even be plenty of L3 coaches who despite not really knowing all they need to know to get a kid to the JOAD Olympian/ USAT level, are fortunate enough to have a great student who carries them there. What does that prove? Maybe not that the coach is capable of getting them to that level, but sometimes it's just as important to show that you aren't getting in the student's way either. 

So no, I don't think that requirement is too stringent at all.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Mentoring programs are great, and I'd support that, but sooner or later the rubber has to meet the road and if a coach seeks a higher certification, they need to produce an archer(s) that are competitive. Otherwise, if they can't, or aren't interested in working with higher-level archers, they don't really need the higher level certification. I mean, it really is that simple. Everyone isn't "entitled" to a L4 or L5 cert. I don't think they should be. But they should be able to earn it. And the great thing about this sport is that it's pretty easy to see which coaches are producing top archers, and which ones aren't.
> 
> If it were up to me, I'd institute a 100 mile rule too.


what do you think of this requirement

IN US Table tennis (where players have ratings-the average US tournament player is around 1400, an 1800 player looks like a professional to the average observer, a 2000 level player is extremely good, a 2200 level player is equivalent to a Top HS Tennis champion or a DI varsity player a 2400 level player is equivalent to a college all american and 2600 level is pro tour

in TT to get up the coaching ranks, you had to have achieved high ratings to be a national level coach. Now obviously you don't still have to be say a 2300 to be a world class coach because there are a handful of people of that a level over the age of say 60.

But we have a bunch of "Elite coaches" who have never broken 1000 in a FITA or 1000 in an indoor 120 arrow FITA I in the USA coaching hierarchy. do you think that proficiency should be a requirement? 

My two best squash coaches were

1) an many time world and national medalist in age groups after being a 3X all american
2) a lady who had been all-american in three sports then was on the pro squash tour

my two best table tennis coachers were

1) 6X US Open champion
2) a guy who represented his home country internationally before the war (Latvia)

My skeet coaches included

1) a world gold medalist and 76 Olympian
2) a hall of fame college coach who had been a famous hunter and then target shooter
3) my father who was national HS skeet champion

and in archery I have had help from

Darrell Pace
his late Coach and flight archery legend Charlie Pierson
Larrell Dick (a top field shooter and bow expert)
Tim Strickland (top flight archer_
Bernie Pellerite 
Don Rabska
and Terry wunderle-

all of whom were/are very very good archers

now I understand coaching a discipline is different than say tennis where the coach is expected to hit with his student ( I was watching Lendl with Andy Murray a while ago and Lendl can still hit the living snot out of a forehand)

but what about a proficiency test of say an 1100 FITA or higher for "elite coaches"


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> I mean, look at it this way. There are going to even be plenty of L3 coaches who despite not really knowing all they need to know to get a kid to the JOAD Olympian/ USAT level, are fortunate enough to have a great student who carries them there. What does that prove? Maybe not that the coach is capable of getting them to that level, but sometimes it's just as important to show that you aren't getting in the student's way either.
> 
> So no, I don't think that requirement is too stringent at all.


Perhaps not, and I'm tempted to say that rural location is a limiting factor, but, though I still believe that to be true to a degree, you have proven that you can start a world class archery program in a pretty small, remote location.

Your proposed rules mean that I might not ever get a paper L4 :mg: I'm ok with that*, because I recognize my limitations in archery, but I do think that L3 should not be subject to any kind of similar "what have you done for the USAT" pre-requisites. That level really needs to be open so people can learn the NTS and such.


*Though I've read at least one L4 coach here on the forum who would likely have been denied an L4 on that basis, and yet my impression is that that coach is doing a good job and benefited, and his students benefited, from his taking the L4 course. If the requirements you propose are adopted there should be some alternate courses, levels, whatever, for people like that instructor, who, I think, deserves the opportunity to learn and share what he's learned as much as anybody.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

They do conduct the coaching observation and require 3 students to perform to a level, to get a L5.....but that's as high as the certs go. At least some of the debate seems to be that proof of performance should start lower down the ladder, and outside the cert course. It looks to me like they may make you show something in a seminar, or indirectly serve tenure, but they don't actually watch you in action with normal students until 5. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If that's the case, you can get all the way except to 5 without having to show you can really teach/produce? Cause by 5 the "desired but not required" is you help out at USAA camps or go to international events as a coach, in addition to tenure, observation, and production of athletes, which by that stage are required. That's a pretty big on/off switch from can you survive a seminar to, do you have archers at high levels of performance and are practically seen as an international level coach. I'd say bump some performance criteria down to 3 or 4, but then part of the issue may be if KSL is the one who has to go around checking bona fides. If that's a problem, delegate?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Azzurri said:


> I'd say bump some performance criteria down to 3 or 4, but then part of the issue may be if KSL is the one who has to go around checking bona fides. If that's a problem, delegate?


I think you may have indirectly identified a larger problem, which is that the current criteria are so subjective they don't feel they can be reliably delegated, which could indicate a structural problem with both NTS and the US Coaching system. :dontknow:

And I really don't think prior student performance should be a factor in the L3 class, the first class to teach NTS rather than merely allude to it. Though I do think John's suggestion that basic equipment tuning knowledge should be a requirement makes sense.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> But we have a bunch of "Elite coaches" who have never broken 1000 in a FITA or 1000 in an indoor 120 arrow FITA I in the USA coaching hierarchy. do you think that proficiency should be a requirement?


Jim, while you and I agree on this wholeheartedly, I've been convinced by many here that - just like there should be more than one path to a L4 cert - there should be more than one way to prove performance. I'm okay with a coach who has never shot an 1100 fita so long as they have produced archers who can. There will be a few of those. 

This connection is not that hard to make. And if anyone has excuses as to why a L3 cannot produce a USAT/Jr. USAT or JOAD/AA Olympian archer, lay them on me.  

Warbow, if your "rural" aspect was a concern, I've got that covered. Try Southern Illinois and a county in SE Texas with a grand total of (wait for it...) 20,626 people. In the whole county. From those two locations, I've managed to coach an Olympic archer, a Senior USAT member, three Junior USAT team members (very nearly 4), three Jr. world championship archers (in three different events), and enough JOAD and AA Olympians, national champions and national record-holders that I stopped counting years ago. 

Not tooting my own horn here, but every one of these archers "just happend to" live within 100 miles of me in a very rural area. In fact, they were all closer than that. Within 50 miles. 

So, if it can be done by "just" a L3 coach in two very rural areas in two different states, then I don't see why on earth a L3 in a major metro area, with a few million prospects to choose from (and infinitely more disposable income than the families I usually work with) should be held to less of a standard before they can apply to receive their L4.



> that the current criteria are so subjective they don't feel they can be reliably delegated


Nail, meet hammer.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Not tooting my own horn here, but every one of these archers "just happend to" live within 100 miles of me in a very rural area. In fact, they were all closer than that. Within 50 miles.


Please, John, obviously there is just a statistical anomaly that follows you around wherever you go










limbwalker said:


> Nail, meet hammer.


This is still an issue I wonder about. If the qualifying criteria to teach NTS can't be written down and reliably judged by others then we don't have an objective national _standard_, we just have a national coach, in spite of all the coach training based on his system. What happens when he leaves? (And, as a coach, we know he is for hire by anyone who can afford him when his contract is up in 2016 - and let's hope USAA don't do what they did last time and renew the contract *before* the Olympics.)


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Warbow said:


> Please, John, obviously there is just a statistical anomaly that follows you around wherever you go
> View attachment 1993564


Well, to be fair, I'm just one of many. I would just hate to see folks take credit for "coaching" high performing archers who were sent to them as part of a camp when the coach back at home gets no credit for getting them to that point in the first place. I've been on both ends of that one, and can tell you which one is harder. Much harder.


----------



## gonehuntin (Dec 2, 2004)

Actually, the whole idea of bringing the archery education into modern times is a great one. We were long overdue for a revamping into a more progressive coaching system.

It has always been my belief that the source of the hic-cup is, the powers that be feel very comfortable dictating to their work force, and to the basic membership base, announcing how things are going to "now be" AFTER they make huge changes. Archery has some of the brightest minds in the world, that are so passionate about teaching and have many great ideas to make our sport grow and be productive. The bee in the bonnet of so many really is the unrelenting change, change, change. It almost looks as though the mindset is to implement change just for change's sake.

As long as management dictates, (with soooo many surprises.... making one feel like said surprises are a "gotcha moment", in many cases) to its masses, few of those changes will be recieved gracefully. without resistance. 

It is very difficult to see how the membership is being served when few if any in the membership are not included in the "hashing out" of making changes that are so critical to inspiring us to keep working. 

And lastly.... and then I will bow out of this conservation, changes should be done once a year, in the off season, with plenty of notice, so everyone can have time to adapt before changes become the current rule of the day. Case in point.... indoor JOAD nationals was a complete "holy cow" moment for so many kids when USAA made two extremely critical changes without any notice and the kids never had time to adjust... first, of course, was the mandatory placement of targets at specific measurements WAY above the floor.... so many of my smaller kids with light weight bows were at such a dis-advantage., (really should have decided that in the fall, and given everyone plenty of notice so they could prepare), and then, that silliness of dis-allowing awards from the locations that held the events. Still scratching my head over that one, my parents have already said that they are struggling to see the value in spending their money in that event next year. 

Oh well.... just gonna keep on working, as always.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Warbow said:


> This is still an issue I wonder about. If the qualifying criteria to teach NTS can't be written down and reliably judged by others then we don't have an objective national _standard_, we just have a national coach, in spite of all the coach training based on his system. What happens when he leaves? (And, as a coach, we know he is for hire by anyone who can afford him when his contract is up in 2016 - and let's hope USAA don't do what they did last time and renew the contract *before* the Olympics.)



I believe the contract term ends *after* the 2016 Summer Games ends. If I recall, Coach Lee re-upped his contract early, but the terms of the current one ends after Rio.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Beastmaster said:


> I believe the contract term ends *after* the 2016 Summer Games ends. If I recall, Coach Lee re-upped his contract early, but the terms of the current one ends after Rio.


I wasn't worried he'd bail on the 2012 or 1016 Games, rather that USAA renewed his contract before the results of the games were in. The Olympics are kind of the score card for the success of the USAA high performance program, and of coach Lee's role in it, so renewing his contract before the end of the games seems premature, yet something they may do again.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Re: Coaching MQS

I personally do not feel a coaching MQS for Level 4 and higher is an odd thing. Heck, both my wife and I feel comfortable with a coaching MQS for Level 3's. 

I don't necessarily feel that a coach has to shoot a MQS themselves. I do feel that they should be able to demonstrate the fact that they can indeed coach and inspire students to achieve to a higher level.

Having students achieve their Bronze Olympian pin before getting your L4 should be something that should be added, in my view. I've personally seen coaches who can spout out the material in rote, do the necessary light bow demos, and can't inspire a student to go to the bathroom.

I know some L4's that got their L4 merely for resume fodder. It's a status symbol for them. And, unfortunately, it's for them, not for the students.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

gonehuntin said:


> (snip)
> 
> And lastly.... and then I will bow out of this conservation, changes should be done once a year, in the off season, with plenty of notice, so everyone can have time to adapt before changes become the current rule of the day. Case in point.... indoor JOAD nationals was a complete "holy cow" moment for so many kids when USAA made two extremely critical changes without any notice and the kids never had time to adjust... first, of course, was the mandatory placement of targets at specific measurements WAY above the floor.... so many of my smaller kids with light weight bows were at such a dis-advantage., (really should have decided that in the fall, and given everyone plenty of notice so they could prepare), and then, that silliness of dis-allowing awards from the locations that held the events. Still scratching my head over that one, my parents have already said that they are struggling to see the value in spending their money in that event next year.
> 
> Oh well.... just gonna keep on working, as always.


Could I ask for a minor indulgence before you pull out of this conversation thread?

You mention that the target placement is placed at a position way above the floor.

Could I find out which venue this occurred in? The reason why I'm a bit confused is that since all of the Indoor Nationals and JOAD Indoor are supposed to be Star FITA events, the target bale height and target face height should be within FITA specs.

A side comment in reply to the regional awards - some regions will give out awards, some do not. It totally depends on the host club.

Thanks,
Steve


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Beastmaster said:


> Heck, both my wife and I feel comfortable with a coaching MQS for Level 3's.
> 
> I don't necessarily feel that a coach has to shoot a MQS themselves. I do feel that they should be able to demonstrate the fact that they can indeed coach and inspire students to achieve to a higher level.


Given that the L3 is the first of the USAA instructional courses that covers _coaching_, as opposed to merely being an instructor, I think that it would be problematic to require L3 applicants to have that kind of student requirement as a pre-requisite. It would be kind of a catch-22. It would be "You can't learn anything about coaching from USAA until you prove you already are a successful coach." Perhaps the L3 class and the L3 cert shouldn't be one in the same, but separate, with time in between?


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

gonehuntin said:


> And lastly.... and then I will bow out of this conservation, changes should be done once a year, in the off season, with plenty of notice, so everyone can have time to adapt before changes become the current rule of the day. Case in point.... indoor JOAD nationals was a complete "holy cow" moment for so many kids when USAA made two extremely critical changes without any notice and the kids never had time to adjust... first, of course, was the mandatory placement of targets at specific measurements WAY above the floor.... so many of my smaller kids with light weight bows were at such a dis-advantage., (really should have decided that in the fall, and given everyone plenty of notice so they could prepare), and then, that silliness of dis-allowing awards from the locations that held the events. Still scratching my head over that one, my parents have already said that they are struggling to see the value in spending their money in that event next year.
> 
> Oh well.... just gonna keep on working, as always.




What national indoors did you go to? National indoor distance, target height and face has not changed in years and is set by FITA. I dont recall anyone saying any region had incorrect target placement.

This sounds like some one had incorrect target bales at the home range and didn't prepare the kids for Indoor Nationals. No change was made in target heights.

Chris


----------



## Moebow (Jul 8, 2010)

I've been following this with interest! I know this is the FITA, etc. forum but you are talking about coaching certification (and it's evolved from the OP's position and question) but...

I'm one that has taken the L4 training and am proud to have done so. The impression I get though is the many of you feel that since I don't have a back ground in OR archery OR a stable of "podium" students that I'm "dog meat" and should be euthanized (or at least NOT a L4). The USA Archery web sight lists the current requirements for the 5 levels of certification and at L4 says "emphasis on the NTS," with no mention of "results." I took the training to get as much training as is/was currently available so I did not steer any I worked with wrong. At this time there is NO requirement that a L4 candidate have any successful "podium" results. And, I even have the audacity to think I'm smart enough to refer students with potential and interest in FITA like shooting to a coach that actually wants to travel all over the US or the world and has the background to take that student to that level.

I see the progression in the levels as a logical sequence of training ending with proving to one or two folks (Coach Lee and in my case D Falks) That I had the system learned and could present it. L1 is very basic introductory, L2 is the a first intro to NTS, L3 looks for NTS and coaching knowledge, and finally L4 demonstrating full (or nearly so) NTS proficiency. Finally at L5, the podium stable many of you are talking about. Whether or not the NTS is the way to go is another discussion IMO but that is what it is currently. 

I would point out that "podium" results are a very small segment of archery, just look at the average "viewers" of various forums here on AT. As I started typing this The FITA forum had 38 viewers, Traditional forum had 74, and hunting and general combined had 579. Why on earth would you want to limit only those that have an interest in FITA/OR to the higher coaching levels??? IF a coach is producing "podiums," they have a place to go -- L5. By insisting that L3 and/or L4 have Podium results, you are cutting out the only certified training available to (I'm guessing) 90% of the archery community.

I for one do not have a desire to specifically produce competitive target archers, I just want to know that the folks I work with are getting decent and safe instruction. I really don't care what archery "game" they want to play just that they have the tools to "play." Also, up here in the north, the ONLY outdoor target range I'm aware of is in Yankton and that is 400 miles away. A little far for weekly instruction at the longer distances. To say nothing of the fact that out door shooting is really only viable about 6 months of the year. I work a LOT with NASP teams AND their coaches. I've trained many local NASP coaches to L2 to supplement their knowledge of shooting form that they don't really get in the NASP BAI.

I also work a LOT with local compound shooters (hunters and indoor league style) and traditional shooters one at a time with NO "stable" of students. I try to improve their ENJOYMENT of the sport by making them better shooters and hopefully less prone to injury. There are no podiums in the deer woods, and there are no podiums in the enjoyment area. My reward is just that and NOT a stable of world class shooters. BUT I get the impression here that that in no way allows me to claim L4. Even though Coach Lee and all the other instructors at my L4 class thought that that was a fair and reasonable goal.

If you all feel that it should be changed to only accommodate OR style target shooting and results, that's fine. I just wonder where archery in general goes from there.

Finally the "huge" amount I charge to ANYONE Is $0.00 per lesson! So, Yep! I'm really cleaning up on my L2,3,4 training costs!

Have fun with the discussion folks but I think many of you are kind of "out to lunch."

Arne


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Moebow said:


> I see the progression in the levels as a logical sequence of training ending with proving to one or two folks (Coach Lee and in my case D Falks) That I had the system learned and could present it. L1 is very basic introductory, L2 is the a first intro to NTS, L3 looks for NTS and coaching knowledge, and finally L4 demonstrating full (or nearly so) NTS proficiency. Finally at L5, the podium stable many of you are talking about. Whether or not the NTS is the way to go is another discussion IMO but that is what it is currently.
> 
> I would point out that "podium" results are a very small segment of archery, just look at the average "viewers" of various forums here on AT. As I started typing this The FITA forum had 38 viewers, Traditional forum had 74, and hunting and general combined had 579. Why on earth would you want to limit only those that have an interest in FITA/OR to the higher coaching levels??? IF a coach is producing "podiums," they have a place to go -- L5. By insisting that L3 and/or L4 have Podium results, you are cutting out the only certified training available to (I'm guessing) 90% of the archery community.


A great post. I agree with both you *and* John because I think I see where both of you are coming from. There is a disconnect going on. John is looking at the Coaching certs strictly form a competitive standpoint, even as he is also advocating that USA Archery make a non-Olympic spin off org to handle grass roots. So, what about coaching for the grass roots archers? Should the full NTS knowledge be limited to only competitive coaches? Aren't there things about NTS that could benefit non-competitive archers? I'd say yes to both. Which I why I'm a definite "no" to podium requirements for L3, and I'm a bit iffy on doing so for L4, especially if there isn't going to be another avenue for instructors to learn that level of info if they don't have USAT students. :dontknow:

NTS is sooo damn complicated it doesn't seem like one can really claim to know well enough to fully teach it just based on the L3 course, so I think it would be wrong to not have a way for *all* interested coaches to learn the full deal.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Moe, one does not need a L4 certification to coach casual, recreational archers. I seem to have done okay with just a L2, and now a L3 cert, and most of my archers are what I'd classify as recreational and casual.

But at some point, an archer (or their parent) is going to want to get serious about this sport, and as Beast so eloquently points out


> Having students achieve their Bronze Olympian pin before getting your L4 should be something that should be added, in my view. I've personally seen coaches who can spout out the material in rote, do the necessary light bow demos, and can't inspire a student to go to the bathroom.


I couldn't have said it better myself. 

There is a big difference between an instructor for recreational archers, and a coach for competitive archers. Let's not confuse the two. And frankly, IMO, a L3 cert is the appropriate level for an instructor of recreational archers. Again, my first three USAT/Jr. USAT students were all coached either before I ever had any certification at all, or with only an "old" level 2. 

Guys, don't get so hung up on podium placements either. That is fairly subjective, and I recognize that. But it can't be discounted. If JOAD/AA Olympian level archers count toward one's qualifications, that should easily be within reach of any dedicated, competent L3 that works with 10 or more students for a reasonable length of time.

Within my 25-archer club (give or take) in a town of 3600, I currently have four archers who've earned their Olympian pins, and five more working on theirs. 

However, if a L3 coach can't produce a single Olympian-level JOAD or AA archer, that to me is a red flag.

John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I think part of the rub here will be the time it takes to produce a JOAD/AA Olympian-level, or USAT/Jr. USAT archer. There would be many L3's that won't have that kind of patience. And it takes a tremendous amount of time and dedication. Not on a annual or monthly basis, but on a WEEKLY basis, to help an archer get to that level. Frankly, I think a lot of folks who wish to obtain their L4 will not want to wait that long and think they should be able to get it sooner. And that's just where we are as a society these days. Instant, or near-instant gratification. Well, producing a top ranked archer is like making a fine wine. It cannot be, nor should it be, rushed.

Not only that, but the amount of things a coach LEARNS along the way, while coaching an archer to that level, is invaluable. And will be so valuable to their students in the future! And there is only one way to learn these things - in the practice of constant coaching.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> I think part of the rub here will be the time it takes to produce a JOAD/AA Olympian-level, or USAT/Jr. USAT archer. There would be many L3's that won't have that kind of patience. And it takes a tremendous amount of time and dedication. Not on a annual or monthly basis, but on a WEEKLY basis, to help an archer get to that level. Frankly, I think a lot of folks who wish to obtain their L4 will not want to wait that long and think they should be able to get it sooner. And that's just where we are as a society these days. Instant, or near-instant gratification. Well, producing a top ranked archer is like making a fine wine. It cannot be, nor should it be, rushed.
> 
> Not only that, but the amount of things a coach LEARNS along the way, while coaching an archer to that level, is invaluable. And will be so valuable to their students in the future! And there is only one way to learn these things - in the practice of constant coaching.


I wholeheartedly agree on this. I wish there was a Facebook equivalent to the "like" button for this comment...


----------



## gonehuntin (Dec 2, 2004)

Beastmaster said:


> Could I ask for a minor indulgence before you pull out of this conversation thread?
> 
> You mention that the target placement is placed at a position way above the floor.
> 
> ...


Oh im sure they are now in compliance with FITA specs.... as they actually should have been all along..... its the surprise that got us.... USAA could have taken a moment in the off season and annouced that ALL host locations would now be required to comply.... instead of springing it on us as we were putting targets up for score. This location has NEVER complied with target height, and that would include last year's Indoor Nationals in which they were the host location.

I dont feel that cmplying to the target height rule was wrong, Rules are rules and we all need to adhere to that......the lack of control over uniformity of this National event in the past is amazing, Its just how it was implemented that was not good for their PR. And that was my point all along. 


USAA said that for the sake of being fair across the board (kinda like the groups that give EVERY child a medal for just showing up), told the host that they were to no longer give out awards. I had an irrate parent contact USAA directly in protest, and I saw the email response from them, it said that they wanted no awards given...but that if it was a problem here, that the host here could offer one....host declined. Stupid. Then...just to add a little salt.... the in charge person made a huge annoucement at the opening statement of the event that they had a record attendance (making more money than ever for both entities). And yet they couldnt mangage to annouce that there were to be no recgonizion of achievement for anyone there. 

Encouraging a host location to not applaud work well done, or to spend a few dollars on even a small token gesture "atta boy or girl" tricket" is just plain ridiculious. There will be no rational excuse for that. All archery is enjoying a huge growth , Kids, the disabled, elderly, families, hunters, plenty of money floating around now. And as the people at our location so proudly announced.... "record attendance".... wow, that translates into record money, doesnt it? Not a good idea to just take the money and walk away.......USSA should have announced that one way in advance as well.

After Nationals was over, I purchased blank certificates and filled them in, inexpensive picture frames to put them in, and awarded my kids for their work. Cost me a whole whopping big 12 dollars and took me a whole 35 minutes plus the shopping trip for the certificate and frames. So simple and easy. And went such a long way. 

it would serve the interest of USAA to have a time in the off season to better prepare thier customer base for the coming year, to manage ALL events policies and rules professionally, and to try to think beyond the needs and desires of the small group that make those policy and rules. And then to just take a few minutes and have some honest inner-action with the people that are the ones that feel the impact of how they handle policy changes would make such a huge difference. So many disgruntled people, with so many fixable issues.... 

Now, I am really done..... back to work.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

you still dont say who hosted the Indoor Nationals and did not have the targets at the required heights. 


Its odd no one else complained on this forum of that during the regions Indoor Nationals. 

Where is this location that doesnt abide by the USAA rules for distance or target height?

Im not that concerned about awards and such for the kids shooting. They should be more focused on the experience and shooting. The award is getting to go shoot a National event even if it is regional. If parents have a hard time with that, then so be it. They in my opinion are fixated on the wrong thing.


Chris


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

chrstphr said:


> you still dont say who hosted the Indoor Nationals and did not have the targets at the required heights.
> 
> 
> Its odd no one else complained on this forum of that during the regions Indoor Nationals.
> ...


Chris,

Without outing any one group or person directly, here's a huge hint.

Geographically, extend the Mason Dixon line straight across to the west.

Eliminate the regions run by Tulare and Rio Rancho, and look at the other areas South of that line.

-Steve


----------



## wa-prez (Sep 9, 2006)

gonehuntin said:


> Oh im sure they are now in compliance with FITA specs.... as they actually should have been all along..... its the surprise that got us.... USAA could have taken a moment in the off season and annouced that ALL host locations would now be required to comply.... instead of springing it on us as we were putting targets up for score. This location has NEVER complied with target height, and that would include last year's Indoor Nationals in which they were the host location.
> 
> I dont feel that cmplying to the target height rule was wrong, Rules are rules and we all need to adhere to that......the lack of control over uniformity of this National event in the past is amazing, Its just how it was implemented that was not good for their PR. And that was my point all along.


YES, I would think that when I go to a State or National tournament, the rules that apply to that tournament would be fully in effect.

You say you were surprised that the targets were [higher than usual] but that height was actually the regulation height.

Imagine the surprise the other direction, of someone showing up for the first time at that site, expecting regulation height targets, and finding them low.

I do know on the NFAA side of competition, where indoor target height is not specified, only a minimum distance from the floor to the bottom bale, that I have encountered some ranges that were higher or lower than average. For example, the specified minimum is 16", but one range had a platform of about 12 inches, a small bale on top of that, and the actual competition lower target face above that - you can imagine that the upper target was pretty high.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

As a coach, archer and parent, I will say without reservation that if something as simple as target height is enough to bother an archer, they have zero chance of ever making it beyond the state level in this sport. 

Champions don't complain, or even think twice about target height. They just shoot the target in front of them.

For years, Butch, Rick, Vic, Jay, Jason and so many of us other USAT level Olympic recurve archers showed up at Louisville and shot the bottom target on the overstuffed bag bales that were essentially facing the floor. I think the bottom spots in some cases were probably at a 5 degree downward angle, and within 14" of the floor. That didn't stop any of us from shooting 298's, 299's and 300's on those faces. And I can't once remember any one of those guys seriously complaining about such a trivial thing. If anything, they looked at it as an additional challenge.

Just sayin'


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

I don't get being upset there was no announcement the venue will start complying with the rules. I'd expect the range setup to be within the rules. I hope the kids weren't taught to be upset with surprises such as the venue newly complying with the rules.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TER said:


> I don't get being upset there was no announcement the venue will start complying with the rules. I'd expect the range setup to be within the rules. I hope the kids weren't taught to be upset with surprises such as the venue newly complying with the rules.


Well, competitors should know the rules; however, if the venue was doing something for many years many people probably thought those *were* the rules, so, yes, a notice would be a good idea, even if not required. No reason not to give notice. No downside.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

John, you didn't include Darrell in your list, but that is not why I responded! Whether you shoot archery, skeet, trap, clays, or whatever your shooting sport of choice might be, you know, when you go to a "Strange Range" (one that you normally do not practice on, that things might be a bit different. Example: At regionals in Rensselaer, IN at 60M I aimed straight at the middle, here at my home range, I cannot aim straight at the middle, else I'll be in the green!!
That said, however, there are "RULES" set forth in the WA Constitution and Rules Book, which specify the lay out of the field, the Height of the CENTER of the target face, ETC. You can check them out at www.archery.org, if someone can site the chapter and verse, I'd be ever grateful! Serious Fun...Can you do that for "Lil' ol' Me!"!




limbwalker said:


> As a coach, archer and parent, I will say without reservation that if something as simple as target height is enough to bother an archer, they have zero chance of ever making it beyond the state level in this sport.
> 
> Champions don't complain, or even think twice about target height. They just shoot the target in front of them.
> 
> ...


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

lizard said:


> John, you didn't include Darrell in your list, but that is not why I responded! Whether you shoot archery, skeet, trap, clays, or whatever your shooting sport of choice might be, you know, when you go to a "Strange Range" (one that you normally do not practice on, that things might be a bit different. Example: At regionals in Rensselaer, IN at 60M I aimed straight at the middle, here at my home range, I cannot aim straight at the middle, else I'll be in the green!!
> That said, however, there are "RULES" set forth in the WA Constitution and Rules Book, which specify the lay out of the field, the Height of the CENTER of the target face, ETC. You can check them out at www.archery.org, if someone can site the chapter and verse, I'd be ever grateful! Serious Fun...Can you do that for "Lil' ol' Me!"!


Pages 31-35.

http://www.worldarchery.org/UserFil...lications/02_Downloads/Judges_Guidebook-e.pdf

-Steve


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Sooo, while at the USAA Annual meeting I finally got a straight answer about my desire to be level 4 nts...Mr. Kruger said to me "There are NO EXCEPTIONS to the rule of 2 years with NTS." Ok, I can accept that, I don't like it, but I can accept it.
Thanks to Guy for being up front with me, that is all I really wanted, was an answer for "Why" and there really isn't a reason, other than "No Exceptions to The Rule."
Yeah, I'm still miffed, but hey, not even a JDT coach could get a level boost tip he had NTS for 2 years, so I am in good company.
That won't stop me from learning all I can so when the time comes....YEP! YOU GOT IT, I WILL PASS with flying colors! I got two years to study! 
:smile::wink:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> John, you didn't include Darrell in your list,


That's because I never shot with him in L'ville. I didn't mention Glenn either. I shot with all the guys I mentioned, and not ever once heard any of them seriously complain about the location or angle of that bottom target. It's not what winners do, it's what whiners do. 

As for your answer Liz, I was not impressed. If you cannot explain your reason for something, then there is no reason and it is completely arbitrary (i.e., too much trouble/work). 

They don't want to have to answer the question as to why you, Jim, myself and others were granted a regional high performance coach certification years ago after learning directly from Lee himself, and somehow now it's not valid. How many years did he have to perfect his system before we attended that seminar? I mean, when you write "the book" on biomechanical shooting, shouldn't you have worked it out beforehand?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

lizard said:


> Sooo, while at the USAA Annual meeting I finally got a straight answer about my desire to be level 4 nts...Mr. Kruger said to me "There are NO EXCEPTIONS to the rule of 2 years with NTS." Ok, I can accept that, I don't like it, but I can accept it.
> Thanks to Guy for being up front with me, that is all I really wanted, was an answer for "Why" and there really isn't a reason, other than "No Exceptions to The Rule."
> Yeah, I'm still miffed, but hey, not even a JDT coach could get a level boost tip he had NTS for 2 years, so I am in good company.
> That won't stop me from learning all I can so when the time comes....YEP! YOU GOT IT, I WILL PASS with flying colors! I got two years to study!
> :smile::wink:


that' is complete crap. the burden is on Guy to explain why they made such a stupid rule in the first place. I am contemplating a suit against the USA over this crap because they constantly violate the AAPA with such nonsense. The BURDEN should be on the organization to tell US why we have to wait when some of us have been turning out good archers for decades. Its time to educate some people that rules have to have a rational reason behind them. There is a reason why the NRA is no longer the NGB for Olympic shooting and since I am rather familiar why this happened 20+ years ago I know why it happened. When an organization sees its membership as inconveniences, this sort of stuff happens.

This sort of nonsense has to be put to an end


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> That's because I never shot with him in L'ville. I didn't mention Glenn either. I shot with all the guys I mentioned, and not ever once heard any of them seriously complain about the location or angle of that bottom target. It's not what winners do, it's what whiners do.
> 
> As for your answer Liz, I was not impressed. If you cannot explain your reason for something, then there is no reason and it is completely arbitrary (i.e., too much trouble/work).
> 
> They don't want to have to answer the question as to why you, Jim, myself and others were granted a regional high performance coach certification years ago after learning directly from Lee himself, and somehow now it's not valid. How many years did he have to perfect his system before we attended that seminar? I mean, when you write "the book" on biomechanical shooting, shouldn't you have worked it out beforehand?


Yeah, I am wondering what will happen after he decides that NTS is just like BEST-an intermediate step on the way to Nirvana. What we have here is a detrimental reliance argument that people like John Liz and I should assert. *** should we have to be "re-certified" at 500 dollars etc after we have done it once. especially since all three of us are fully conversant at the "latest and greatest" technique. I was present four days at a recent USA camp when a Level IV NTS who actually coaches kids and knows what he is doing, did NTS and it took me all of a minute to see the difference between that and what John, Liz and I went through at CS and CV 8 years ago


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Jim C said:


> that' is complete crap. the burden is on Guy to explain why they made such a stupid rule in the first place. I am contemplating a suit against the USA over this crap because they constantly violate the AAPA with such nonsense. Its time to educate some people that rules have to have a rational reason behind them. There is a reason why the NRA is no longer the NGB for Olympic shooting and since I am rather familiar why this happened 20+ years ago.
> 
> This sort of nonsense has to be put to an end


Telling someone '2 years, no exceptions', without explaining the rationale, is demeaning. Most parents abandon this approach as soon as their children are able to reason.

If coach Lee feels it takes 2 years to acquire the skills to teach NTS as a level 4, he should make the case.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

midwayarcherywi said:


> Telling someone '2 years, no exceptions', without explaining the rationale, is demeaning. Most parents abandon this approach as soon as their children are able to reason.
> 
> If coach Lee feels it takes 2 years to acquire the skills to teach NTS as a level 4, he should make the case.


the thing that really grates my butt is that Liz has been teaching at a high level for more than a decade. We have an "elite" coach in our team and we teach as a team. and we continue to turn out good kids. this 2 year rule is the thing of small minds and is moronic. Liz has been a Level III "high performance" coach since 2006. when BEST was changed to NTS we have Steve Explain that and we modified things. 

and right now, someone can take Level III-do NOTHING for two years and that counts more than those of us who are coaching all the time. at least 500 hours a year minimum


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Maybe they could have something akin to the military. You can have 2 people with the same rank but 1 of them may have 1 service stripe (4years) and the other may have 4 service stripes. They may be the same rank but one definatly outranks the other.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Jim C said:


> and right now, someone can take Level III-do NOTHING for two years and that counts more than those of us who are coaching all the time. at least 500 hours a year minimum


I think that is really the crux of the problem. There is a presumption that somehow 2 years of time == insight into NTS, even without any intervening training or testing on NTS. That kind of simplistic metric may work ok for lower ranks where they don't have time or money for strict adjudication, but at the L4 level I'm not seeing the purpose to such arbitrariness. 

If their L4 NTS testing can't distinguish a good coach from a bad one (regardless of how long they've held an L3 or been coaching), from one who knows NTS from one who doesn't, then what good is it? The time constraint is artificial and not merit based since, as you point out, there is nothing other than time involved.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

If it were up to me, a L4 coach should have had to put at least one archer on a Jr. USAT or USAT team, or international team (ones that require trials events to qualify for), or should have had to earn their spot on one of those teams themselves. 

Also, if it were up to me we would have the letters "C" "R" or "B" after the Level designating for what discipline they have attained that level. Nobody will ever convince me that a top compound coach can automatically coach recurve archers, or vise versa. It's just not correct to assume that.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> If it were up to me, a L4 coach should have had to put at least one archer on a Jr. USAT or USAT team, or international team (ones that require trials events to qualify for), or should have had to earn their spot on one of those teams themselves.


Should that include the parents who've helped coach their kids? Should they be granted L4 status? I'm not disputing your suggestion, just exploring the shape of who it who and how it would determine to include. 



limbwalker said:


> Also, if it were up to me we would have the letters "C" "R" or "B" after the Level designating for what discipline they have attained that level. Nobody will ever convince me that a top compound coach can automatically coach recurve archers, or vise versa. It's just not correct to assume that.


That makes sense given your points about how coaches at that level should know the gear and tuning, etc., in addition to the shot cycles for those bows. But, the mental game aspects, would those be pretty much the same across all bow categories?

Also, which podiums would a L4 NTS - B need to put their student onto?


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> If it were up to me, a L4 coach should have had to put at least one archer on a Jr. USAT or USAT team, or international team (ones that require trials events to qualify for), or should have had to earn their spot on one of those teams themselves.
> 
> Also, if it were up to me we would have the letters "C" "R" or "B" after the Level designating for what discipline they have attained that level. Nobody will ever convince me that a top compound coach can automatically coach recurve archers, or vise versa. It's just not correct to assume that.


A few comments...

1) Even though I'm in agreement with Jim and Liz on their side of the argument, unfortunately society has gotten to where the perception is there that a certification is needed. 

In addition, certifications move and migrate after a while. In the IT world and using Microsoft as an example, just because you have an MCSE doesn't mean that your re-certification or maintenance of that cert will remain status quo with the classes/certs you've taken before. The certifying body has every right to change things as time goes on.

Does it mean that is is right? Not really. But if we want to remain pertinent within the sanctioning organization, then that means we need to follow the rules based in the organization.

2) I totally agree about the need for a coaching MQS. I have a personal view that one should not try and go for a Level 4 unless they have at least some kids (and not their own kid) at the level of a Bronze Olympian. 

There are some Level 4's that went out and got their level 4's because they want the certification to validate their own existence as a coach. They feel that it is a status symbol rather than having their status symbols be their students and their student's performance. Unfortunately, those level 4's complicate the coaching structure overall. 

3) With regards to the C/R designation - I also agree (to a point) with that as well. There are a lot of things that differ between Compound and Recurve. Things differ in the draw cycle slightly. You play the OR game differently - set system is a far different mental structure than cumulative score. Your coaching reflects that difference in tactics.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Beastmaster said:


> A few comments...
> 
> 1) Even though I'm in agreement with Jim and Liz on their side of the argument, unfortunately society has gotten to where the perception is there that a certification is needed.
> 
> ...


Since we took over the day to day operations of CJO we have had dozens of olympians, 8 or so gold olympians including several who were indoor/outdoor (the twins, Sean Curtin, and Noah Shedroff [also a gold olympiain in compound), and we have had kids who have won ever major USA event including NTC (when there were JOAD Divisions) , JOAD indoors, JOAD outdoors and the Indoor target) several world team members and Jr USAT and (something I don't think any other JOAD Club has had) a JOAD archer who also won the world senior Crossbow title. 

whatever we are doing is working.


----------



## Dave_Gilbert (Aug 28, 2012)

*Guy did give a reason*



midwayarcherywi said:


> Telling someone '2 years, no exceptions', without explaining the rationale, is demeaning.


I was at the meeting and Guy did give a rational for the rule. Guy said too many people were failing the L4 practical. It was felt that giving people a chance to use the system for a while (2 years) before taking the L4 practical would help them pass.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

Other than feeling insulted at having to wait the two years, as per the current rules, why is everyone so upset at this?

The people Involved are clearly confident in their coaching ability and with how hostile the sentiment is toward NTS, Lee, and the establishment of USA archery why do you care so much to be certified?

Clearly the JOAD club that is central to this thread is turning out great results and your reputations as coaches is established so why is the certification so vital and important to you?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Dave_Gilbert said:


> I was at the meeting and Guy did give a rational for the rule. Guy said too many people were failing the L4 practical. It was felt that giving people a chance to use the system for a while (2 years) before taking the L4 practical would help them pass.


If people are failing that suggests to ME that the problem is not with the candidates but rather the instructors. SOmeone pays all that money and takes time off work only to fail, and if that happens more than a few times, the PROBLEM is the teachers not the students. 

as to DACER's QUESTION

here is the deal

we bid on a USA camp. Our "elite" coach (the guy who learned archery from US and then went off to Chula to get certifications) asked us to bid on the camp and said he would run it. For reasons that are not relevant he was unable to make the camp. So we still had me-a level Four (I got this due to being a NFAA Master for 17 years and having a level III BEST/High Performance for 8 years), my wife-A level III since 2006 (same HP and BEST) and one Darrell Pace who I suspect would have a far easier time getting say a National coaching position than just about anyone running US archery's coaching today. But we were told SORRY, that isn't enough credentials-so they brought in a Level IV NTS from another city. Now I will be the first to say that the guy they brought in did an excellent job and he is a coach we know well since we are always at just about every shoot in Ohio together for the last 9 or so years

but that is the reason. USA is playing this credential game that really has no relevance to who can coach and who is turning out good archers. 

once again, if too many people are failing-the problem is not with the candidates.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Dave, 2 years are not required to pass the practical if that's the problem. A better understanding of the technique can be obtained in a day, if it's explained correctly. One of the (many) reasons I left the JDT in '07 is because the explanations were not good enough, and things were changing too much. There were lots of reasons for that, but had the method been more concrete and well explained, it would have been easier to follow as a coach. A coach that doesn't understand the L4 material won't benefit from a 2-year hiatus. They will simply forget what they were taught during that time, or come up with their own solutions while working with their students (which isn't necessarily a bad thing by the way).



> Should that include the parents who've helped coach their kids? Should they be granted L4 status?


That's not what I said. As part of the requirement, the candidate coach should have to prove competency, on the field of play. Not just in a classroom with a stretch band. They can either do this themselves as an archer, or by having coached competent archers. I call it a "reality check" because this is where the rubber meets the road.

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Dave_Gilbert said:


> I was at the meeting and Guy did give a rational for the rule. *Guy said too many people were failing the L4 practical. * It was felt that giving people a chance to use the system for a while (2 years) before taking the L4 practical would help them pass.


Or, in other words, the rule shouldn't apply to lizard because she already knows this stuff at a higher level and with more practical experience than most coaches and could pass the test right now.

This reminds me of the notice sent about locking knees. There was a problem with *some* people's rotation, but instead of directing a solution *at the people with the issue* USAA directed that henceforth all athletes should lock their knees, even if that means hyper extension (implied by the included exemplar photos). Here they've done the same thing. *Some* people were having problems passing the L4, so *everyone* has to wait 2 years before applying after they get their L3. 



limbwalker said:


> Dave, 2 years are not required to pass the practical if that's the problem. A better understanding of the technique can be obtained in a day, if it's explained correctly. One of the (many) reasons I left the JDT in '07 is because the explanations were not good enough, and things were changing too much. There were lots of reasons for that, but had the method been more concrete and well explained, it would have been easier to follow as a coach. A coach that doesn't understand the L4 material won't benefit from a 2-year hiatus. They will simply forget what they were taught during that time, or come up with their own solutions while working with their students (which isn't necessarily a bad thing by the way).


That is a real problem with all seminar-type instruction. People's heads are loaded up with information, then sent home for 2 years without any follow up to forget everything they learned. That is a recipe for low retention of information. Information taught like that leaks like a sieve, which is especially a problem for a system that is as complicated, nuanced and opaque as NTS. That isn't the way we teach archers (well, preferably not) and it isn't a good way to teach coaches.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

I wonder what will be done with all the "NTS" coaches when in a year or two-eh powers that be-decide that NTS goes the way of "BEST"

hmmm


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

One of the problems with the two year gap is the there is no pre-requisite for the level 4 other than the insufficient level 3 class. As John has alluded to, there is no "record of accomplishment" demonstration to enroll in the level 4 class. A year ago it was suggested to USA archery that level 4, as well as level 3, candidates had to apply and be admitted to the classes with their "body of work" as pre-requisites. If the body of work was insufficient, you had to wait. The problem with the two year wait is that it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to improve the pass rate of the level 4 candidates. It is simply arbitrary. And to add insult to injury you have people both willing and able to host camps but who don't have the correct number behind their name. Reminds me of Milton Freidman's essay on occupatinal licensing, where he suggests that the some licensing is designed by those in the club to keep others out.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TomB said:


> And to add insult to injury you have people both willing and able to host camps but who don't have the correct number behind their name. Reminds me of Milton Freidman's essay on occupatinal licensing, where he suggests that the some licensing is designed by those in the club to keep others out.


I'd say that it is a proven fact that many licensing schemes are created as barriers to entry to limit the number of participants. Barber and cosmetology licenses are a key case in point. In Arkansas, for example, if a person wants to do nothing but braid hair they are still required to have a full state cosmetology license, which requires 1,500 hours of study (none of which is about braiding), and pass two state exams. That's more instruction than required of an EMT, all just to braid hair. But at least they don't arbitrarily make you wait two years before you can take the tests... :embara:

So, I suppose, the L4 thing, other than the confessedly arbitrary wait time, is pretty easy by comparison. But, I wouldn't be surprised if an unstated reason for the arbitrary 2 year wait is to artificially limit the number of L4s. 

It could be worse, lizard, you could want to braid hair :mg:


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

TomB said:


> One of the problems with the two year gap is the there is no pre-requisite for the level 4 other than the insufficient level 3 class. As John has alluded to, there is no "record of accomplishment" demonstration to enroll in the level 4 class. A year ago it was suggested to USA archery that level 4, as well as level 3, candidates had to apply and be admitted to the classes with their "body of work" as pre-requisites. If the body of work was insufficient, you had to wait. The problem with the two year wait is that it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to improve the pass rate of the level 4 candidates. It is simply arbitrary. And to add insult to injury you have people both willing and able to host camps but who don't have the correct number behind their name. R*eminds me of Milton Freidman's essay on occupatinal licensing, where he suggests that the some licensing is designed by those in the club to keep others out.*




well I had a discussion with someone who is wise and he or she noted that the problem in the organization known as USA is there is a group that sees this organization as a way for them to make money and their interests are radically different than those of us who are NOT in it for the money. and people like me wonder why we should pay more and more just so we can be allowed to do what we have been doing well for years. and its because of what you said, certain members of the club want to restrict access so they can make money for their "services" when there are plenty of people out there who could or would provide the same services without the fees


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jim, I think money is only half the concern. I think control is just as important. Otherwise, they would simply allow coaches like myself or Liz to submit our body of work, pay the requisite fee, and obtain our certification. So it's not about the money per se, it's about controlling the message.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Jim, I think money is only half the concern. I think control is just as important. Otherwise, they would simply allow coaches like myself or Liz to submit our body of work, pay the requisite fee, and obtain our certification. So it's not about the money per se, it's about controlling the message.


yeah John, I think you make a excellent point yet again


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

I have been reading this thread, and have not commented on it for awhile, but, here is my rationale for why I put it up in the first place:
1) i think the two year rule is, indeed demeaning, especially if one has the desire, funds and time to do the class. 
2) If people are not passing WITH the 2 year waiting period then, there is something WRONG with the system. 
3) The no exceptions rule apply to who? Everyone or just a "few"? Rules are meant to be broken!
4) I wanted to get everyone's opinions on this, in hopes that "the powers that be" will see it and say "Hmmmm, maybe we should change this rule." They do troll on the line here you know!
5) THE Program changes every couple of years, and why, do you think that might be? Archery has been around for THOUSANDS of years! Form is form, what works for one may not work for another, but a base can be built on.
6) Some people miss the boat as to what I am saying...The FAIRNESS is not there, when a club such as ours has excelled beyond what most do, turning out JDT kids and world team kids, and RAs, why are THEY holding me back after 8 years of level 3, and 4 months of nts? "NTS is just locking your knees and rotating (or coiling) into the shot, for a more powerful shot. 
7) With the L4NTS should be, like JDT, accomplishments...what have you done for USArchery? Who have you sent us? What makes you so special? WHY do you want to become a level 4NTS?
All this begs the question, If I was a "Regional High Performance Coach" I have the certificates and the shirts to prove it, why am I not a similar coaching classification now? I'm right in the middle with a level 3 nts. Not HIGH (like I was regionally), not low, just a middle ground coach.
I was frustrated and mad when I posted this thread at first, and now that I see many of you are as well, let's see what happens! Discussions like this are always helpful in observing what others are thinking as well. Of course there are those who will stick their heads in the sand and not do anything. I don't mind making shots, as long as those shots land in the right target, if you get what I mean!
So, let's keep the discussion going and see what we get!
BTW, our son will be applying for JDT! He shot a qualifying score at NTS! :wink:


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Exactly, John. But why would they (I wonder if it comes from KSL or others) want to stymie someone who REALLY wants the knowledge? I guess books and studying videos or even watching the master (DOP) shoot, would be the best coaching credentials one could get! From watching a living legend, you can certainly LEARN A WHOLE LOT!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Liz, here's a practical question for you - and one that will apply for many coaches in the U.S. - if you have some of the nation's top coaches in your club, why then would you want Ian to go to JDT?


----------



## Ranger 50 (Mar 2, 2012)

Did I just log onto ice skating/gymnastic talk? Where are the the tv reaction shots of the parents/coaches/syncophants? Have you all really invested 8 pages and 3 months in this drivel? Rub some aloe vera on your egos and go enjoy the sport. Teach, learn or what ever.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> Liz, here's a practical question for you - and one that will apply for many coaches in the U.S. - if you have some of the nation's top coaches in your club, why then would you want Ian to go to JDT?


I've asked myself similar questions when I submitted Spencer's application to Compound JDT. The biggest one is it's great resume material.

It's also exposure...not that Spencer doesn't have a decent amount of exposure already, but it also helps.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

More eyes on him! He has grown up with all of us, and learning how to get through the times he may not feel like shooting, with games that you learn at JDT camps may help him. That is the main reason why John! Does that make sense? Plus one of our other archers is there and Ian might get to spend some time with the McLaughlin boys, and it's another feather in our cap, as a club! 
Plus it is the commeraderie of JDT. He knows a few of the kids on JDT, so why not! He's an only child and it is another chance to build relationships! It will not replace CJO it will augment the excellent coaching he gets here at home and at the club! THE BIGGEST REASON is because HE WANTS IT, finally!

?


limbwalker said:


> Liz, here's a practical question for you - and one that will apply for many coaches in the U.S. - if you have some of the nation's top coaches in your club, why then would you want Ian to go to JDT?


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Oh that's a rich comment there Ranger 50!
I'm just tired of all the bs and I wanted answers, which I really didn't get as to why the mandatory 2 years "NTS" coaching was so necessary. ALl I got was "Thems' the rules and they DON'T get broken" Sounds like BS to me, so I made a ripple in the pond of AT and I see I had a lot of people agreeing with me, and not the system.
Last I heard this is called a discussion, not a whining seession.



Ranger 50 said:


> Did I just log onto ice skating/gymnastic talk? Where are the the tv reaction shots of the parents/coaches/syncophants? Have you all really invested 8 pages and 3 months in this drivel? Rub some aloe vera on your egos and go enjoy the sport. Teach,learn or what ever.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

You make a ton of great points here! 

If I was too pay to go for level 4NTS, I would hope ALL the coaches teaching the class were onboard to make certain that everyone passed and understood the system. I think the NTS is a good system to BUILD on. Every person does not have the same physique, so things work differently for everyone's body type. As someone I know says, the MOST IMPORTANT thing in archery is Body Alignment! (Bio-mechanically Efficient Shooting! Biomechanics=body alignment for Efficient Shooting! WHY THAT changed is beyond me, because that phrase sums up archery coaching philosophy. I just had to add that here! 



Warbow said:


> Or, in other words, the rule shouldn't apply to lizard because she already knows this stuff at a higher level and with more practical experience than most coaches and could pass the test right now.
> 
> This reminds me of the notice sent about locking knees. There was a problem with *some* people's rotation, but instead of directing a solution *at the people with the issue* USAA directed that henceforth all athletes should lock their knees, even if that means hyper extension (implied by the included exemplar photos). Here they've done the same thing. *Some* people were having problems passing the L4, so *everyone* has to wait 2 years before applying after they get their L3.
> 
> ...


----------

