# 2012 is approaching. Are we ready?



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

A litte more than 24 months out. What do you think? Is team USA ready for another Olympic games?

I think Brady and Jake are. Jenny too. And you can never count Vic out.

Anyone else? Who will step up in 2012?

Will we qualify 3 women this time?


----------



## tigersdad (Jun 13, 2009)

*2012*

Limbwalker - be nice if there was another "dark horse" to make the team. Given all the talk of "what it takes" - great to see that creativity and persistance can also win the day without tons of cash being spent.

Interesting results from the Texas Shootout - Maybe Staten Holmes will make it along with Brady and Vic. He is not a dark horse per se, but he is not promoted much.

Steve


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

tigersdad said:


> Limbwalker - be nice if there was another "dark horse" to make the team. Given all the talk of "what it takes" - great to see that creativity and persistance can also win the day without tons of cash being spent.
> 
> Interesting results from the Texas Shootout - Maybe Staten Holmes will make it along with Brady and Vic. He is not a dark horse per se, but he is not promoted much.
> 
> Steve


He's also one of the classiest guys in archery


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Jim C said:


> He's also one of the classiest guys in archery


ditto. Wouldn't bet against Jacob Wukie either.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

TomB said:


> ditto. Wouldn't bet against Jacob Wukie either.


another great guy. He sure improved rapidly over the last few years. I'd never bet against Butch if he wants to make a team. I think a Legalism(being declared a professional by FITA) prevented him from making one of the teams with DP back in the 70s.


----------



## red_elan10 (Apr 23, 2008)

I wouldn't bet against Butch, either 

You are correct on that second point, Jim.


----------



## shooter10x (Nov 13, 2008)

*2012*

The experts are saying Tom Stanwood, Butch Johnson and Chris Yacino. I have to agree, although Chris Yacino is a longshot.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

shooter10x said:


> The experts are saying Tom Stanwood, Butch Johnson and Chris Yacino. I have to agree, although Chris Yacino is a longshot.


We have "experts?"

John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> We have "experts?"
> 
> John.


LOL

Proven contenders-Brady, Butch, Vic, Jacob (Jason M if he gets back into it)

Shooting well now, Jake, Thomas S, Anthony Don, Matt Zumbo

Two years from now? hard to say. Several good juniors such as Aaron, Matt Z, Daniel McLaughlin etc could be in the mix

Lots of things can happen in two years. I knew who Stephanie White Arnold was in 2002. How many people thought she was going to make the team two years later? How about John Magera? Who were the top guns in addition to those who made the team in 2002 and 2006?

Too early to really get all worked up now


----------



## shooter10x (Nov 13, 2008)

*2012*

Hey John, evething sounds better when you say "the experts". I am the longshot by the way. First I have to break 1200.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Too early to really get all worked up now


I would agree Jim, if we were sure to have three spots for both teams already. Not sure exactly how that process works, but USA will be needing some archers to step up and shoot well soon so we can send two full teams.

Anyone know when the team qualifying process begins?

John.


----------



## gairsz (Mar 6, 2008)

Jim C said:


> LOL
> 
> Proven contenders-Brady, Butch, Vic, Jacob (Jason M if he gets back into it)
> 
> ...


Matt is only a second year cadet, but thanks Jim for including him with the other very talented archers. By the way, Matt shot a 1294 adult fita in practice a few weeks ago training at the OTC. It was only practice, but it was a PB for him, out shooting his previous PB of 1287. Not bad for only shooting a recurve for about two and half years. Only time will tell if he can make the jump up to the big boys.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

gairsz said:


> Matt is only a second year cadet, but thanks Jim for including him with the other very talented archers. By the way, Matt shot a 1294 adult fita in practice a few weeks ago training at the OTC. It was only practice, but it was a PB for him, out shooting his previous PB of 1287. Not bad for only shooting a recurve for about two and half years. Only time will tell if he can make the jump up to the big boys.


2 years is a long time. plenty of time for a boy with talent to make it to the top. but I have seen other things happen to. 

all we have to go on is past performance which is why anyone who counts Butch Johnson out is clueless. You make 5 olympic teams that shows something. Sort of like betting against a guy who had just won two of the last three kentuck derbies!!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Agreed Jim. Butch will make the team if he wants to. There isn't a stronger mental game in the sport IMO.

I think we only have about a year and a few months to be "ready" since we need a top showing at the world championships to qualify spots for the Oly. games. That is job #1 at the moment. 

So while it may seem we have a couple of years yet, at least for the ladies, I don't think we do. We need to have 3 or 4 ready to go in a year.

Not trying to be negative here, but the fact that we did not even qualify a full group of ladies for Sr. USAT leaves me very concerned about the prospects for securing 3 Oly. spots a year from now. I must admit that I was shocked that this didn't happen in '08. Esp. since it looked like we had four solid, experienced women shooting internationally at the time - 3 of which had Olympic experience already.

A few of our female RA's have made great progress indeed. I hope it will be enough, but looking back to where we were in '06, it appeared that we would have been in good shape then too...

John.


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

John,

Do you think it matters how we choose a team now vs. the way it was done in the early days. ie Shooting two FITA's and taking the team from the top scorers over four days. Granted, there weren't elimination rounds until 1988, but even then, the process didn't change until 1992, and it seems to be adjusted every Olympics. The big question would have to be: Would the outcome still be the same no matter what the process? 

JC


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jason, I believe it would be. I don't think the process is all that important to be honest. The best recurve result we've had internationally since 2000 came with the shortest Oly. trials event. 

Many have criticized the process we used in '04 to select the team because two relative unknowns were able to make it as a result of a good (not great) week of shooting. Those critics may love to point out that neither U.S. team medaled, but what they won't mention is that the men's team still has the highest international finish at a World Championship or Olympic games in the past decade (since the '00 Sydney bronze won in a shoot-off), and the weakest shooter for the women's team round was NOT the least experienced archer. I think those facts illustrate that the process is not as important as some would like us to believe (although some selection processes certainly favor one group of archers over another), and that our nation's best archers manage to rise to the top regardless of the format. One look back at the past two year's worth of events (both indoor and outdoor and multiple formats each) show the same 4 or 5 archers at the top every time. 

The facts are that we only have about 4 truly internationally competitive male recurvers here in the U.S., and at the moment, only one female recurver (but arguably 2). A few more are making impressive progress. But at the moment, it's not enough to qualify two full teams.

I was thrilled to discover today that the U.S. men's team qualified 3rd at the World Cup event. Not really all that surprised though considering how well Brady and Jake have been shooting. But our ladies are still only 10th. The mixed double team of Brady and Jenny qualified 5th, which is very solid. Too bad that's not an Olympic event yet or I'd think we would have a solid chance at a medal with those two.

Somehow, someway and somewhere we have GOT to figure out how to find and train and support more world class female recurve archers. To me, this is a serious issue that I hope USArchery is taking a hard look at it. I see the entire U.S. Team as a full 6 competitive archers at every major international event, and anything less than that as unacceptable. So at the moment, I think our training programs and athlete support is only about 60% effective based on the results we've seen.

Some will take those comments personally, but they are not directed at anyone. Collectively, from the JOAD, 4-H and NASP ranks all the way up to the RA Program at the OTC, we all need to take responsibility for helping to find and train the next generation of Olympic archers - both men and women. And maybe now more than ever we need to be especially dilligent in our search for female recurve talent.

John.


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

John,

Mirroring my thoughts: no matter what process, the cream usually rises to the top. 

Thanks for the input!!

JC


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Based on today's results, it looks like the men's team is answering the question. They are ready. 

Unfortunately, we are not in the same position (once again) with the women. What is it going to take to have a competitive women's program? 

Why have they struggled so much?

I think these questions need to be asked and a solution found. And quick!

John.


----------



## Spots_N_Dots (Nov 10, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Unfortunately, we are not in the same position (once again) with the women. What is it going to take to have a competitive women's program?
> 
> Why have they struggled so much?
> 
> ...


Then you may like the solution the rumor mills have produced. How about some Korean women currently attempting to get US citizenship? :tomato:


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

Spots_N_Dots said:


> Then you may like the solution the rumor mills have produced. How about some Korean women currently attempting to get US citizenship? :tomato:


I guess if it's all about winning---whatever it takes.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Spots_N_Dots said:


> Then you may like the solution the rumor mills have produced. How about some Korean women currently attempting to get US citizenship? :tomato:


That could be the jump start we need. Bring home a medal with the mercenaries and perhaps the potential home grown girls out there will catch a spark. 

A secondary benefit will be taking apart the Korean 'shot'. Is it the technique? Is it the dedication? I suspect it is a little of both. Coach Kim's book, I imagine is very close to the Korean method, which BTW looks closer to 'T' form than BEST. This is just an observation. PLEASE, let's not get into BEST versus any other form.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

IIRC, we had a top Korean woman shooting very well here in the U.S. back in '02 or '03. I don't recall what happened to her.

I would not ever say that's a solution. Finding and recruiting better female athletes here in the U.S. and finding a better way to train them is the solution. 

It's pretty clear to me now after seeing the Australian women in '04 and the U.S. women since (sans Ms. Nichols) that have trained under a particular method that this method has it's shortcomings with female archers. Not exactly sure why that is, but statistics don't lie. Sooner or later, you have to face the music.

John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

midwayarcherywi said:


> That could be the jump start we need. Bring home a medal with the mercenaries and perhaps the potential home grown girls out there will catch a spark.
> 
> A secondary benefit will be taking apart the Korean 'shot'. Is it the technique? Is it the dedication? I suspect it is a little of both. Coach Kim's book, I imagine is very close to the Korean method, which BTW looks closer to 'T' form than BEST. This is just an observation. PLEASE, let's not get into BEST versus any other form.


This is not uncommon in other sports. At the last olympics a 15 year old American Pairs skater was skating for one of the former SSRs--she couldn't make the strong US team but she was good enough to skate for another country

I used to play tournament table tennis. China had tons of good-really good players. Many of them were developed as "training partners" for the top chinese players. After serving their time on the national teams they were released to go ply their trade in other nations. Our top players are usually chinese Immigrants. We also have a couple top players who came here from what used to be Yugoslavia (Jasna "Reed" and her ex husband Lilja Lupelesku) In fact our national rankings have for men

1) Yugoslavian
2) Chinese
3) Germany
4) China
5) US
6) US
7) Iran
8) China
9) China
10) Nigeria

For women

Top 6 are Chinese-the only US produced player in the top ten is Chinese American born overseas.

in other words, our olympic teams in table tennis or world teams almost always have someone who like Khatuna, has represented their birth nation in major tournaments before becoming eligible to represent the USA

I also note that the USA was a world top power in table tennis before any Chinese players started making it into the top rankings.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> IIRC, we had a top Korean woman shooting very well here in the U.S. back in '02 or '03. I don't recall what happened to her.


IIRC, she was driven to Mexico and dropped off. The discussion starts on this page:

http://margo.student.utwente.nl/cgi-bin/bb/bb.pl?sagibb&store=417


----------



## Spots_N_Dots (Nov 10, 2005)

Limbwalker seems to be pretty hard on the high performance program. That receives no comments? I would think John's bashing on the failures of the program, and in specific the women, would rub more than a few people the wrong way. interesting. I've had some fairly strong opinions, but you certainly carry some fascinating theories about what works and what doesn't.

Jim, do you honestly think "imports" could be an answer? Is that really what we need or want, or is it just the easy way out? I would even submit that any other archers coming into the states stand a good chance to eventually fail. Without complete financial support so that they may continue training at the pace of their home country, I think they might quickly find themselves without a place on the US team - even with a fully sponsored ride, and I am quite sure there would be some very loud rumblings from the US shooters. The Olympics may be what other countries governments are vested in, but the US government has absolutely no interest in supporting our athletes, just the bragging rights when they do well. 

"imports" are only an admission of failure by anyone promoting it IMHO. *IF* it were true, and *IF* it were the suggestion of anyone associated with the high performance team, there would need to be a change of the guard. Mind you, *I have no idea of the validity of this claim*, and I am *NOT* pointing fingers or suggesting anything. I still have not verified that this is even true. I certainly hope it is a bad rumor.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Limbwalker seems to be pretty hard on the high performance program. That receives no comments? I would think John's bashing on the failures of the program, and in specific the women, would rub more than a few people the wrong way. interesting. I've had some fairly strong opinions, but you certainly carry some fascinating theories about what works and what doesn't.


Ahh, another nameless poster. I'm shocked.

Spots, this is in your mind. Not reality. I am thrilled with the performance of Jake and Brady, and I have told them both as much personally a few weeks ago. And I credit coach Lee (combined with their work ethic) for the success. We need more like those two. 

But statistics don't lie, and the "high performance program" - if that's what you want to call it - simply has not produced a world class female archer yet. Out of many tries. In fact, Jenny (and Khatuna on her good days) are the only two world class female archers we've had for many, many years. As everyone knows, Jenny is not a product of the OTC, and Khatuna really isn't either. 

So please stick to the facts. If you want to disagree with the facts, then bring some of your own. And please don't use wins here in the U.S. to support an argument about an archery being ready for world class competition. You and I both know it doesn't work that way.

I won't be satisfied with the state of the women's program until we have 3 or more ladies fully capable of shooting 640+ on a double 70 on any given day. Right now, we have one. For as many years as I've been involved in this sport, we've had only one.

John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

TER said:


> IIRC, she was driven to Mexico and dropped off. The discussion starts on this page:
> 
> http://margo.student.utwente.nl/cgi-bin/bb/bb.pl?sagibb&store=417


There were some shenanigans afoot that probably aren't worth resurrecting.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Spots_N_Dots said:


> Limbwalker seems to be pretty hard on the high performance program. That receives no comments? I would think John's bashing on the failures of the program, and in specific the women, would rub more than a few people the wrong way. interesting. I've had some fairly strong opinions, but you certainly carry some fascinating theories about what works and what doesn't.
> 
> Jim, do you honestly think "imports" could be an answer? Is that really what we need or want, or is it just the easy way out? I would even submit that any other archers coming into the states stand a good chance to eventually fail. Without complete financial support so that they may continue training at the pace of their home country, I think they might quickly find themselves without a place on the US team - even with a fully sponsored ride, and I am quite sure there would be some very loud rumblings from the US shooters. The Olympics may be what other countries governments are vested in, but the US government has absolutely no interest in supporting our athletes, just the bragging rights when they do well.
> 
> "imports" are only an admission of failure by anyone promoting it IMHO. *IF* it were true, and *IF* it were the suggestion of anyone associated with the high performance team, there would need to be a change of the guard. Mind you, *I have no idea of the validity of this claim*, and I am *NOT* pointing fingers or suggesting anything. I still have not verified that this is even true. I certainly hope it is a bad rumor.




I don't support "imports". I am merely noting it is common in other countries and in some of our sports where we don't produce much in the way of talent though a Chinese-American girl is now one of the top cadet lady table tennis players in the world and mainly learned in the USA.

as to American archery I find it amazing that we still do as well as we do given the fact that it is maybe the 35th most important sport-in terms of financial backing and numbers. To Korea, perhaps only table tennis or tae kwan do is more important. 

We win medals in major archery tournaments. How many korean gold medalists are there in

Track and Field
Swimming
Basketball
Gymnastics

ie the glamor sports of the summer games

the fact is they realized that in "genetic talent" based sports they aren't going to compete against the USA or China or the Russians. We have too many 6-8 guys with 45" vertical jumps or people who come from ethnic groups with abnormal amounts of fast twitch muscles. So they invested in a sport that is more a discipline than one requiring pure physical talent.

If archery paid more than golf, Tiger woods and "lefty" would be winning Olympic gold medals in archery.


----------



## gairsz (Mar 6, 2008)

Check out the winner of the senior womens division at the Easton Cup.

http://www.fourteenforty.net/2010EastonCupResults_1_.pdf

It was very windy that day, so the scores are lower than normal. Check the other scores and you will see. My boy had a difficult tournament.

I was told that she is a 1380 shooter from Korea that has moved to the US. She is working on her citizenship so she can shoot for the USA in 2016.

Just passing on some info.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> from ethnic groups with abnormal amounts of fast twitch muscles


Careful Jim. Remember what happened to Jimmy the Greek? 

Gairsz, that's interesting. Makes me wonder how many Korean women there are named Park. Holy cow! Must be like Brown, Smith or Adams 'round here...

Yes, indeed the Korean revolution has begun. They are overtaking the LPGA as we sit here. And deservedly so. They work harder, have stronger mental games and appreciate the sport and the competition more than most. Good for them.

John.


----------



## Spots_N_Dots (Nov 10, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Ahh, another nameless poster. I'm shocked.


No comment.



limbwalker said:


> It's pretty clear to me now after seeing the Australian women in '04 and the U.S. women since (sans Ms. Nichols) that have trained under a particular method that this method has it's shortcomings with female archers. Not exactly sure why that is, but statistics don't lie. Sooner or later, you have to face the music.
> 
> John.


Directed toward Mr. Lee if you ask me - unless I have the "particular method" incorrect. I think you made yourself perfectly clear. Please correct me if I am wrong though. I would imagine there is probably a reason, but I doubt it is the method. 

What proof? Do you want me to point out how Brady was doing a couple years ago? Hot and cold until he had shot it enough - Look at him now. I'm not prepared to sell anyone short just yet. 

Oh, and it was called the High Performance Program the last I knew - this is not my connotation.



gairsz said:


> Check out the winner of the senior womens division at the Easton Cup.
> 
> http://www.fourteenforty.net/2010EastonCupResults_1_.pdf
> 
> ...


So is this moving from the rumor column to the fact column? Now there is a name attached to an archer at least.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Careful Jim. Remember what happened to Jimmy the Greek?
> 
> Gairsz, that's interesting. Makes me wonder how many Korean women there are named Park. Holy cow! Must be like Brown, Smith or Adams 'round here...
> 
> ...


LOL-yeah lots of us guys with swedish ethnicity are winning the sprints. The guy who taught me high level table tennis was on the Korean national team-he was the one who said this about the decision to push archery!


----------



## flungshui (Nov 3, 2009)

gairsz said:


> Check out the winner of the senior womens division at the Easton Cup.
> 
> http://www.fourteenforty.net/2010EastonCupResults_1_.pdf
> 
> ...


Sounds like Ms. Park shot in quite a wind storm. Approximately, how windy was it >20mph?

Not to question your integrity but where did you hear this? Did you speak directly to Ms. Park at the competition?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

flungshui said:


> Sounds like Ms. Park shot in quite a wind storm. Approximately, how windy was it >20mph?
> 
> Not to question your integrity but where did you hear this? Did you speak directly to Ms. Park at the competition?


We all know who Gary is. If he said it I tend to believe it


----------



## kid386 (Mar 3, 2009)

i shot easton cup, it was pretty windy compared to the weekend before at woodley. consistently windy is ok, and doable, consistently windy with all of a sudden gust not cool.


----------



## gairsz (Mar 6, 2008)

flungshui said:


> Sounds like Ms. Park shot in quite a wind storm. Approximately, how windy was it >20mph?
> 
> Not to question your integrity but where did you hear this? Did you speak directly to Ms. Park at the competition?


Hey smart guy, look at what Brady and Jake shot. A 661 for Brady is not his average. I guess it wasn't windy, Brady just had an off day.

Here is what I was told. She is a 1380 shooter that moved to the US from Korea, and she had spent the week before the Eason Cup training at the OTC learning coach Lee's Method. I asked if she would be shooting for the USA in 2012, and I was told that she has to wait three years for her citizenship and that she would compete in 2016. I can tell you there is no doubt in my mind that the statements are true. It doesn't matter who told me. What matters is that after one week she out shot RA's that have been doing the method for over a year.

I believe someone had made a comment that the method wasn’t working for women, we will just have to wait and see.

Thanks Jim for trusting my integrity.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> she had spent the week before the Eason Cup training at the OTC learning coach Lee's Method


In a week?!? Wow. A quick study she is... LOL! 

Nothing against you gairsz, just found that statement funny, that's all... 

I can tell you that I would be more than dissapointed if we were to find that the next world class female archer for the U.S. to be an import for the purpose of shooting competitively for this country. Esp. after all these years of training native-born U.S. women at the OTC. I would consider that a complete failure. A failure of the system they're being asked to learn, or a failure of the ability of U.S. women to learn it. Not sure which. But either way, it's something we all need to be concerned about IMO.

John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

gairsz said:


> Thanks Jim for trusting my integrity.


I trust someone I know over people who don't have much in the way of a profile.


----------



## gairsz (Mar 6, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> In a week?!? Wow. A quick study she is... LOL!
> 
> John.


I guess my point was, she is working on the new system, and she still won. I was told that she had been learning the back tension technique all week, and she still put them right in the middle at the OTC. I have heard many people say that when they switched to the best method their scores went down, and that it takes about year to develop the technique. Well, if that is the case, and Ms Park's scores are down, then the other women might be in trouble.

I know the kids at the OTC, and I would say that I am a fan of each and every one of them. If you raise the tide, all boats float higher. Maybe, if the game is raised in the US, then everyone benefits. I don't know.

I would like to add; Brady did a wonderful thing for USA Archery, and at lease for me, made me proud to be an American and part of USA Archery. A home grown champion. Who wouldn't be proud.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I know the kids at the OTC, and I would say that I am a fan of each and every one of them.


And me too. I want to see them be very, very successful. But we also have to be realistic and figure out what's going to give them the best opportunity too.

Yes, Brady did very well. Good for him. He's certainly earned it. Great stuff from a truly great archer. It will be fun to see what he does in the future.

John.


----------



## Shinigami3 (Oct 7, 2009)

Spots_N_Dots said:


> Limbwalker seems to be pretty hard on the high performance program. That receives no comments? I would think John's bashing on the failures of the program, and in specific the women, would rub more than a few people the wrong way. interesting.


It may simply be that the vast majority are just moving on and ignoring the car wreck... you know, kinda like how one walks past crazy homeless people in the street, with your eyes straight ahead...


----------



## azarcher300 (May 1, 2006)

*Medal*

Just a question: Can anyone tell me, when was the last time a US Female Recurve archer won any kind of individual medal in a world or olympic competition. We were discussing this the other day and maybe some of you might have the answer.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> It may simply be that the vast majority are just moving on and ignoring the car wreck...


Does this car wreck involve female archers? 

Yea, folks are going to criticize me for pointing out the obvious. Sure, that really accomplishes a lot. When you can't produce facts, just shoot the messenger...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

azarcher300 said:


> Just a question: Can anyone tell me, when was the last time a US Female Recurve archer won any kind of individual medal in a world or olympic competition. We were discussing this the other day and maybe some of you might have the answer.


Surely one of Jenny's indoor medals? Or were you thinking outdoor worlds and Oly. games (when all the countries show up...) ?

Before Jenny's indoor medal? I couldn't tell you. Not at an outdoor world champ's or Oly. games. Hopefully we aren't talking all the way back to '88 women's team? Has it been that long?

John.


----------



## azarcher300 (May 1, 2006)

*Medal*

Not talking team medals just individual womens recurve outdoor Olympic or World medal. It may go back to 1976 with Lu Ann Ryan


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Just off the top of my head – Denise Parker, Bronze at the World Target Championships in Switzerland in 1989. 

The Women’s team took a Bronze at the 1988 Olympics with Denise, Melanie Skillman, and Debra Ochs.

Luann Ryon won the 1976 Olympics and 1977 World Target. 

Judi Adams took a Silver or Bronze at the 1979 World Target. 

Irene Lorrenson took a Silver or Bronze at the 1975 World Target. 

As for our “new’ program. It really has not proven to be effective with our women but we should at least give it some time. After all, a couple of our men are just starting to give some results. However, I think you guys miss the point. I don’t think John is critical of the program other than those who support the program 100% want to squash other systems to make sure it is successful. This is NOT the American way. Well, maybe it is becoming the “new” American way. :thumbs_do


----------



## Spots_N_Dots (Nov 10, 2005)

John I sometimes wonder. Do you just want to alienate yourself? Keep it up.

Have you stopped to think that of the nearly 7 billion people in the world, exactly 2 get individual gold medals, and 6 get team medals every 4 years in archery? It's not like you can produce champions like socks. Perhaps you should ask where our world champions are. Why is Denise Parker now in business and no longer in archery? She's certainly not beyond her prime. Why do the tournaments that pay for placements, pay minuscule amounts to the womens division in comparison to the men? We all want success, but when it comes to support, the organizations hosting these shoots make it obvious that the men are more important. I don't blame Denise for leaving archery - under paid and under appreciated. As a country, if we want to hang our hat on the performance of women in archery, they too need something to hang their own hat on. 

This thread is just more proof of the disrespect.


----------



## azarcher300 (May 1, 2006)

*Medal*

You are correct Rick, Denise was the last US woman to win either a World or Olympic induvidual medal and the 1989 World. Over 20 years and counting.


----------



## Spots_N_Dots (Nov 10, 2005)

Rick McKinney said:


> As for our “new’ program. It really has not proven to be effective with our women but we should at least give it some time. After all, a couple of our men are just starting to give some results. However, I think you guys miss the point. I don’t think John is critical of the program other than those who support the program 100% want to squash other systems to make sure it is successful. This is NOT the American way. Well, maybe it is becoming the “new” American way. :thumbs_do


Rick, I didn't take this thread as being the standard "us vs. them" type of thread. I wouldn't condone pushing one method acceptance. That's why I'm glad that the world teams are being chosen from USAT and Rolling Rankings instead of the resident athlete program, as is the stipend program. If you've got it, bring it. Being an independent is more difficult though simply because they can afford to play the numbers game, but things are getting better for those participating independantly. Unfortunately, the independent archers have not been able to step up to the plate either. The fact still remains that those reaching the highest are being taught Coach Lee's method, although some of that is by default (he gets most of his students from picking the top archers, just as football coaches would). Is Easton now trying to build a competitive method in opening training centers? That could prove interesting.

Now, if the new American way is to import talent, we need a change and fast.


----------



## skybowman (Jan 31, 2004)

Spots_N_Dots said:


> John I sometimes wonder. Do you just want to alienate yourself? Keep it up.


What is this? Free exchange of ideas?


----------



## flungshui (Nov 3, 2009)

gairsz said:


> Hey smart guy, look at what Brady and Jake shot. A 661 for Brady is not his average. I guess it wasn't windy, Brady just had an off day.
> 
> Here is what I was told. She is a 1380 shooter that moved to the US from Korea, and she had spent the week before the Eason Cup training at the OTC learning coach Lee's Method. I asked if she would be shooting for the USA in 2012, and I was told that she has to wait three years for her citizenship and that she would compete in 2016. I can tell you there is no doubt in my mind that the statements are true. It doesn't matter who told me. What matters is that after one week she out shot RA's that have been doing the method for over a year.
> 
> ...


Sorry, not questioning your integrity but yours was the first we heard that it was very windy at the competition and some of us kids who didn’t go to the competition were just curious.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Spotsndots. I still don’t think John is as critical as some people read into it. After all, he spent a lot of time, money and effort learning the program. He does point out some of the weaknesses. This appears to be very wrong for those who are 100% supportive of the program. Anything negative about this program, even constructive criticism, gets attacked with a vengeance. I personally have concerns about the program, but it appears that things are settling down and we are back on track in trying to help our archers. Lee is learning the “American” way on how to deal with people here in the US and the program is looking better everyday. This may be due to Lee, it may be due to better qualified archers in the program, it may be due to Guy who does have world’s of knowledge on the program as an archer and now an administrator/coach. It could be that the new leadership with Denise has taken the program in the direction that most of us can deal with. It could be Sheri’s involvement in helping the coaching program become more accessible to ALL coaches and not just those who are willing to give up all of their own thoughts. I believe it is a combination of those mentioned above. We are finally on a far better track than we have been on since the early 1980’s. 

As for our women, it is not so easy. According to statistics collected by the ATA, archery in the US is still a “man’s” sport. There are 98% men and 2% women. That makes it very difficult to develop our women like our men. The money would be nice but it still takes drive and we only get those Luann’s, Denise’s and Jenny’s every other decade or so. I bet even the RA program has more men than women. This also puts tremendous amount of pressure on the women. The comments John made and others about our women have been going on for at least 30 years. We do have a lot of up and coming young women and I hope they rise to the occasion even if it takes until 2016. We just need to stay the course and encourage all groups to make the effort and not just put our eggs in one basket (so to speak). 

As for our international guests who are working to become a US Citizen. I hope we get lots of them. They will elevate our current archers to a higher level and that is good. They will still have to follow all procedures and requirements to be a “legal” citizen. I recall when Khatuna came to the US and how much resistance she met with female competitors and even some of the men. She did not qualify to be a US citizen during the first Olympics so she represented her native country Georgia. She had to deal with jealousy there as well. The heartache and grief this woman put up with was quite amazing. Now, for her to be one of our best and very respected archers is a tribute to all elite athletes who take their sport as a central focus to be the best is very moving. Others tried and failed. She stayed the course and succeeded. We need more of her as well. 

One final clarification Spotsndots. The World and Olympic Teams will be selected through independent trials tournament(s). Thus archers from all over the US will be able to try out for the team, which is as it should be and maybe that’s what you meant. I just want to clarify the issue.


----------



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

Spots_N_Dots said:


> John I sometimes wonder. Do you just want to alienate yourself? Keep it up.
> 
> Have you stopped to think that of the nearly 7 billion people in the world, exactly 2 get individual gold medals, and 6 get team medals every 4 years in archery? It's not like you can produce champions like socks. Perhaps you should ask where our world champions are. Why is Denise Parker now in business and no longer in archery? She's certainly not beyond her prime. Why do the tournaments that pay for placements, pay minuscule amounts to the womens division in comparison to the men? We all want success, but when it comes to support, the organizations hosting these shoots make it obvious that the men are more important. I don't blame Denise for leaving archery - under paid and under appreciated. As a country, if we want to hang our hat on the performance of women in archery, they too need something to hang their own hat on.
> 
> This thread is just more proof of the disrespect.


Spot's - I think you're missing the point... There are international events every year. World Cups every year...John is correctly drawing attention to the fact that the US women are not competing at a world class level - internationally. They're not winning in these regular international events, much less even being able to field a team at the Olympic level. And they haven't been for quite a while.

Denise no longer in archery??? She's CEO of US Archery. I think that counts as involvement. Maybe you just meant actively shooting competitively???

Regarding paying miniscule amounts to women...just look at tournament registrations. Men outnumber women competing in almost every division by close to 2-1 ratios, and in many tournaments by well over 2-1. Most tournaments get their prize money from entry fees, and sponsorship. The money will go to where it comes from. There is nothing unfair about that. Archery is a business in the USA. Albeit a small business.

Brian


----------



## archerymom2 (Mar 28, 2008)

Rick McKinney said:


> Spotsndots. I bet even the RA program has more men than women.


Of note is that there are lots more girls on JDT than boys. May take a while, but with hard work they'll hopefully move up to represent the US admirably! :teeth:


----------



## Spots_N_Dots (Nov 10, 2005)

gig'em 99 said:


> Spot's - I think you're missing the point... There are international events every year. World Cups every year...John is correctly drawing attention to the fact that the US women are not competing at a world class level - internationally. They're not winning in these regular international events, much less even being able to field a team at the Olympic level. And they haven't been for quite a while.
> 
> Denise no longer in archery??? She's CEO of US Archery. I think that counts as involvement. Maybe you just meant actively shooting competitively???
> 
> ...


Yes, I meant about Denise shooting. Why couldn't archery retain her as an athlete? I only pick her name because most will recognize it. No other reason. There are others who have been in only to immediately leave (men and women both).

I realize that John is correct that as a country we have not yet shown the performance internationally to finish regularly. That is unarguable. I do think however that it's not far from changing. There are a couple women that have done respectably off and on here in the US, and I'd never leave out anyone that is coming up. I understand it's not internationally, but the US is only a step on the ladder (again, I point out Brady's progress over the last couple years). What happens in the next year should tell the tale. As I said, I'm not ready to sell anyone out just yet.

Rick, this year those teams (according to the High Performance Plan) are being chosen from the JR USAT and the Rolling Rankings (although no USAT shoots for the seniors). That is at least a more open system than what last year was. A specific tournament selecting the archers wouldn't be bad, but I think the RR is a little more accessible to the masses, since they changed that to be more regional. The resident athletes still attend more of those shoots as a whole, but at least everyone can play.


----------



## Spots_N_Dots (Nov 10, 2005)

John, I have re-read this thread, and the first couple threads you posted I have no arguement with. Fair and accurate. It's after that where things start going south. 

I don't support a one-method-only acceptance, but I also don't have anything against the method that has been chosen by the NAA. I think it works, but there are problems there that need addressed (I've got my own ideas about this, but that's beside the point). At the same time, no one has stepped up to prove that they have a better solution. In any case, I'm not trying to pick a beef here with you. I just see some of the comments you made as quite abrasive to those attempting to resolve the very problem you first brought up - we need internationally competitive women.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Interestingly, when I was a young boy, our American Women were doing as well as our American men. There was a succession of world champions in the pre-olympic days and while some of our champions made money as professionals (the great Ann Clark comes to mind) those who shot as amateurs certainly weren't getting much of anything in terms of pay. In 1950 and 1952 American Jean Lee is world champion. in 1953, the previous year's silver medalist Jean Richards wins. 1957 US goes 1-2-3 and Carol Meinhart Ann Clark and Betty Schmidt sweep the medals. In 1958 a Swede wins ahead of Ann Corby (Hoyt) and Carole Meinhart. Ann wins in 59, Lucille Shine is third. In 1961 (now it is consistently every odd year for the tournament) Cincinnati's own Nancy Vonderheide (the only archer on the cover of sports illustrated btw) wins and in 63 she is runner up to Victoria Cook

In 1967 Poland sweeps the titles

in 1969 Doreen wilbur is second to a canadian-by then the strong RSA team of 65 I believe is banned due to apartheid. Olympics are on the horizon and the USSR is starting to field top archers and in 1971 a Russian beats Doreen (who wins the olympic gold medal in Munich the next year)

1973 Linda Meyers wins gold beating two russians

1975 Russians take 1-2 a korean is third

1977 Olympic Champ Luann Ryon wins Irene Daubenspeck of the uSA is third

1n 1979 A korean wins-Judi Adams is second

for the next several years its koreans and Soviets though China went 1-3 in 1987 sandwiching a Korean

In 1989 Denise is third in the games that the great Kim Soo Nyung wins (her first of two titles in a row)

Other than two time winner Natalia Valeeva of moldavia and later Italy, the rest of the titles are won by koreans

The source I have has Jenny Nichols in third in 2007-I believe that is wrong-she was fourth 

Now it shows that for the 50's and 60's the USA women were doing just as well as the men but when the Olympic games spurred other countries to develop archers, the USA's women faded much quicker than the men did. 

I spoke to people who were around in those glory days and the male to female ratio was pretty pronounced back then as well. There was no Title IX, no Columbia varsity women's team but I do know that many women's schools considered archery a proper sport for young ladies-which was not the case for stuff like soccer, basketball and track and field. My late mother (not much of an athlete) noted that she had archery classes in HS and later at Bryn Mawr. My late father who was an all-american soccer player, and a gold gloves finalist for the Navy noted that men didn't do archery back then so maybe that is an explanation. 

I close in noting that there are alot more men in the shooting sports than women yet our medal count in the olympics doesn't show that much disparity


----------



## azarcherymom (Jul 13, 2004)

World Cup Teams are selected from the rolling rank this year and last, although before the Olympics and World Championships, they used some of the World Cups as training for those that made those teams. Every World Championship team (6 total so far) that Brady has been on, used an open trials system to select the team. Same for the Olympics.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I can hardly speak sometimes for all the words that get put into my mouth here...



> This thread is just more proof of the disrespect.


I'm not sure who you think I'm being disrespectful to, but I can assure you my only intent is to express my dissapointment that our ladies' program is not making the progress - for whatever reason - that it could and should be. 

I have been a strong advocate for supporting our women's archery program for many years now. It didn't take long for me to see the disparity - in the level of competitiveness, in the level of support and the level of attention. The women just get overlooked too often IMO. Now, some of that is a product of the performances we've seen. I get that. But not all of it. I feel we need to address this issue, and the way you begin is by admitting we have a problem. 

What Jim said is very true -


> when I was a young boy, our American Women were doing as well as our American men


It seems that other countries have figured out how to train and support female archers but we have not. The level of women's competition worldwide has definitely outpaced the U.S. team at a rate faster than on the men's side. And we seemed to have figured out a way to turn that trend around on the men's side. I'm thrilled about that. But why are our women still so far behind? That's the question that we need to answer because we send TWO recurve teams to every international competition, not just one.

As I've said, I won't be happy until we have a group (not just one) of women that can consistently shoot in the 640's on a double-70M round at international events. I don't think that's asking too much.

John.


----------



## Archer N FL (May 5, 2010)

I am going to give it my best shot and i hope i can make it! We shall see.


----------



## profmom6 (Aug 25, 2008)

"A specific tournament selecting the archers wouldn't be bad, but I think the RR is a little more accessible to the masses, since they changed that to be more regional." 

Why does rolling ranking then include shoots that are not open to all such as the international competitions where we limited to 4 shooters per category?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Good luck Archer N FL. It doesn't matter who else believes in you as long as you believe in yourself. Trust me


----------



## Jake Kaminski (Mar 10, 2007)

Rolling ranking no longer counts in any shoot other then the domestic events. Once the international events roll off this year they will no longer be on the rankings. 

I personally think that the option to use the international scores should be there. Yes it makes selecting teams not be just from us shoots but if I can demonstrate that I can shoot higher scores in high priority situations or high pressure situations then the normal archer can during lower domestic events then I should be able to use that to my advantage. What other sport in the world handicaps the guys who are at the top and forcefully brings them on the same level without any advantage as a backyard competitior. The sacrifices that a shooter makes to train day in and day out should get an advantage over a person who doesn't makehe sacrifices. When I travel to events that I train every day for I lose several days of training that I could have gotten if I didn't travel to the event. But now it's almost that I get penalized for traveling to world cups or like events that I am selected to be on. I have to make a choice between rolling ranking or experience that is a stressor that would never be put on a 'professional' in any other sport. 




profmom6 said:


> "A specific tournament selecting the archers wouldn't be bad, but I think the RR is a little more accessible to the masses, since they changed that to be more regional."
> 
> Why does rolling ranking then include shoots that are not open to all such as the international competitions where we limited to 4 shooters per category?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Jake Kaminski said:


> Rolling ranking no longer counts in any shoot other then the domestic events. Once the international events roll off this year they will no longer be on the rankings.
> 
> I personally think that the option to use the international scores should be there. Yes it makes selecting teams not be just from us shoots but if I can demonstrate that I can shoot higher scores in high priority situations or high pressure situations then the normal archer can during lower domestic events then I should be able to use that to my advantage. What other sport in the world handicaps the guys who are at the top and forcefully brings them on the same level without any advantage as a backyard competitior. The sacrifices that a shooter makes to train day in and day out should get an advantage over a person who doesn't makehe sacrifices. When I travel to events that I train every day for I lose several days of training that I could have gotten if I didn't travel to the event. But now it's almost that I get penalized for traveling to world cups or like events that I am selected to be on. I have to make a choice between rolling ranking or experience that is a stressor that would never be put on a 'professional' in any other sport.



The first part of your statement makes much sense-if you can shoot high scores at World Cups or WC's that should be taken into account.


I note from my days as a skeet shooter that the All America team selections (somewhat equivalent to making USAT though the NSSA doesn't field international teams) heavily weighted placements at the biggest shoots (and big shoots were ones that had the largest number of AA/AAA shooters).


----------



## TGStan (Dec 30, 2008)

Strong performances at big events certainly are commendable, but I don't think international shoots should count towards domestic ranking. I also disagree with the notion that people who aren’t fortunate enough to have the opportunity to train all day every day are not making sacrifices. To me training every day sounds like a luxury, not a sacrifice; but I suppose we all have different priorities that shape our perspective 

Allowing international events to count helps entrench the few who are able to attend, if for no other reason than by the sheer number of events they get to drop. The self-funded “backyard competitor” is already at a disadvantage; a job, school, or both, can place extreme financial and time restraints on an individual, thereby limiting training time and the number of available domestic events for ranking. If international events count towards domestic ranking, a top ranked/funded/professional archer could have up to three times as many events to rank from. It seems as though this would necessarily beg the question “why bother?” from some shooters, ultimately diminishing attendance at events, the pool of potential candidates for world teams, etc., or even general involvement in the sport. Moreover, it diminishes the importance of our “major” domestic events. Besides, if a shooter can shoot a high average at a major international event, why can’t they simply shoot a _higher _average at a lower domestic event? 

Inclusion of international events would seem to weigh a far greater burden on the independent shooter than their exclusion is a hindrance to top ranked archers. I just don’t see it as handicapping top shooters, many of whom are already afforded outstanding opportunities and advantages. That's not to say that our top shooters don't work hard, becasue I know they do, and they deserve the respect and results they have earned as a result.

Just a thought.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Looks like we have two well reasoned articulate positions from people whose opinions ought to be carefully considered. Bravo:smile:


----------



## Spots_N_Dots (Nov 10, 2005)

profmom6 said:


> Why does rolling ranking then include shoots that are not open to all such as the international competitions where we limited to 4 shooters per category?


But your RR is chosen from your best 3 tournaments, which we all have a chance to attend and preform. True, the resident athletes seem to have a bigger budget than most, as they attend more, but if you can put up the scores, that doesn't matter. That includes the international tournaments.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Jake and TGStan, very well put. I agree with both of you! :shade: Jake I am surprised to see you use the word “sacrifice”. Sacrifice is a word hardly ever used by an elite athlete. Most elite’s are training by choice and drive. A sacrifice is giving up something they really want for something else. For instance giving up practice to take your younger brother to school or helping out a friend and giving up time from training to do so. However, times are a changing. 

The athlete’s committee have discussed these very issues about rewarding archers at World Cup events, World Championships, etc. However, the committee agreed that they should not be rewarded just for the sake of being there. It was the opinion of many of the committee members to reward those who performed well at a major international event. But it had to be an event that required a trial tournament to make, so everyone had an equal opportunity to participate in and become a team member. Also, the reward would be for performing high enough to deserve it, say like placing in the top three or so. These bonus points would be very minimal but at least it would be well deserved. The committee felt that if a group of archers were “chosen” via being an RA, USAT team member, financial or other reasons, this would be an unfair advantage. Thus, no extra points awarded. 

I do hope the USAA continues to require World and Olympic events selection by trials so everyone has an opportunity to try out at one event or two (which ever) but the trails event puts enough pressure on all archers equally thus you have to prove yourself to be worthy of representing the USA at these World’s and Olympics. Having been in Jake’s shoes, it does get frustrating to have to prove yourself over and over again, but believe it or not, that is exactly what you are doing when you go to a World Championship or Olympics (over and over again….). We are trying to find out who is the best archer at one moment in time, thus at that moment you have to prove you truly are worthy of going to these events. By the way…it does make you tougher.


----------



## Jake Kaminski (Mar 10, 2007)

Tg stan- the people who can't train every day and see shooting every day as a luxury; well I am basically putting off school and work and family to shoot. Yes Rick this is my choice and ultimately it's what I want to do but the people who see me as having a large advantage don't realize I am taking away from the other parts of my future life. I can't really get a job or go to school to bulild on my future. Yes I could do small things here and there but if I do not give it my all I will regret not having done so in the future. Lots of people arond me put it is making large sacrifices. I am putting my life on hold to try to get an advantage. I want to do the best I can and am takin the steps to do it. It is my choice but people don't realize what I am giving up in order to do what I am and it feels like it's taken away. I don't even realize what I am giving up but some people say I will have a rude awakeing when it is all said and done. 

Other sports commend people for their efforts I sometimes feel as if I get shuned for it


----------



## Shinigami3 (Oct 7, 2009)

Jake,

Remember one of the keys to a good mental game is to be careful what you think about and WHO YOU TALK TO. Be careful not to get caught up in discussions with people whose true motivations may be a mystery... they may not have your best interests at heart.


----------



## BobCo19-65 (Sep 4, 2009)

_"A sacrifice is giving up something they really want for something else. For instance giving up practice to take your younger brother to school or helping out a friend and giving up time from training to do so."_

Maybe I miss read (I sometimes do :smile, but wasn't a sacrifice that Jake mentioned in attending International Events is that he is missing important practice opportunities (days) which may have helped him gain higher domestic rankings then the experience of actual International Event?


----------



## Jake Kaminski (Mar 10, 2007)

Trust me I have long learned to ignore some thoughts. I just sometmes feel as if the other side is heard far too often. 


I know I have one of the strongest mental attitutes out there thanks anyhow


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Jake. As I said, I walked in your shoes. I put off college until 26. I was 47 when I received my MBA. I was told similar “jealous” comments about what I will pay for in the future for just shooting. I also had guys complain that they had families and jobs and it was unfair that I and others were mainly just training. We were loved and hated as you probably are right now. Do I regret my efforts? Not one bit. What you are experiencing right now is far greater than most people will ever recognize or even realize and I salute you, Brady, Vic, Kristen and all the others out there who have a passion to focus on that one dream. There is one commonality with you elite archers and that is you are not common. You are exceptional and find ways to live as normal a life as you can while pursuing your dream. You are an over achiever that requires more than just average accomplishments and normally you are your biggest critic and task master. That’s why you are where you are and why many others only wish they can be there. Obviously you don’t sweat the small stuff and I am glad about that. Keep up the good work and don’t just make the team, win it all! Of course, archers like Brady and Vic might want to fight you for it! 

BobCo19-65. It is probably just me. I hate the word sacrifice. I never heard it come out of any champion’s mouth. And yes, I want Jake to be a Champion.


----------



## Jake Kaminski (Mar 10, 2007)

Thanks Rick I knew what you meant just wanted to clarify why I used the word. Haha


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Shinigami3 said:


> Jake,
> 
> Remember one of the keys to a good mental game is to be careful what you think about and WHO YOU TALK TO. Be careful not to get caught up in discussions with people whose true motivations may be a mystery... they may not have your best interests at heart.


LOL or with people who hide their identity on a chat board where the people with the highest standing don't hide who they are.


----------



## Shinigami3 (Oct 7, 2009)

Get over it Jim. People on my friends list here can see my complete profile. 

Quit playing playground bully. It's getting old.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Shinigami3 said:


> Get over it Jim. People on my friends list here can see my complete profile.
> 
> Quit playing playground bully. It's getting old.



Shinigami3 has not made any friends yet 


I don't have use for blank profiles. Nothing personal. Its been my position for years. especially blank profiles who snipe at people who don't hide who they are. If John Magera, Rick McKinney, Vittorio Frangilli, and Jake Kaminski don't hide, trust me, you aren't important enough to


----------



## DariusXV (Feb 18, 2009)

Jim,

I really like you and your posts but I can't believe you just typed that.

Wow.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

DariusXV said:


> Jim,
> 
> I really like you and your posts but I can't believe you just typed that.
> 
> Wow.


why? that guy has sniped at people who don't hide who they are and who are well respected, not only on this board, but internationally. What is he worried about?

I quoted what was on his profile (which is basically blank)--"Shinagami3 has not made any friends yet".


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Just to help to understand how many top level archers one country can generate in 10 years, pls note following numbers from Italy:

Number of >1300 men recurve archers 2000-2009: 25 
Number of >1300 men recurve archers in 2009: 10 
Number of >1300 women recurve archers 2000-2009:11 
Number of >1300 women recurve archers in 2009: 5

Number of registerd archers in FITARCo in 2000: approx. 16000
Number of registerd archers in FITARCO in 2009: approx. 19000
Average yearly rate of archers not renewing registration: approx. 25%
Number of Men to women recurve rate in Fita rounds in 2009 (all ages): 879/296 or very colse to 3 to 1
Number of Clubs in Italy in 2009 : >500

These are simple numbers, from were you can draw conclusions as you prefer. 
The analisys form club's of origin point of view can clearly show that some clubs are better than others in producing top level archers. For instance, in this rank, one club has made 5 over 35 , two others have made 3 over 25 and all others archers have been 1 only from each club. It means that in 10 years 27 different clubs only have produced at least 1 >1300 archer. 
My conclusion is that the Italian system is NOT efficient in producing top level archers, but surely in some specific realities the system is more productive than in others.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

I'll vouch for Matt & Gary Zumbo also. Nice people.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Not sure how this became a thread about "fairness" and rolling rank... But hey...



> The sacrifices that a shooter makes to train day in and day out should get an advantage over a person who doesn't makehe sacrifices


Jake, we all make choices. Some choices are more visible than others. But anyone who has reached a high level in any sport has put in their time one way or the other. In my own case, very very few people ever saw the time I put in or ever considered the collective experiences I had that allowed me to achieve certain goals. My wife and kids could tell you stories... 

Anyway, the question is whether we will be ready. I am more confident right now than ever that our men's program is ready. I am VERY encouraged by the progress I've seen in quite a few of the men's recurvers lately. And not just the OTC archers either. The whole level has been raised since when I was shooting. I went back and did the math, and while my rolling rank average in '04 was good enough for 4th in the U.S. at the end of 2004, it would only get me to 9th this year. Now, weather and other conditions make every year different, but there's no question that's progress. The difference? Clearly some new talent and a successful training program for the men's recurvers. 

So, we now have three of four U.S. archery teams looking very good and internationally competitive. My question is what's it going to take to get four of four? It really does surprise me that there has been so little discussion about the lack of progress with our women. Maybe some are afraid that that level of scrutiny would appear as criticism. I can assure you that at least from me, it is not. I think the world of Jenny, Khatuna, Kristin, Heather, Karen, Lindsay and all the other young ladies that have committed themselves to achieving internationally elite status. They should all be very proud of themselves. But there must be some reason we cannot get over the hump here. And we need to find it quick because we are running out of time to qualify two full teams for the 2012 games. 


John.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> .........They should all be very proud of themselves. But there must be some reason we cannot get over the hump here. And we need to find it quick because we are running out of time to qualify two full teams for the 2012 games.
> John.


A top level archer is made by a combinations of factors were dedication and will are just two of them. Natural talent is definitely the most important factor. I have seen thousands of archers that were dedicating all available hours of their life to training with the help sometime of very professional coaches, not progressing at all, and I have coached some tens of them in these situation.
Then I have been lucky enough to coach a small number archers were progression was surely helped by their committment, but also by the mentioned talent. And with same dedication from the coach and same available time, results have been totally different. 
Any national archery program anywere (Italy included) is based on a small number of archers first selected among those that are already performing at a reasonable level and show to be dedicated to archery, and then they are given to pro-coaches that are supposed to change them up to a much highter level. This is a normal process of selection, but after one or two years you will find that some few have progressed and others have not. Apart from the quality of the coach, then is the talent of the archer that dominates the progression. They have it or they don't, no matter. 
In women, numbers are much smaller than in men, so probability to find those magic archers among those girls you pre-select are in proportion (have a look to my numbers about Italy on my previous post) ... 

John, is not a matter of shooting technique more suitable to men than to women. For sure this factor exists, but is not the dominant one. A champion will ever progress, and if he is going to be a champion, he will change his form or follow his way based on his feeling. Is simply a matter to have the hidden misterious chromosome of the archery champion since the birth. Natalia Valeeva surely has it. Very few other girls have it, in the world.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Vittorio said:


> A top level archer is made by a combinations of factors were dedication and will are just two of them. Natural talent is definitely the most important factor. I have seen thousands of archers that were dedicating all available hours of their life to training with the help sometime of very professional coaches, not progressing at all, and I have coached some tens of them in these situation.
> Then I have been lucky enough to coach a small number archers were progression was surely helped by their committment, but also by the mentioned talent. And with same dedication from the coach and same available time, results have been totally different.
> Any national archery program anywere (Italy included) is based on a small number of archers first selected among those that are already performing at a reasonable level and show to be dedicated to archery, and then they are given to pro-coaches that are supposed to change them up to a much highter level. This is a normal process of selection, but after one or two years you will find that some few have progressed and others have not. Apart from the quality of the coach, then is the talent of the archer that dominates the progression. They have it or they don't, no matter.
> In women, numbers are much smaller than in men, so probability to find those magic archers among those girls you pre-select are in proportion (have a look to my numbers about Italy on my previous post) ...
> ...


So the question is, 
"Is the USA proactively seeking, encouraging and supporting in such a way that those that "have it" come out and play in a sustainable long term fashion?


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Serious Fun said:


> So the question is,
> "Is the USA proactively seeking, encouraging and supporting in such a way that those that "have it" come out and play in a sustainable long term fashion?


Bob, I don't think we are now, but maybe it is beginning. I was fortunate enough to spend part of last week in Houston with Dee Falks and some very fine folks from the ATA and Texas Parks and Wildlife doing basic and intermediate archer courses for the Houston Parks and Recreation department. They want to introduce archery into their program. I was overwhelmed that Houston has 58 recreational sports centers in the city. As we walked though the hall where we had the course the trophy case was a "who's who" of Houston sports from Clyde Drexler to Carl Lewis. I watched the skill set of some of the kids playing basketball in that gym. It was amazing. If we just sport swapped with those kids who sustain knee or ankle injuries that prevented them from competing in their "speed" sports and taught them to shoot, how many of them might have the talent and passion determinants that Vittorio talked about? There is the talent pool to draw from. They know how to compete. They know how to train. We just have to teach them shoot. Anyway, active programs that go and recruit is what it is going to take.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Bob, excellent question. And thanks for the insight Vittorio. I think you make some excellent points I may not have fully considered. It could be as simple as the statistics have not been in our favor. However, we don't seem to have the problem in women's compound archery. But I suspect we won't be at the top in that division much longer without some added focus there too.

Tom, that's very exciting. I wish I had the time to go with you to do these things right now. Someday...! 

John.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> On the women’s side, Resident Athlete Kristin Braun shot a strong 643 to qualify 10th, followed by Nichols in 16th with a 633, and Heather Koehl, who qualified 18th with her score of 624.


Some promising scores there ladies! Nice work.

Hopefully the answer to my question is starting to take shape. Let's hope these three can qualify a full team for us next year...

John


----------

