# New National Ranking System & Intl Selection Criteria



## PDS-JOAD (Jun 1, 2009)

USA Archery has recently posted detailed information explaining the new National Ranking System (NRS) as well as proposed International Team Selection procedures for 2011. All members are encouraged to review this important information. 

http://usarchery.org/news/2010/11/0...tional-team-selection-procedures-posted/39389


----------



## archerymom2 (Mar 28, 2008)

Interesting! From what I can tell, the main differences are... 1) if you are eliminated in ORs, your arrow average on your losing match determines placement among all who were eliminated at that level, 2) it would now be nationals plus your top 3 (rather than 2) other finishes among the qualifying tournaments, and 3) you get bonus points for a good performance at major international tournaments. There are some other differences too, but those seem like the biggest on quick read. 

Does anyone know whether the same is being proposed for Jr. ranking as well?


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 19, 2006)

Read through the proposed selection procedure for the world team...Apparently no one has work to worry about...two day FITA's, ORs, and then Round Robins, plus practice day, and if the flights aren't cooperating, two days spent on airplanes. Seven days per event (two required) to try for the world team next year. Somewhere that has got to be unreasonable. What happened to the idea of a one day FITA, Round Robin the next day and then we all go home?


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

I don't see the benifits, unless it is to be used in place of the current USAT ranking system only:

First, the rolling ranking of today doesn't measure the archers placement, just their ability. Attendance or not, your ability to score is just that. If this is to be used in rolling ranking as well, nearly every tournament will undoubtedly be attended. Giving up that finish for anyone but the top archer will pose a threat to a persons position in the rankings.

Both of the ranking systems had their +'s and -'s. This may have solved some of the USAT ranking issues, but has turned the rolling rankings upside down if it is to be used as such. If they pin one particular tournament to the rolling ranking, it will totally kill the live ranking system of the rolling rankings.


----------



## Jake Kaminski (Mar 10, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> Read through the proposed selection procedure for the world team...Apparently no one has work to worry about...two day FITA's, ORs, and then Round Robins, plus practice day, and if the flights aren't cooperating, two days spent on airplanes. Seven days per event (two required) to try for the world team next year. Somewhere that has got to be unreasonable. What happened to the idea of a one day FITA, Round Robin the next day and then we all go home?


The proposed selection process will pick the best athletes for this country, not someone who shoots out of their mind on just two days of shooting, instead its a total of 6 days.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 19, 2006)

Jake, how many times has a two day FITA resulted in a surprise on day 2? I really don't care if the events are held twice, I agree it gives more consistancy to the selection process. However, I do object that some of us can't take off for two weeks. It's a lot easier to explain that I'm leaving thursday night, be back by monday morning, than explain that I'm leaving sometime tuesday, be back on monday, and hey, doing the same thing next month. A one day FITA, with the round robin gives the exact same results as a two day FITA, with a round robin on the last day. It saves some athletes the burden of having to pay for extra time in the hotel, time away from jobs and education for high school and university students, and if they happen to have the ability to make the team, then they can demonstrate it.

No matter what, it's still 144 ranking arrows, 7 round robin matches. The only difference is that it may not be picking the best in the country, just the ones who can afford it.


----------



## Shinigami3 (Oct 7, 2009)

I don't see Jake or Brady whining that they have to take time off work, because guess what? Representing the USA IS their work. It is what they have chosen to do. It's a choice open to anyone willing to make the sacrifices and commitment.

Don't complain if the process passes you by because of the choices you make. This isn't Clayton Shenk's garage anymore...


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Shinigami3 said:


> I don't see Jake or Brady whining that they have to take time off work, because guess what? Representing the USA IS their work. It is what they have chosen to do. It's a choice open to anyone willing to make the sacrifices and commitment.
> 
> Don't complain if the process passes you by because of the choices you make. This isn't Clayton Shenk's garage anymore...


and who are you btw? Jake and Dakota we know and both are well respected


----------



## Jake Kaminski (Mar 10, 2007)

Shinigami3 said:


> I don't see Jake or Brady whining that they have to take time off work, because guess what? Representing the USA IS their work. It is what they have chosen to do. It's a choice open to anyone willing to make the sacrifices and commitment.
> 
> Don't complain if the process passes you by because of the choices you make. This isn't Clayton Shenk's garage anymore...


Thank you, That pretty much sums it up.


----------



## azarcherymom (Jul 13, 2004)

The discussion previously was WTT would take place during a USAT event. It was my understanding that the USOC wanted Trials events to be more uniform. World Championships are HUGE in 2011. It is how we will get our spots for the Olympics. It is imperative that we field a team that is capable of qualifying a whole team for the Olympics at Worlds. The opportunity to do so after Worlds will be slim to none. So if that's what it takes to send the best possible team, so be it. My only concern is that I wish they were doing it closer together. Whoever makes the team will have no International shoot to go to before Worlds. It is always nice to have some pressure experience together, when so much is on the line. Just my opinion.


----------



## Jurasic Archer (May 23, 2002)

I struggle with this and this is why. One of the many things that is truly great about being an American is opportunity. I firmly belive that opportunity has been how we have been able to get our best out of the back yard and into competition toe to toe with the very best the sport has to offer. I believe that opportunity is powerful and has allowed our citizens to have the best position when it comes to the highest levels of competition. They gutted it out to get there and then get to gut it out in the competition. With opportunity feeding the fire, we have pulled out a winner on numerous occasions. 
By going to this system, we are eliminating opportunity and instead relying on those that have chosen to dedicate themselves. I have watched many great archers over the years that have dedicated themselves, and have never come out on top. For this reason I believe that it is not the dedication that separates us, because I promise every country has dedication. 
Not every country has opportunity though and I don't care if it is only for a week or two, it only takes a week or two to win the Olympics. Opportunity works both ways, you have the opportunity to win and to lose. In that way it works both sides of the field. Those on top and those on the bottom. Thats the way it is when you get to event you are trying to win isn't it? I promise, nobody gets to the highest level without dedication, so let the opportunity breed that dedication. Without the opportunity, it is not the same and fewer choose to become dedicated. This will reduce the size of the pool to choose from and I believe that is the wrong direction to go. It will make finding that diamond in the rough much more difficult to find. No matter what the circumstance, that diamond in the rough still has to go toe to toe with the best and be better. If you win it should be worth something, you earned it. 
I am proud to be an American and have always been proud of the American way win, lose, or draw! Sorry to rant, I struggle with the thought that the kids I am working with today not having the oppurtunity I had and will instead stay in the back yard because of it. I tip my hat to all that are visibly dedicated, but also to all those that are hidden in background we don't even know about until they get their chance to shine.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Jurasic Archer said:


> I struggle with this and this is why. One of the many things that is truly great about being an American is opportunity. I firmly belive that opportunity has been how we have been able to get our best out of the back yard and into competition toe to toe with the very best the sport has to offer. I believe that opportunity is powerful and has allowed our citizens to have the best position when it comes to the highest levels of competition. They gutted it out to get there and then get to gut it out in the competition. With opportunity feeding the fire, we have pulled out a winner on numerous occasions.
> By going to this system, we are eliminating opportunity and instead relying on those that have chosen to dedicate themselves. I have watched many great archers over the years that have dedicated themselves, and have never come out on top. For this reason I believe that it is not the dedication that separates us, because I promise every country has dedication.
> Not every country has opportunity though and I don't care if it is only for a week or two, it only takes a week or two to win the Olympics. Opportunity works both ways, you have the opportunity to win and to lose. In that way it works both sides of the field. Those on top and those on the bottom. Thats the way it is when you get to event you are trying to win isn't it? I promise, nobody gets to the highest level without dedication, so let the opportunity breed that dedication. Without the opportunity, it is not the same and fewer choose to become dedicated. This will reduce the size of the pool to choose from and I believe that is the wrong direction to go. It will make finding that diamond in the rough much more difficult to find. No matter what the circumstance, that diamond in the rough still has to go toe to toe with the best and be better. If you win it should be worth something, you earned it.
> I am proud to be an American and have always been proud of the American way win, lose, or draw! Sorry to rant, I struggle with the thought that the kids I am working with today not having the oppurtunity I had and will instead stay in the back yard because of it. I tip my hat to all that are visibly dedicated, but also to all those that are hidden in background we don't even know about until they get their chance to shine.


Mike, very well said but alas I think we are in the minority. A zero sum game seems to be the way of the future. Jim Lovell said we would never have reached the moon without the Russians pushing us. The current approach will hurt us in the long term. We will discourage the exceptional high school or college student or the archer that has to work for a living to afford his passion.


----------



## Jurasic Archer (May 23, 2002)

There comes a time when our dedicated need to become working class or start familes. Those same people that have been proven in international competition. I say let them stay in there and fight until the new dedicated generation pushes them up or out. Don't drive them out by making it impossible to have a job, family and be a top competitor too. I know we are not talking about our compound guys and gals, but look at the success rate they have while still being working class people. Is that not a level of committment and dedication? Any of those folks care to comment? I say let the best man or woman win regardless of their ability to eat live and breathe archery! In the past the dedicated have always been able to walk the walk, I think they will tomorrow too! I'm not ready to stop allowing that to happen. Cutting out the working class is not a wise move IMHO. They work as hard or harder than anyone else out there and if they can make it all work, I'm behind them all the way. I'll shut up now. The zero sum game is motivated by other issues I suspect. It's as if the money behind us has a horse or two they want to ride and wish to thin the threat to them. I say the greater the threat, the greater the top will perform because they have to.


----------



## Sighting In (Feb 5, 2009)

I'm hearing a lot of complaints against the system, but I don't think it is that bad. To make a world team you show up for a weekend (or a week, depending on the event) and shoot in a similar format as Worlds. Those who do well make the team, those who don't, go home. I think it will do a fine job of finding those who will perform the best for their country. The only problem is getting there, but I don't see any way around that.

This is coming from a JOAD kid who is currently aspiring to the World team next summer, for the record.


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

I believe the new system is a step in the right direction, but it will need some tweaks over time. I personally would like to see more value given to competing internationally and to reward consistency. I know it is important to get the "hot" archers to go, but that needs to be tempered by experience and results.... 

Definitely would like the Indoor eliminated from consideration for ranking purposes....I know this will kill attendance, but 18m does not equal 70m.....

I'd like to see the time range for ranking opened up a bit. It would be nice if it was something like your top 4 scores in 2 years. I may have to run some numbers on that to see what the effect is.....

SB


----------



## Oaklandish (Mar 6, 2008)

Jurasic Archer said:


> There comes a time when our dedicated need to become working class or start familes. Those same people that have been proven in international competition. I say let them stay in there and fight until the new dedicated generation pushes them up or out. Don't drive them out by making it impossible to have a job, family and be a top competitor too. I know we are not talking about our compound guys and gals, but look at the success rate they have while still being working class people. Is that not a level of committment and dedication? Any of those folks care to comment? I say let the best man or woman win regardless of their ability to eat live and breathe archery! In the past the dedicated have always been able to walk the walk, I think they will tomorrow too! I'm not ready to stop allowing that to happen. Cutting out the working class is not a wise move IMHO. They work as hard or harder than anyone else out there and if they can make it all work, I'm behind them all the way. I'll shut up now. The zero sum game is motivated by other issues I suspect. It's as if the money behind us has a horse or two they want to ride and wish to thin the threat to them. I say the greater the threat, the greater the top will perform because they have to.


Really could not have said it better myself!

I would also add that these ever complex selection scenarios seem to reveal more about those on top than a perceived hole in the process. We all want the best field of shooters representing us internationally, but these moves, more and more result in who can afford the time and/or money to attend all the events and not necessarily the best shooters we have. How far can this legislation go? Do we ban all scores for tournaments that were shot on weekends? Or ones that were shot when school was out for summer? Like it or not, we are for the most part doing this as a hobby, not a career. Most of us are not paid to shoot, even at the elite level. Legislating a thinning of our minuscule heard is not wise.


----------



## Jurasic Archer (May 23, 2002)

Sighting In said:


> I'm hearing a lot of complaints against the system, but I don't think it is that bad. To make a world team you show up for a weekend (or a week, depending on the event) and shoot in a similar format as Worlds. Those who do well make the team, those who don't, go home. I think it will do a fine job of finding those who will perform the best for their country. The only problem is getting there, but I don't see any way around that.
> 
> This is coming from a JOAD kid who is currently aspiring to the World team next summer, for the record.


If it were show up for a week or weekend, I would not be complaining. The proposal shows two events one month apart for the world team. Those that make the team and go will have take nearly a month from their jobs and families to participate in one World Championships! I would be in favor of a minimum qualifying to enter the trials in say the 12 months prior to the event, then the trials. I only say this because of first hand experience plus there are two kids in our JOAD program right now that have been hot on the Jr USAT trail and both families are experiencing hardship to get them to events. I know they are not the only ones doing a second mortgage to give their talented kids a chance at it. The costs for the travel are astronomical and in this economy, we do not need to add to the issues. If you want our best, make it as easy to participate in as possible and the we will not have overlooked a star. I guarantee the ones that come out on top will have been and will be dedicated!


----------



## Sighting In (Feb 5, 2009)

Jurasic Archer said:


> If it were show up for a week or weekend, I would not be complaining. The proposal shows two events one month apart for the world team. Those that make the team and go will have take nearly a month from their jobs and families to participate in one World Championships! I would be in favor of a minimum qualifying to enter the trials in say the 12 months prior to the event, then the trials. I only say this because of first hand experience plus there are two kids in our JOAD program right now that have been hot on the Jr USAT trail and both families are experiencing hardship to get them to events. I know they are not the only ones doing a second mortgage to give their talented kids a chance at it. The costs for the travel are astronomical and in this economy, we do not need to add to the issues. If you want our best, make it as easy to participate in as possible and the we will not have overlooked a star. I guarantee the ones that come out on top will have been and will be dedicated!


I see where you are coming from, and I agree. The problem is, what can be done about it? As far as I know, the archers have to pay their way (for the most part) to get to worlds, and if they can't even pay to get to another state to qualify, how can they be expected to fly across the planet? I know it sucks and it is expensive, but until we get some serious sponsors to pay for travel costs, only those who can pay for it are going to be the ones going. 

I think the new format will do a good job of picking the best shooters to represent America, and that is what we are looking for. There might be other amazing shooters out there who could win, but if they don't show up they can't win. I don't know any way to fix this problem.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Dec 20, 2005)

I with Mike on this one.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

swbuckmaster said:


> I with Mike on this one.


As am I. Those who are full time archers, you would think would have an advantage in any type of trials. However, to set up a system that prevents some from competing is not good.


----------



## archerymom2 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jurasic Archer said:


> If it were show up for a week or weekend, I would not be complaining. The proposal shows two events one month apart for the world team. Those that make the team and go will have take nearly a month from their jobs and families to participate in one World Championships! I would be in favor of a minimum qualifying to enter the trials in say the 12 months prior to the event, then the trials. I only say this because of first hand experience plus there are two kids in our JOAD program right now that have been hot on the Jr USAT trail and both families are experiencing hardship to get them to events. I know they are not the only ones doing a second mortgage to give their talented kids a chance at it. The costs for the travel are astronomical and in this economy, we do not need to add to the issues. If you want our best, make it as easy to participate in as possible and the we will not have overlooked a star. I guarantee the ones that come out on top will have been and will be dedicated!


It looks like the proceedure for juniors is pretty low-cost -- just a couple of extra days tacked on to the end of JOAD Nationals, which is the one required tournament if you're interested in Jr. USAT.

Would you really need to take nearly a month off work for the world championships themselves? It looks like the tournament is a week long. Do teams generally go out three weeks early to practice? It looks from the schedule like the time commitment would be about 4 weeks total time, with the 2 weeks of trials and 2 weeks for the championships, unless there is some additional team time that's not listed?


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

It you can't beat them, eliminate them appears to be the plan....


----------



## Oaklandish (Mar 6, 2008)

Rick, can you elaborate on the selection process when you went to, and won your World Championships? It was more than one wasn't it? 

To me it really seems that top scores during the trials event should produce the team. If a top ranked US archer takes fourth at the trials event, then gets the nod, (over archers who beat them!) for worlds because of these new selection criteria changes, it results in a system where we can buy a 'mulligan'.


----------



## Oaklandish (Mar 6, 2008)

Sighting In said:


> I see where you are coming from, and I agree. The problem is, what can be done about it? As far as I know, the archers have to pay their way (for the most part) to get to worlds, and if they can't even pay to get to another state to qualify, how can they be expected to fly across the planet? I know it sucks and it is expensive, but until we get some serious sponsors to pay for travel costs, *only those who can pay for it are going to be the ones going.
> *
> *I think the new format will do a good job of picking the best shooters to represent America*, and that is what we are looking for. There might be other amazing shooters out there who could win, but if they don't show up they can't win. I don't know any way to fix this problem.



These statements are most assuredly incongruous. We are either getting the best shooters or we are getting the best shooters that can afford the extra events.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

When the US recurve archers were as dominating if not more so than our US compound archers currently are, we shot two FITA rounds in two days for the trials process. That’s it, nothing more, nothing less. We chose the team about one month before the World Championships. I won 3 World titles this way, Darrell won 2 and we both lost to a Fin (Darrel by 1 pt and me by 2) with the other. We won all team events during this time except the last one. I think the Koreans called it “strategy” but we called it something else. :zip: 

Eventually we went to the four-day event to select the team with the argument that it should be similar to the actual world championships. This did little to change our outcome. 

The one thing it appears that many forget and like Mike has stated, is that you encourage and help all those who have a chance to shoot well. The US archers come from all walks of life and eliminating those who do not comply with the “current” system is a tragedy. As I said before, the current philosophy appears to be if you can’t beat the competition then eliminate them. As for the archers who commit to the RA program I tip my hat. They are committed and have taken the time to train and have a wonderful opportunity. Others are not as fortunate nor would they be welcome if they do not comply with the current system, but this should not disqualify anyone from being as good as they can be. The RA program is just that, a wonderful opportunity to train with nothing else to interfere with that. However, the best archer should ALWAYS go to represent the US whether they come from the RA program, from some remote US small town, or large town, farm, woods, swamp, desert or mountains, etc. Shooting the arrow in the middle when it counts the most should be what we should support, not just one coach’s program.


----------



## gairsz (Mar 6, 2008)

archerymom2 said:


> It looks like the proceedure for juniors is pretty low-cost -- just a couple of extra days tacked on to the end of JOAD Nationals, which is the one required tournament if you're interested in Jr. USAT.


I can tell you the cost to be #1 on the Junior USAT list is not LOW cost. My son was the #1 ranked Cadet archer in the country last year and it cost me a little over 14K. This year, still a cadet, he finished #1 in the Junior class and it also cost a little over 14K. That is $28,000 in two years, because, every time a minor shows up at tournament they have an adult with them, so the cost doubles for the kids to compete.

My boy has only been shooting Olympic recurve for three years and has been involved in archery for a little over four years. We chased the RA's shooting in the Junior division all over the country this year to defend that #1 ranking. I did this because he is talented, he works very hard, and he ask me to. It has been very painful and the entire family sacrifices for my son to compete at this level. Unless some additional funding appears, he will not be able to compete for the #1 junior spot next year because we can't afford to keep up.

We are lucky that my wife and I are both working and we can do this for our boy. It is OK that he won't be at every tournament next year. Our focus is the Cadet youth world championships next year, he will still be a cadet. Some one else can be the #1 junior in the country. Been there, done that. He loves to compete and at each tournament he learns and grows and we will do our best to continue to grow this young athlete, because it is our job. Plus there is no other alternative for us. 

I would like to add, I don't doubt that there is some other super talented kid out there that could have been #1 but just didn't have the opportunity. That is just sad. We also know who the talented kids are that have gone off to college to pursue other dreams and could not compete at the top level. It would have been nice if all the talent could be competing at the same time. If you raise the tide, all boats float higher. Timing is everything(and holding), and sadly, money counts too.

Gary Zumbo


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Finances are definitely affecting all of us. I believe we need a change that allows the archer to get an MQS at a tournament and then not have to compete again until nationals. Once you get the MQS, you reach a championship round at Nationals where that score counts for your national/USAT/rolling ranking. If you don't achieve the MQS at your first event, it is then your own choice to continue to attempt to make the score or try to get it a Nationals. There are more than enough tournaments that cover the country that everyone should have one close enough to drive to and they can all be handled over a 3 day weekend.

So instead of having to attend 4 tournaments around the country, I can attend one here in Florida, get my MQS and then go to Nationals! That would save almost $1k per tournament! 

Am I off base on this or has it already been done?

Scott


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Jurasic Archer,

Agreed. If you're good enough to beat the competition at the competition then the system should allow that, not prevent it.


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

As an aside to the issue of how the top archers are selected, there's the long standing history in the minor Olympic sports of the ability to simply pay the entry fee and toe the line with worlds best. It's the major appeal of an Olympic sport like archery that draws many to come and play and get to shoot next to Olympians simply by showing up. There's massive value in that concept and it is completely forgetten in our striving to never again allow an 'amatuer' to represent our country at the Olympics.

What marketing value for showing off recurve archery is lost by making the trials such a cumbersome process that only 25 folks show up? How much marketing value for our sport is there in 150 people going back and spraying about their Olympic Trials experience? Tripple that number and 10's of thousands of folks will be exposed to Olympic archery that would never hear about it.

These types of trials simply make many of us want to pick up a compound wash our hands of the whole thing, which it seems is the goal 

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

c3hammer said:


> These types of trials simply make many of us want to pick up a compound wash our hands of the whole thing, which it seems is the goal


gosh, could you imagine what kind of team we could have the potential to field if 1% of the youth (and adult) talent in compound archery were to pick up a recurve and start training..


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Let me first disclose that I'm still a romantic kid at heart (aka an 'idiot'), even at age 54. I picked up a recurve in March of this year and immediately fell in love with it. I got some real arrows in late April, and started shooting a lot. I got a wild hair (long story I'm not going to tell here) the first of June and entered the July US National Outdoor Championships in Ohio. When I told my family and friends, they asked me in bewilderment "Was I allowed to do that?, and "why would you do such a thing after just starting 2 months ago?" I told them 'because I can' (meaning that it's an open tournament - I'm a US citizen, and I'm welcome at my country's national tournament). They pretty much just uniformly smiled, shook their head a little, while glancing at each other with rolled eyes "Sigh, there goes Larry again, off in LarryLand." 

Well, when I came home with 3rd place in Masters50+, everyone back home had three identical reactions - 1) their chins hit the floor, 2) their wide-eyed faces completely lit up (even people who aren't interest in sports AT ALL), and 3) they all wanted to know when was my next tournament and could I make the Olympic team (haha)? Well - (as we all know, absolutely I've got no chance to be good enough to 'make the team') - I told them I could never be good enough to make the team, but that if I can improve my score 4% better than I'm shooting now, I could qualify to compete in the first round of the Olympic Trials (note to the reader: I know that each % point gained after initial phase is precious and very difficult). Well, you'd think I had said I might really be able to cure cancer in 2011; these people's imaginations have been completely sparked. They're asking me all the time now "are you practicing? How's practice going? Come on, man, don't let us down. We're counting on you. Are you gonna make it? Oh, man, that is just too cool! You know, I LOVED archery when I was a kid - maybe I should take it up, too. How much would it cost for a decent bow setup? Would you help me get started? ... I can't believe you just took this up, and you're going to national tournaments and might be able to go to the Olympic trials - what a cool frickin' sport!"

Multiply my experience in my tiny example by a large number of similar experiences all over the country. How much has long distance running been encouraged by the accessibility to run in large national prestige races like Boston Marathon, New York City Marathon, etc (and how many tens of thousands of people have started running or continued running because of their attainable goal of getting to race these races, and how many zillions of dollars have been spent on running equipment as a result?). Having 'everyman' be able to try and train and compete doesn't stop the Kenyan from winning, but think of all those racers! All those stories! All those influences on potential runners back home!

My point is that there's something of a "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" air about this ACCESSIBLE sport that animates people's imaginative sense of romance and possibility ... "I can't win the race, but I'm welcome to enter and run (and who knows?, maybe I can win!)? ... how cool is that?!" To diminish the allure of that accessibility will ultimately be a loss for everyone involved in the sport, not just the romantics.


----------



## mcullumber (Jul 31, 2006)

Cost and time are going to be a factor in all sports these days. The above thread referenced the Boston Marathon and New York Marathon.The entry fee for the Boston Marathon this year was $130.00. For the New York $185.00. There are two ways one can enter these races. First is to make the qualifying time at a previous sanction marathon. The other way and is the way most participate is to run under one of the many charity groups. To do this one must raise an average of $3000.00 in donations plus pay the entry fee.

If I'm not mistaken, all the USAT and Jr. USAT tournaments are open events and anyone can participate. I don't know how the Olympic Qualifiers will be done, but you should need to have a MQS to compete for a space. That does not mean the event itself won't be open, don't know. It would be nice if we all have a chance to make a USAT/USAT Jr. team or the Olympics, but the reality is that only a few will have that chance and the talent. They will be the ones that make the commitment of time, effort and, yes, money.

Thousand of kids play Baseball, just like hundreds of kids are in Archery. But only a few will ever make it to the big leagues and now days baseball parents are spending thousands of dollars each year for these kids.

I don't mean to offend anyone, but good or bad, the way things are being done in Olympic sports are changing.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

mcullumber said:


> Cost and time are going to be a factor in all sports these days. The above thread referenced the Boston Marathon and New York Marathon.The entry fee for the Boston Marathon this year was $130.00. For the New York $185.00. There are two ways one can enter these races. First is to make the qualifying time at a previous sanction marathon. The other way and is the way most participate is to run under one of the many charity groups. To do this one must raise an average of $3000.00 in donations plus pay the entry fee.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, all the USAT and Jr. USAT tournaments are open events and anyone can participate. I don't know how the Olympic Qualifiers will be done, but you should need to have a MQS to compete for a space. That does not mean the event itself won't be open, don't know. It would be nice if we all have a chance to make a USAT/USAT Jr. team or the Olympics, but the reality is that only a few will have that chance and the talent. They will be the ones that make the commitment of time, effort and, yes, money.
> 
> ...


and as the recent elections proved--change for the sake of change devoid of any rational benefits is pretty worthless


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

mcullumber said:


> It would be nice if we all have a chance to make a USAT/USAT Jr. team or the Olympics, but the reality is that only a few will have that chance and the talent. They will be the ones that make the commitment of time, effort and, yes, money.


You bring up another subject that a few people have concerns over. We are one that does happen to have such a problem. Miranda stands a good chance of making the SR World team. She also stands a good chance of making the JR World team. Unfortunately, USAA has seen fit to hold JOAD Nationals / JR World team trials during the same weekend as the SR World Championships are being held. I think there are some in the compound divisions with the same problems as well.

I'm not too positive which classes have situations similar to my daughters, but if anyone noticed, the top YOG archer is also one of the worlds top archers (actually won 2009 World Cup). Mexico and India both have JR archers in the top ranks of the seniors. There are many on the womens side of recurve where this is the case. 

It's very disappointing that someone completely overlooked this detail. I'm hoping for some kind of change, but doubting it happens.


----------



## gairsz (Mar 6, 2008)

Yes Scott, this is very disappointing. Some say this is by design. Either way, disappointing.

GZ


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

gairsz said:


> Yes Scott, this is very disappointing. Some say this is by design. Either way, disappointing.
> 
> GZ


Yeah as My Amish friends would say-that truly sucketh


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

I was thinking about the calendar. Am I correct that the New Date of the "Gator Cup" is the same weekend that at least 3 of the collegiate regions have their outdoor events--events that have had this weekend for many years? Am I correct in believing that with the Texas shoot and the Arizona Cup there are now three USAT shoots in the month of April?


----------



## Casualfoto (Mar 10, 2009)

*Calender dates??*

Jim,
Where are you getting your dates from??


----------



## Shinigami3 (Oct 7, 2009)

The board meeting to discuss these matters is December 3. It seems to me that those who have concerns ought to contact their board members with any concerns rather than ineffectively complaining here.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Casualfoto said:


> Jim,
> Where are you getting your dates from??


what dates. the regional collegiate events are usually that weekend in April


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Shinigami3 said:


> The board meeting to discuss these matters is December 3. It seems to me that those who have concerns ought to contact their board members with any concerns rather than ineffectively complaining here.


did you used to post here under a different name?


----------



## tjk009 (Feb 15, 2007)

Jim C said:


> did you used to post here under a different name?


Isn't he/she a secret agent? Perhaps Bond is a last name.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

tjk009 said:


> Isn't he/she a secret agent? Perhaps Bond is a last name.


I have heard other names suggested.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 19, 2006)

Jim C said:


> what dates. the regional collegiate events are usually that weekend in April


Hey Jim,
THe events you're thinking of are the North, East, and West Regionals and have been that weekend for eons...guys like Tony Don, Glen Thomas, etc wil have to make some choices...try for world team, gun for region champion.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

[email protected] said:


> Hey Jim,
> THe events you're thinking of are the North, East, and West Regionals and have been that weekend for eons...guys like Tony Don, Glen Thomas, etc wil have to make some choices...try for world team, gun for region champion.


I thought that is what I mentioned-not the USICAC but the regionals for three of the regions. "regional collegiate events" might have not been the most accurate term though

thanks


----------



## rpdjr45 (Jul 28, 2007)

If there is a way to make the team selection process more complicated, a committee somewhere will find a way. All this reminds me of the same arguments that the "gentlemen" made about the ruffians getting into the early modern Olympics Games. After all, we don't want those "sorts" to represent us, do we? I repeat my case for simplicity: one Olympic Trials, come one, come all, top four make it. End of story. No rankings, no BS, no flaming hoops to jump through. Everything is equal for everyone. You either have it on the day you need it, or you don't. Come on, are we going to dink someone because they were'n't wearing the proper or approved belt? "Yes, you outscored everyone by fifty points, Mr/Ms Whotheheck R. Uuuu, but your belt is not on the approved list. Uh, oh, you lose. Awwwww." Cut the crap and get back to fair, and simple.


----------



## tjk009 (Feb 15, 2007)

This discussion reminds me of the Billy Johnson story. He beat the world winning gold in the Olympic downhill. His hardest battle, at least early in his career, was a US Team and "rich kid" parents who didn't like him. The idea of wrong side of the tracks kid in the glamorous world of ski racing was appalling to some. He and his dad slept in the car in the parking lot early on. His story has sad chapters but his ability to conquer not only the world but the financial challenges and politics of the system are compelling. It isn't always about world domination, but how you play and win the game. Part of why we watch sports is to observe a long-shot prevail.


----------



## PDS-JOAD (Jun 1, 2009)

It seems there are several different issues running through this thread. If anyone wants to comment to the board before Dec 3 about this you may want to look at them in the way the board is likely to consider them. There are 3 separate issues: Natl ranking / USAT; international team trials and Olympic Trials. Keep in mind that USAA must meet standards for trials that meet USOC standards.
1. New National Ranking System - this combines the current rolling ranking and Sr USAT selection. Changes for USAT include adding another optional event (now National Target plus 2, will be Natl Target plus 3) and including average arrow count in the USAT calculation. It makes the OR 3/4 of the score and the qualification round 1/4, instead of 50-50 for USAT and combines rolling ranking (now only avg arrow count) with USAT selection.
2, Intl Selection - World Championships and Olympics are different. World Championships, everyone can try at Gator Cup and the top 8 stay an extra day and then again an extra day at Gold Cup to cut the field to 3. Pan Am Trials appears to be one extra day after a USAT event for the top 8.
3. Olympic Trials require a MQS but otherwise are open. After two days the field is cut to 16 who battle it out over 2 more days and then 2 more trials the following year. One issue that was raised at the Assembly is that the first shoot is Sept 2011, almost 1 year before the games.
If anyone wants to voice a supporting or dissenting opinion, I think it is best to identify specifically which part of this you agree or disagree with and what you would suggest be different. Is anyone from the AAC on this thread who would like to comment?


----------



## spotshooter (Mar 3, 2003)

I know that the financial and vacation commitments have been mentioned earlier, but plane tickets and motel reservations need to be made under the assumption that you will get in to the top 8. That is a huge financial burden on us working folk. I for one will have to say goodbye to my dream of making a world team.


----------



## rpdjr45 (Jul 28, 2007)

Then the question is what is the purpose of the ranking system in the first place? I've been in sports all my life and coached and still do, track and highland games, and archery. The person with the highest or best mark was first. What is wrong with a separate ranking for full fita, 900, indoor, field? Can you not have a ranking per game (900, field, indoors) and then have an aggregate for the all around? Seems to me that we're doing it all half ass backwards and trying really hard to find a way to make it complicated. And the purpose of a complicated system is that it is being set up to favor one group over another. Could be all wrong, it's happened twice before. And sure it is that no system will please everyone. I would find it refreshing to see and hear a simple, "Shut up and shoot" approach. 

Screw the nicey nice stuff. I'm breaking the code of silence: the whole thing comes down to money ... who has it, who gets it, who wants it, and who controls it. The one who pays the piper names the tunes. End of story. Why do you think they've decided to place all the championships in one place? Certainly wasn't a plan to spread the wealth or the pain. Yankton? Pure BS. Easton is bank rolling both the NFAA and USAA, so there it is. Neither of those groups are going to do anything cut off their financial supply line. And I love Easton products. Best arrows on the market. But business is business and neither national organization can't make it on their own. So the ranking system comes up and through that venue control is established and the right people get a cut. And Spotshooter, you're screwed. Not because you haven't the skill, but you've been priced out of it. You're one of "those sorts." 
So, USAA, if that the way you want to do it, and pretend that it is all for the archers, go ahead, but be honest about it. "We're doing this because this way we get the most money for us and our elite archers." 
I've stated my piece. Now I'm going to shut up and shoot. You guys sort it out.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

RPDJR45,

Come on, tell us what you really think :teeth:

The cynical % of me (which is growing at an alarming rate as I get older) completely agrees with your assessment. Money always influences/changes everything it touches (people, groups, scenarios, etc), and eventually dictates what will be. Bummer.

ps - if you sit in on an 'athletes' meeting' at a national event, it's comprised mostly of the top (elite) competitors, and 95% of the discussion is money (some of it is disguised as arguments about ranking methodology, but that is ultimately about the money, too). So if the top scorers are focused on the money, you can bet your sweet bippy that the manufacturers (and organization execs) are lasered in on it, too. Not necessarily making an indictment, but it does reinforce (in my mind, anyway) RPDJR45's point - "To understand a thing, first look for the financial interest."


----------



## Valkyrie (Dec 3, 2002)

Oh boy - here we go again ...

So - olympic trials - the issue I have about the selection is that the new shooter will not be found because they didn't "get hot" during the 2011 season. Fine - then hold a selction tournament and take the top 16 - oh, lets say make that 2011 Outdoor Nationals - top 16 make the cut to the next years two selection tournaments. Ok - then hold another selection tournament - say, the 2012 Arizona Cup - take the top 16 and they make the cut to the next two selection tournaments as well. Perhaps you end up with 32 different people, perhaps only 16, or some number in between. If you are a "shooter" - you most likely will want to go to both those tournaments anyway. After that, the two additional selction tournaments can have all the fancy cuts and ranking points and other drivel to select the team - I'm not smart enough to figure out the real reason for all the gobbly **** in that "points" senario - when I make the top 16, maybe I'll try to figure it out.

World Trials - oh please! If you know who you want to be on the world team, just put that in the selection document. "we nominate so and so, and the person and that one for the team, there will be a selection tournament that costs lots of money to attend, but no one other than those three will be allowed on the team" - at least I'll uderstand that.

USAT - I was on USAT 3 years and was extremely proud to have been - I wouldn't trade the experience for anything. It was straight forward, attend the tournament, finish, get points for the finish, the ones with the lowest points get on the team. I never attended EVERY USAT ranking tournament. Now it seams that you must to "protect" your ranking. Too many tournaments do the same as haveing to long a tournament - drains funds. 

If I have the funds in 2011 to attend tournaments, I will do so, but not for the sole purpose of making USAT, a World Team, or to impress anyone - it will be because I enjoy the sport and the people that I shoot with. I hope that I have the opportunity to see you all on the field.


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

Hmmmm. It seems the process is not designed to particularly protect the elites, but to keep unknowns from "slipping" onto the team.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Here's a good question - Should the Rolling Ranking remain seperate from the USAT rankings?


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

titanium man said:


> Hmmmm. It seems the process is not designed to particularly protect the elites, but to keep unknowns from "slipping" onto the team.



Hmmmm. My bad. It's to protect the elites under "best", AND to keep the unknowns from "slipping" through the cracks. Got it. How do we define the rest of the shooters who don't adhere strictly to the process? Infidel Archers??


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

*RAs*

I'm going to make a comment here, because I have read this entire thread + the documents that go with it, and I have something to say, that needs to be said.

Since it seems the selection process has gone in favor of the RAs, and to those of us who can afford to fork out the kind of money, that it appears we are going to need, to get our TOP ARCHERS to the selection events, it seems VERY UNFAIR to those families who have sacrificed (like the Zumbos---great family---and others), to get their kid(s) to the top of their game, to have to give up their child's dream!

The RAs are paid for BY PRIVATE DONATIONS BY OLYMPIC TEAM SPONSORS LIKE MYSELF, AND MANY OTHERS. Our Olympic Team is not funded by the U.S Government. Instead, it is funded by private donations. I have donated THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to support the U.S Olympic Teams. I am a Sixth Ring Member, and I proudly do it for the athletes. But when one is so ungrateful, I really take issue with that! I give as a gift to the athletes, and I do it out of respect for our archery team, which has had members who WERE NOT RAs, like Vic, and Butch. I also do it out of respect for the past archers in my life circle, such as Darrell, Rick, Jason McKittrick, Stephanie White and many others.

If our archery "powers that be" are doing this to quash the grass roots, back yard and hard working JOAD COACHES. The sport of competitive Olympic style archery WILL DIE!

Out here in the real world, we have jobs, we have families, we have JOAD clubs, we love to teach archery. We have taxes to pay (does an RA's family have to pay taxes on the GIFT HE GETS BY LIVING AT THE OTC? No disrespect meant, I am trying to make a point here!). We have families to feed, insurance payments, car payments, house payments, etc. You get the picture! Now, if our kid desires, we are going to have to figure a vast amount of money (say $50,000+, because an adult has to go with him, travel, car rental, hotel, food for the entire year, plus someone to take care of the house and all the animals!) to get our kid to the necessary tournaments. It could just put a wet blanket on a kid who might be shooting on fire, if Mom and Dad can't afford to take vacations or the travel to do the tournament circuit! Not fair to the kid! (An aside: This is one reason I never got into horse showing, even though I really desired it when I was much younger.)

It sounds very totalitarian, in that if you are not willing to SPEND THE MONEY AND TIME NECESSARY, or if you are not an RA, then you are not among the elite. There is something wrong with this thinking. Especially when you look at how a family works! A job=money for everything. Money coming in gets divided up, and for those parents and families who have sacrificed for their kids, AMEN TO YOU, GOD BLESS YOU! Your child's dream was important enough to EVERYONE in the family, to agree to allow the expense to go to your child. A sacrifice most brothers and sisters wouldn't willingly make for a Medal from an international event.

Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that I am able to support the OLYMPIC TEAMS, it is my choice and my honor to do so. I don't like arrogance in those athletes I support. I support the U.S. Olympic Team for ARCHERY, and every donation I send in I state I would like it to go for ARCHERY, invariably I get a note back stating that it cannot be designated just for a specific sport, but at least I am getting through that I am supporting a specific sport. The funds go for training of ALL OLYMPIC ATHLETES, which means EVERYONE WHO TRAINS AT THE VARIOUS OTCs, which means all the "RAs".

So, with all due respect, open the gates to all who are willing, not just the few who eat, sleep and breath archery!


----------



## Jake Kaminski (Mar 10, 2007)

Lizard


Who is out there who can't afford to come to the shoots who can make teams? 

I had to pay for several national shoots this last year, and I pay just as much taxes as you do. 

I really don't see how this is favoring the RA's I really don't if you think USA archery wants RA's to be on the teams they would just name the team. I really don't get why you think this selection process is not fair. How dare you say in a round about manor that you want the system to favor grass routes for making the team, why don't you just put a handicap on archery then everyone will have the advantage.... o wait then it takes away from the people who work for it. I'm pretty sure I don't Live in the MATRIX or some sort of fairytale land. I'm Damn sure I breathe the same air you do. 

I'snt real life all about the harder you work the more you get out of it? Well Im working harder in a direction that will benefit my archery at the moment. later I'll get into the 'REAL' life that everyone is talking about... Oh wait I am, im getting married next year. I pay taxes, I went to school, I bought my car, I pay insurance, phone bills, pay for food, and upkeep on where I am living. I really don't know what else there is about in real life that everyone talks about... 

Your signature says half of winning a shoot is showing up, I agree for many this is a struggle. I paid my dues to get to where I am and so did my family. I basically lived without my parents for two years becasue they were working to support my archery, I traveled with other people to shoots to save money. People like the zumbos can do that... matt is old enough to fly on his own and meet up with another family abroad. I did it. Why not start an archery 'Carpooling' program where top kids who are scraping for cash just like everyone is out there in this economy and just man it out. 


you mention everyone who trains at the various OTCs. there is only one that trains archery, i guess its news to me that there is more out there. 


We could go to the korean method of selecting teams, just have about 6-7 selection processes for just the national team that travels everywhere. It seems like they have their ***** together. Or do you just not have enough pride in the country itself to see USA on the podium?


P.s.

thanks for your support to the Olympic Team.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Mr. Kaminski,
Vitriol is not meant to be posted, on the board, that can be done through PM. 

I did not direct my post at you, though you seem to feel ENTITLED to live your dream, through my most generous donations to the USOC. 

I will think twice when I donate to the USOC, and possibly less will be donated because of your comments. 

America is a great place. A place where anyone can succeed with hard work and dedication. NOBODY is ENTITLED to anything they do NOT work for. (Political comment: though with the current administration the American Dream is being stolen away.)

It would help greatly if one was grateful for the DONATIONS others make to SUPPORT your life at the OTC.

When I stated the OTCs, I was talking about ALL THE ATHLETES NOT JUST YOU. Open your eyes, there is a great big world around you.

I wish you all the best.


----------



## Jake Kaminski (Mar 10, 2007)

Lizard I am going to pm you my personal contact info and I would love to discuss this with you further. 


I am in no way shape or form ungrateful for what I have and where I am. If I didn't have the support i do from my fiancé, family, coaches, sportsmed and fellow archers not to even mention the program I am in. They do more then I can tell you to support me. I am proud to be an American and represent this country in the future. 


You said that I shouldn't take this as a directed comment towards myself. You directed it to ras well I am an ra so it is directed to me. And i would like to correct you I feel like I am entitled to follow my dream. I don't feel like I am entitled to my dream nor do I feel like I am entitled to the financial support. I earn every single gift I am given. I work very hard day in and day out, I personally invite you to come visit the OTC here and see where you hard earned dollars are being spent and see if you think any of the ras are using it to their fullest. 

I do not think I or my family should be paying taxes on the support I am around. Any tax payer knows that when you have money coming in if you don't have thinks to write off you pay taxes on it. 100% of the money that I use for support comes into the program and is expended on various things. I never get money put into my pocket. I never see or touch the money that makes it's way into this program. So I have 100% write offs so I wouldn't pay taxes.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Mr. Kaminski,
With all due respect, I thank you for the acknowledgement of others who support you, and appreciate that you have worked hard for where you are in your archery dream. I am proud of you for making that commitment, it takes a special person to follow a dream that takes so much training, time, effort and money.
I have been to both Chula Vista and Colorado Springs, so I know what the OTCs provide. The best food I have had from a cafeteria, and an atmosphere of striving to be the best you can be. I was at both of the centers for coach training, when Coach Lee first came to the states.
Let us drop the issue of taxes, as it really doesn't apply here! 
I apologize if I offended you in any way, I just think this new system is doomed, not to benefit anyone but those who are living the dream that you are right now. Wouldn't it be better to open the field to others as well, or do we really want archery to be here for a limited time only! What happens when you move onto the next phase? Who will take your place? Maybe it will be one of our dream team kids, or hopefully someone else!
Shoot 'em straight!


----------



## rpdjr45 (Jul 28, 2007)

Your lack of clarity and grammar is shameful. Or you were extremely angry. "I do not think I or my family should be paying taxes on the support I am around." What? Last thing anyone should do is write while angry. The brain isn't focussed and your fingers are flying too fast to get the right letters typed. Lizard just handed you your head back on a silver platter and did it with grace and style. All you did was show everyone who has attempted to understand your postings that you're a bonehead. As long as your arrows hit the center, who cares, eh? Best of luck to you. Next time write, and then proof read.


----------



## Jake Kaminski (Mar 10, 2007)

I was writing on my iPod touch. I have a hard time writing with this thing and the Internet is lacking I was in the middle of writing and it loaded somehow. Forgive me I was not angry I just couldn't get this thing to cooperate it was writing about five seconds after I was typing.


----------



## Jake Kaminski (Mar 10, 2007)

Oh and FYI I said that my parents shouldn't be paying taxes because all of the support I am given is written off. Therefor there is nothing to tax. Also there is only one person under age that their parents can file taxes for them. So leave the ras familys out of the equation. They should only be praised for their support in their kids dream.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

I'm not going to say anything else on this thread, except for this:
OPEN THE GATES TO EVERYONE, this new system favors those at the OTC-CV, or those who have limitless funds, though who that might be is unbeknownst to me!
All the Best to the RAs and all the athletes at the OTC-CV.


----------



## MyLifeIsArchery (Aug 10, 2009)

Jim C said:


> what dates. the regional collegiate events are usually that weekend in April


All the shoots and dates will be changing for next year. As far I as I know, so until all the schedules come out I would not complain to much just yet lol.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

2 days and 288 arrows. You can't get lucky to finish in the upper echelon. Train for it, earn it and represent your country. Rick McKinney and Darrell Pace played under those rules. That sounds plenty good to me. There will be no lucky few arrows that allows a less skilled archer advance. 288 arrows. Think about it. Would anyone really have a legitimate beef if the three best, plus alternates, were chosen after 2 FITA rounds, in a weekend of competition?


----------



## Landed in AZ (May 11, 2008)

I guess I don't understand why they changed the points system. I am not very good at math but appears that those that finish 16th at the Oly trials or 8th at the World/Jr. World trials are now mathematically eliminated. So I guess I don't understand the point of cutting to that number if they can't make the team. Maybe I am missing something. Someone help me out here...Am I just adding wrong?


----------



## MyLifeIsArchery (Aug 10, 2009)

Lizard
First off thank you for your support of the Otc and all the athletes. We all apprieciate it grately. 

Now I have read all this thread and I think some facts need to be brought to light. First off the reason for a two shoot process for world trials is the USOC. They wanted a proccess closer to the olympic proccess because of the importance of world championships. I think that it is a good idea. 

Now for the complaints about cost to go to all these shoots. In years past we have always had an extra shoot that was 4 days long for the trials. I think it is good that USAA decided to piggy back the USAT shoots and the world trials, it should cut down on cost of travel. Most people go to these events any way. Now I don't know why we are shooting a 2 day fita. I think a one day fita would be better, cuts an extra day that could be used for another trip. Just my thoughts, I think I'm going to get ripped apart by everyone, but owell. Lol 

I am the new athlete rep and will be attending the board meeting in December. If anyone has big concerns or thoughts let me know and I will try to bring them up but no promises. I'll do my best though.

Brady Ellison

p.s. I would really apprieciate it if people would stop ripping on the RA program. We all chose to go and train full time and if that gives us an advantage then so be it. We put our lives on hold to try and make a team and represent our country. It makes me depressed when I get on this sight and it's rarely positive towards Anything or anyone. Everything is negative, could just be that I only read those threads, but its still depressing. I read all these complaints on this site and I never hear any of these complaints at shoots and I did not see very many people at the members board meeting at nationals this year. Maybe just maybe if there was a more positive note to things, maybe archery would grow a little bit. Instead of all the complaining make a solution to the problem. Just saying. 
Thank you


----------



## MyLifeIsArchery (Aug 10, 2009)

Landed in AZ said:


> I guess I don't understand why they changed the points system. I am not very good at math but appears that those that finish 16th at the Oly trials or 8th at the World/Jr. World trials are now mathematically eliminated. So I guess I don't understand the point of cutting to that number if they can't make the team. Maybe I am missing something. Someone help me out here...Am I just adding wrong?


 In the last olympic trials 16th ended up 4th and if I remember right the points are not much different now. So it should be ok. Hopefully lol


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

The truly stunning part is that both Brady and Jake, ranked number 2 and 28 in the WORLD respectively, have to come to this site and defend a system that they did not create. They are playing within the rules, within the system as it is, just as everyone else has the opportunity to do so. I don't see any issue whether the shooters that represent our country come from the OTC or not....as long as they are the best shooters we have. I don't believe Butch and Vic are currently residing at the OTC, but if they out shoot Brady, Jake or anyone else, then they should be our reps. Let them shoot it out and determine the best!

It would seem that there are a number of people who feel that playing field needs to be somehow "leveled" against the best shooters. Are we not choosing our team based on who shoots the best? Based on the best scores? If you don't feel this is the case, it needs to be brought to the attention of USA Archery, not making counter-productive statements against our athletes, training centers, coaches, etc.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Jake Kaminski said:


> I was writing on my iPod touch. I have a hard time writing with this thing and the Internet is lacking I was in the middle of writing and it loaded somehow. Forgive me I was not angry I just couldn't get this thing to cooperate it was writing about five seconds after I was typing.


In Jake's defense regarding grammer and syntax, my dadburned phone will do the same thing to me when I'm texting - it will substitute a word that it thinks I 'meant to text' instead of the word I texted (example: I can text "Nicklaus" as in Jack Nicklaus, and the stupid phone will substitute "Nicholas", or "nickels" ... irritating in the extreme. I already have a wife and daughter to perform that function for me, I don't need a phone piling on .. haha.

As a comment about what constitutes being an "Athlete", Jake, "Athlete" isn't only defined as "someone who performs an athletic task and is supported financially to do so." There are a lot of people in this country who have to pursue their athletic dreams on their own time, with money they generate themselves from their jobs - and some of them are world-class athletes, too. I'm pretty sure all of the baseball players in the Hall of Fame would qualify as "athletes", yet many of them in decades past worked jobs in the offseason to help support their families - before TV money became so significant.

You're to be commended for pursuing your dream, and having the talent and opportunity to do it before 'real life' comes calling. More power to you. And while "Getting married" is GREAT (congratulations!), that act isn't "real life." "Real life" begins at different ages for different people - for some, it starts when they agree to quit their career track and move back to their hometown to care for a sick or feeble parent - that's real life. Deferring your hobbies or pleasure pursuits or dreams in order to save money for your kids' college education - that's real life. Missing a competition to attend your kid's event (maybe a school event - a play, an athletic competition, a chess tournament, a debate, etc) - that's real life. In other words, "real life" (at least my definition of it) is sacrificing what _you_ want, if necessary, in order to fulfill your responsibilities and commitments to others - I suspect that this is what many (most?) people mean by "real life". 

I suspect what angsts many people is that a contrived qualification system seems to threaten what for most
Americans is a deeply ingrained American-notion that people from all walks of life should have the "opportunity to compete on a level playing field." 

Finally, the Classic American Olympic Ideal is not an 11 year old sent to gymnastic camp for 4 years apart from her family to make the Olympic Team. The 35 year old policeman from New York who trains on his own time and makes the Olympic Team as a shotputter - _he_ is the classic American Olympic Ideal - a citizen athlete who trains and sacrifices and competes out of love and passion - where winning is pursued vigorously, but is secondary to the joy of seeing people from all walks of life representing their countries in the joyful pursuit of noble endeavor. But I'm getting off track ...


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Brady,

I don't observe that the complaints are directed at the RA's (I hope not, anyway) personally or the RA program. It seems to me that the complaints are directed at a 'path' that seems to prevent some from having the chance to get on the field to compete. Of course, we all know that not everyone will be happy with whatever system is the final one. 

BTW, I've very proud of all the athletes who represent their country with effort, discipline, passion, and good character - I can't imagine anyone here doesn't agree. Many thanks to you and the others for doing that for the benefit of all of us.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 19, 2006)

Just a minor historical correction...all past world championship trials have been a threey day weekend process...glancing back at past results, '09, Conyers Georgia, practice, one day FITA, round robins, done. '07, Chula Vista, Ca, same format as '09. '05, I think that was also Chula Vista, and...three day format. There has never been a world trials process that consumed an entire week much less two...which, if it were a three day affair, conducted twice, that would be more feasible than two weeks of lodgings, travel, etc.


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Who is being prevented from competing? As I read the statement on USA Archery, you must have met a minimum qualifying score and then place in the top 16 at the first "cutdown" tourney to make the Shadow Team. How is the not allowing everyone to compete? 

With any other sport in the Olympics, you qualify by winning or placing well within that sports trials procedure. How is this any different? It would seem that some would want it to be a one day tournament, winner takes all. That doesn't show who the best archer is, just who got hot on that day! This isn't curling where you can have tryouts a few weeks before the Games....


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

lksseven said:


> In Jake's defense regarding grammer and syntax, my dadburned phone will do the same thing to me when I'm texting - it will substitute a word that it thinks I 'meant to text' instead of the word I texted (example: I can text "Nicklaus" as in Jack Nicklaus, and the stupid phone will substitute "Nicholas", or "nickels" ... irritating in the extreme. I already have a wife and daughter to perform that function for me, I don't need a phone piling on .. haha.
> 
> As a comment about what constitutes being an "Athlete", Jake, "Athlete" isn't only defined as "someone who performs an athletic task and is supported financially to do so." There are a lot of people in this country who have to pursue their athletic dreams on their own time, with money they generate themselves from their jobs - and some of them are world-class athletes, too. I'm pretty sure all of the baseball players in the Hall of Fame would qualify as "athletes", yet many of them in decades past worked jobs in the offseason to help support their families - before TV money became so significant.
> 
> ...


This is the most inane, condescending post I have ever read....who are you to tell someone what "real life" is? You have no idea what his or any other persons sacrifices are to excel in their endeavors....

Your Olympic concept seems to be along the lines of " we won't keep score so no one will get their feelings hurt and we will give medals to everyone"! We are talking about competition here, the best of the best....you have to bust your butt to get here and perform when it matters, end of story! It would seem that those that aren't good enough are whining that they should have a chance, in a system tilted towards them....well you do! *IN THE CUTDOWN TOURNMENT!!!!!!* If you can't make the MQS or can't get to the cutoff point, *YOU AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH!*, so get back out there and work harder, longer, whatever you need to do to give it another shot and succeed!!!!! That is what being an American Olympic Athlete is about.


----------



## Landed in AZ (May 11, 2008)

MyLifeIsArchery said:


> In the last olympic trials 16th ended up 4th and if I remember right the points are not much different now. So it should be ok. Hopefully lol


And Kiley came from 8th to make the Jr World team. I was told that is now impossible so I tried the math and that appeared to be correct to me. So maybe I am missing something, let's hope so.


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Landed in AZ said:


> And Kiley came from 8th to make the Jr World team. I was told that is now impossible so I tried the math and that appeared to be correct to me. So maybe I am missing something, let's hope so.


Barb....

I tried to find this, but I didn't see it anywhere.....where is this listed at?

SB


----------



## Landed in AZ (May 11, 2008)

Scott.Barrett said:


> Barb....
> 
> I tried to find this, but I didn't see it anywhere.....where is this listed at?
> 
> SB


http://usarchery.org/resources/international-team-selection-procedures


----------



## MyLifeIsArchery (Aug 10, 2009)

lksseven said:


> Brady,
> 
> I don't observe that the complaints are directed at the RA's (I hope not, anyway) personally or the RA program. It seems to me that the complaints are directed at a 'path' that seems to prevent some from having the chance to get on the field to compete. Of course, we all know that not everyone will be happy with whatever system is the final one.
> 
> ...


 
I just think there is more than needs to be and I have read a few. But just in general this sight seems pretty negative. Just my opinion. Thanks for the support


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Scott.Barrett said:


> This is the most inane, condescending post I have ever read....who are you to tell someone what "real life" is? You have no idea what his or any other persons sacrifices are to excel in their endeavors....
> 
> Your Olympic concept seems to be along the lines of " we won't keep score so no one will get their feelings hurt and we will give medals to everyone"! We are talking about competition here, the best of the best....you have to bust your butt to get here and perform when it matters, end of story! It would seem that those that aren't good enough are whining that they should have a chance, in a system tilted towards them....well you do! *IN THE CUTDOWN TOURNMENT!!!!!!* If you can't make the MQS or can't get to the cutoff point, *YOU AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH!*, so get back out there and work harder, longer, whatever you need to do to give it another shot and succeed!!!!! That is what being an American Olympic Athlete is about.


Scott,

the "most" inane? Well, it's nice to be out front!

I re read my post, and did not find any instance of dismissing or discounting or denigrating Jake's effort or talent or discipline or sacrifice in pursuing his dreams and goals. In fact, I complimented him on those things ... _"You're to be commended for pursuing your dream, and having the talent and opportunity to do it before 'real life' comes calling. More power to you."_ And commiserated with him on the vagaries of modern technology!

Seriously though, I didn't mean to be condescending (or inane). If it came across that way, apologies to Jake. But he asked about real life, and all i did was post what my definition of what I think the phrase "real life" means (and clearly stated that it was _"my"_ definition, not anyone else's). If yours is different, Scott, that's great. To each his own, eh?

Jake's words: "later I'll get into the 'REAL' life that everyone is talking about... Oh wait I am, im getting married next year. I pay taxes, I went to school, I bought my car, I pay insurance, phone bills, pay for food, and upkeep on where I am living. I really don't know what else there is about in real life that everyone talks about..."

My comment: real life" (at least my definition of it) is sacrificing what you want, if necessary, in order to fulfill your responsibilities and commitments to others - I suspect that this is what many (most?) people mean by "real life". 

And it's not "my Olympic concept" to not keep score, to care about competitors' feelings, or to 'give medals to everyone' ... I re-read my post several times but couldn't find any of those propositions in it. As to the point I was trying to make concerning the classic Olympic ideal, I'll repeat my words, and follow them with the quoted words of the founder of the modern Olympics.

My words: classic American Olympic Ideal - a citizen athlete who trains and sacrifices and competes out of love and passion - where winning is pursued vigorously, but is secondary to the joy of seeing people from all walks of life representing their countries in the joyful pursuit of noble endeavor. 


Modern Olympic Games founder, Baron Pierre de Coubertin, "Olympic ideals are often in sharp contrast to reality. The Olympic motto, Citius, altius, fortius—swifter, higher, stronger—is all too often marred by nationalism’s dark side and the drive for accumulation of team medals. Commercialism has all but overwhelmed the intent of the modern Olympics as expressed by its founder, Frenchman Baron Pierre de Coubertin. He said something in 1908 that has become the modern Olympic Creed, displayed on the scoreboard at opening ceremonies:

“The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph, but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.”

But, to finish with the issue that caused you to ignite (not my intent), I'm genuinely intrigued by what most people mean by "real life" (heck, I didn't interject "real life" into the thread, I just commented on it after the fact). And of course the definition of "real life" probably changes for most people at different points in their lives, right? I mean, many people's definition of "real life" at 20 probably isn't the same as when they're 35, or 55, or ?? How can a 20 year old ever know what someone twice or three times his or her age means when using the phrase "real life"? How can a 50 year old talk about "real life" (as defined by the 50-year old) to a teenager without sounding condescending? Lots of parents struggle with how to pull that off!

Best Regards - I was just commenting on the subject matter from my observation/point of view - as I thought were the other contributors. No offense meant you or Jake or anyone else (and none taken).


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Larry,

The subject matter here is the whether the process should be extended to multiple tournaments or should be a one event. Historically, it has been a single event, but has been changed to a multi-cut series of events for 2012. The issue that is being brought up is that the multiple tournaments impose even more of a financial hardship on the archers and their families/supporters. Some people have expressed that this gives an unfair advantage to the Resident Athletes as their expenses may be covered and they can focus on training instead of having a "real life". I can understand and sympathize with both side of this issue. Even the archers on this thread have said that one FITA would be enough, yet there is a group that are implying that the system is being manipulated to favor the RA's and to put non-RA's at a disadvantage. *We need to keep in mind that the archers, RA and non-RA, did not come up with this new procedure....*

Your profile on AT explains that you are relatively new to the sport, and I would guess, have not competed at the national level yet. It is exciting and I would hope that if time and finances permit, that you give it a shot. You are lucky as I am to have at least 1 event in your home state, but even so, the amount of sacrifice that must be made to do this and to contend is enormous. I would encourage you to come out and meet Jake, Brady or any other person who is competing to make the Olympic Team and ask them about what it takes to do this and compete with countries who fully support their Olympic Athletes.

Not to put them on point, but ask Barb Larrick what it takes to get Kiley to her tournaments, training, school while she works and flies around the country. Ask Mrs. Nichols what it takes to get Brady to events around the world. Even though these events may have a prize purse, there are very few people in the world who survive off of archery alone and without the limited support they do get, we wouldn't even have a team....

I respect that you have an opinion on what "real life" and "sacrifice" consists of in the context of your life and those around you. I would propose that you walk a while in the shoes of these people and see it from their point of view.

Lets get back on topic....


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Scott,

Thanks for your reply!

Some people pop out of the womb destined to dunk basketballs or run 10-second 100 yard races or sing like angels. But no one pops out of the womb playing piano concertos or shooting 10's and "X's". I have nothing but respect and admiration for what these athletes are accomplishing, and what it takes to do so - "Every 10 is earned", which is one of the things that I love most about this sport. 

I did go to Nationals in Ohio this year, and as you suggest, I had a ball. Had a chance to visit with Vic Wunderlee, Thomas Stanton, Rick McKinney (and talked pizza with Jake in the elevator one evening, haha), and some of the parents who were there for their kids - all pleasant, hard working people. I wish I had started 20 years ago.

To the RA's and their parents - you're providing wonderful examples to everyone - both kids and parents alike - examples of support and commitment and dedication. Sincere heartfelt kudos to you guys. (Surely the grousing on here over the format changes are directed at the format itself, and not at the RA's themselves - as an outsider looking in, that's at least how I've interpreted it - not as a personal 'grind' ... I hope not anyway.) 

You know those Oldsmobile commercials where they say "this isn't your daddy's Oldsmobile"? Well, when I start waxing on something, my daughter is found of saying "This isn't your daddy's universe anymore, Dad." So if I've waxed too much on here, please chalk it up to being 'wistful', not 'critical'.

Best Regards,


----------



## straat (Jan 22, 2009)

The process looks to be transparent and open. A lot of countries don't work that way. Why not be happy with what you've got.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

A few thoughts, with this post specifically aimed at the business side of things.

1) as Richard said earlier, money has a lot to do with things. I won't go into details, but just as we see consolidation of sorts occur in business, so shall we see it in archery. 

2) USA Archery, as we all know, is not running rife with money. It has to consolidate to make things more efficient (in theory). 

3) I propose that this is an attempt at simplification. Will it be a successful one? I don't know. 

4) Sometimes, business decisions are made and we are left guessing because we are trying to discern the goings on from a 30,000 foot view with the doors and windows closed. I can almost guarantee that there were some external influences of some sort helping this along. Of what and who? Dunno. 

5) We have the ability to influence the outcome. We can influence it by emailing people like Denise Parker directly. We can influence it by emailing our reps. And we can influence it by not attending. Yes, money talks both ways. You can protest by boycott. 

Attendance is essential for things like this. Nothing tells organizers that "you hosed things up" when all you have in attendance is a few archers and a bunch of crickets chirping in the background. 

For Shiningami - complaining on here is effective. I know people high up inside USA Archery lurk on this sub forum. I don't know if you're just grousing or trying to be helpful. Sometimes you can be understood better if we know more about your background, even if you do put up a fake one. 

Finally, archery and other shooting sports harken back to the days of last man standing; he who has the most kills wins. No matter how we try to civilize it, the basic winner take all is still the key. Complicating the process will drive people away to where you're the last man standing and no one cares, because everyone has taken their toys and left. Getting money by the big boys is nice, but if your attendance sucks, eventually the ones who buy in will walk away. 

The word "decide" has roots in killing. Those who are the decision makers should be careful in what they kill. 

-Steve


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Now for my next post, I'm going to address this as a parent of a young archer. 

As a parent, I'm watching this unfold with great interest. My soon-to-be 9 year old child has been competing for 2 years now, and as he enters into an officially recognized category, I'm really interested in this thread. 

Parents make tough decisions and sacrifices for their kids. As a parent who is also a shooter, decisions are even tougher. 

I'm seeing the sacrifices that I and other parents make, and I start to see that for younger shooters, one needs to either be wealthy and/or have one parent be a stay at home one. 

As a instructor, I see a talent pool of kids who we can draw upon but are unable to get to the level that they should because of complications, obfuscations, and general bureaucratic garbage. Ironically, I can wax poetic during the days that Brady was growing up, because the system while he was a kid seems far simpler than it is now. 

He and Jake aren't complaining about the proposed new system because they have to live it and they have to work within the system to maintain their current job. I applaud them for defending it. Why? Because archery is their passion. 

As a parent, my wife and I need to decide (there's that nasty word again) in combination with his coach (who as a USAT member is also embroiled in this stuff) on how to navigate this miasma to where he is able to enjoy life as a kid, get an education (yes, there is life after archery and getting an education makes paying for real life after archery easier), and not burn out on shooting. 

I'd love to hear from other parents who are either looking outside-in or are embroiled in it now like Barb (and who we have heard from). 

-Steve


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

straat said:


> The process looks to be transparent and open. A lot of countries don't work that way. Why not be happy with what you've got.


I'm going to address this in a few ways. 

1) I will disagree with the process being transparent and open. Who here could openly discuss how this proposed system was created? I have two words - no one. 

2) I could care less how other countries do it. I'm sure others feel the same way. I pay dues into USA Archery, I then have a vested interest in how they do things. I'm not paying into Team GB's system via the lotto, or any other system. 

3) it's not how things were done. I don't necessarily agree that the old system was good. But, USA Archery is seeming to try and create a system in which they can glean the top archers in a pool of talent, and make that top of the top perform. The catch is that USA Archery is trying to create this system and has no way of funding those who don't have the financial means. 

So, someone who theoretically could kick some archery tail could be left behind. 

I see both sides. My recommendation is simplification and proper scouting of talent, combined with better application of corporate sponsorship dollars. 

-Steve


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

MyLifeIsArchery said:


> Now I have read all this thread and I think some facts need to be brought to light. First off the reason for a two shoot process for world trials is the USOC. They wanted a proccess closer to the olympic proccess because of the importance of world championships. I think that it is a good idea.


Brady, I think you may want to do a little more research on this issue. The USOC rubber stamps a proposal submitted by the USAA. This group is Lee, Guy and Robbie and maybe Denise. Now I know we are not suppose to pay attention to the person(s) behind the curtain, but....I'm just saying....

I still do not believe anyone is pointing the finger at you or Jake or anyone else in the RA program. I will speak on behalf of the archery community here in the US. We absolutely support you guys wholeheartedly. However, the guys behind the curtain are going the extra mile to make it more difficult for those who cannot possibly be an RA to make a team. And the bottom line is who ever can shoot the best scores at a given moment is who should represent the USA. When you go to the World Championships you do not get two opportunities to become World Champion. You get that one shot. Thus the trials have always been based on a similar system. The mental toughness that is required to be ready at that one moment in time is what separates champions from the rest of the world. Thus, the system making it more costly does nothing except to make it more advantageous to be an RA. Again, this in no way attacks archers like you, just the guys behind the curtain.


----------



## rpdjr45 (Jul 28, 2007)

Rick, you hit the nail on the head. Thank you for your knowledgable post. Beastmaster, insightful views from the point of view of an archer, parent of an archer and coach. And I thank you for your excellent writing skills. Rick and Steve made their points crystal clear and had full and complete sentences. "Oh, great happiness!" It must be the retired English teacher in me, but really, now, proof reading only takes a few moments. Spell checkers will not tell you that sight, as in ability to see, is incorrect when you meant site, as in a place, such as a web-site. Spell check only kicks out the word if it is spelled incorrectly. Having stated the above, I now fade away and let you folks who really have to deal with the issue of making the team, etc. I'll go fletch my 1916 super duper JAZZ arrows and look for some rocks to bend them against while hunting rubber Bambi deer.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

rpdjr45 said:


> Rick, you hit the nail on the head. Thank you for your knowledgable post. Beastmaster, insightful views from the point of view of an archer, parent of an archer and coach. And I thank you for your excellent writing skills. Rick and Steve made their points crystal clear and had full and complete sentences. "Oh, great happiness!" It must be the retired English teacher in me, but really, now, proof reading only takes a few moments. Spell checkers will not tell you that sight, as in ability to see, is incorrect when you meant site, as in a place, such as a web-site. Spell check only kicks out the word if it is spelled incorrectly. Having stated the above, I now fade away and let you folks who really have to deal with the issue of making the team, etc. I'll go fletch my 1916 super duper JAZZ arrows and look for some rocks to bend them against while hunting rubber Bambi deer.


Richard,

You've been involved in this for a while. I personally feel that it's important for everyone who has some sort of vested interest to chime in and explain their views.

With regards to the typing and spell checking - typing on an iPhone or Blackberry is a chore. The past three messages that I sent were via my iPhone. I've had to shut off most of the nannies that are inherent in the operating system to make sure that what I sent was accurate and not auto-magically spell checked into error.

As a published writer - thank you for your complement!

-Steve


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

rpdjr45 said:


> It must be the retired English teacher in me, but really, now, proof reading only takes a few moments. Spell checkers will not tell you that sight, as in ability to see, is incorrect when you meant site, as in a place, such as a web-site. Spell check only kicks out the word if it is spelled incorrectly.


Oh oh, Richard. You do realize that you have now set yourself up to intense scrutiny of your messages.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Rick McKinney said:


> Brady, I think you may want to do a little more research on this issue. The USOC rubber stamps a proposal submitted by the USAA. This group is Lee, Guy and Robbie and maybe Denise. Now I know we are not suppose to pay attention to the person(s) behind the curtain, but....I'm just saying....
> 
> I still do not believe anyone is pointing the finger at you or Jake or anyone else in the RA program. I will speak on behalf of the archery community here in the US. We absolutely support you guys wholeheartedly. However, the guys behind the curtain are going the extra mile to make it more difficult for those who cannot possibly be an RA to make a team. And the bottom line is who ever can shoot the best scores at a given moment is who should represent the USA. When you go to the World Championships you do not get two opportunities to become World Champion. You get that one shot. Thus the trials have always been based on a similar system. The mental toughness that is required to be ready at that one moment in time is what separates champions from the rest of the world. Thus, the system making it more costly does nothing except to make it more advantageous to be an RA. Again, this in no way attacks archers like you, just the guys behind the curtain.


Exactly and when I expressed the same sentiments in an earlier thread one of the RAs and a few parents thought I was attacking them or their kids which is obviously incorrect. I saw the same stuff happen in skeet by expanding the time committment so as to limit the ability of people who were not RAs (or in the case of shooting USAMU shooters whose MOS is skeet shooting) to make all the required selection events as well as earn a Minimum Qualifying Score (which is much tougher than archery because -at least when I was competing-the MQS had to be shot in something like a world cup with at least five countries participating). Really talented shooters such as Bob Schuely (who won the big NSSA world shoot as a 12 year old and medaled in three consecutive Pan Am Games) who ran a business were hurt by this new system that was designed to benefit the full time RAs and the Army professionals.

And Rick is right. WC and Olympic Gold is based on getting hot for a short period of time.


----------



## Jake Kaminski (Mar 10, 2007)

FYI its all the RA's not just me, I am the only one who posts and defends ourselves


----------



## gairsz (Mar 6, 2008)

Jake, it's not a level playing field, bottom line. I support USA Archery and the RA program, and I have excepted what is reality. You are a very talented young man that will undoubtedly be at the top of the pile of USA archers for many years to come. By limiting the ability of others to compete because they, can't be, don't want to be, or are unwelcome in the RA program isn't right. You and Brady are the best chance for USA Gold in 2012, and I wish you both continued success and growth in pursuit of your dreams.

Gary Zumbo


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

John Magera had what I consider one of the most inspirational athletic stories I've ever read. The following is what he wrote in June 2004 and posted on the Stickbow.com forum. He titled it "My Journey to Athens."

Hi folks, I've been waiting until I had the energy to write this so I could give it my full attention. A full week after I returned home, I finally have a moment. I know many of you asked for a full report, so here it is, from the beginning...

After picking up a FITA bow for the first time last spring, I decided that it was something I needed to learn more about in order to help the JOAD (junior olympic archery development) kids I work with. Well, one thing led to another (you know that little voice that asks "I wonder just how good I can get with this thing?") and I signed up to shoot in the Prairie State Games last June (a 900 metric round shot at 60, 50 and 40 meters). So for about a month, I prepared for that event and finally borrowed some good equipment to shoot in it. At the event, I shot an 807 and finished 2nd out of 2 people in my class  The fellow who took first was ranked 23rd in the U.S. at the time, and shot an 823. Considering the wind that day, I felt good about my score and I knew deep down that I could win that event this year if I just put some effort into it.

I also wanted some experience on a national level, so I focused on the first NAA event of the '04 season that I could make, the Texas Shootout. I had prepared all winter, often shooting in sub-40 degree weather all the way out to 90 meters. In fact, my highest FITA round score to date is a 1310 I shot on new year's day! I knew my scores at 70 meters would be competitive, but I really had no idea. 

The first day of the Texas shootout, I looked up at the scoreboard halfway through and was surprised to see my name right behind Butch Johnson (the #1 ranked U.S. Olympic archer). I finished the qualification round strong and ended up in 4th place, only one point out of second. That was a very encouraging and I surprised even myself. I went home from that tournament on a real high and practiced harder than ever. I knew that a few more good finishes at US Archery Team ranking events could put me on the '05 U.S. Archery Team, so I made that my goal for the year.

The next event was the Gold Cup in New Jersey. Not one I was looking forward to driving to (15 hours away) but I knew I had to make it in order to have a shot at the '05 team, so I went. I think the driving caught up with me, and I didn't shoot as well as I would have liked. In fact, I shot a higher ranking round score in Texas where the winds were 13 mph + all weekend! The highlight of my trip to New Jersey was facing Jay Barrs (the '88 Gold Medalist) in the second round, and beating him in a one arrow shoot off. That was another big confidence builder for me, and gave me hope that I could really shoot with these guys.

After the Gold Cup, I was really looking ahead at the Outdoor Nationals, a required tournament for the '05 team. I knew that I would have to finish well there to have a chance. I really wasn't even worried about the Trials, since I knew everyone would be shooting for one spot. Butch and Vic Wunderle have been shooting so well all year that we all knew they would take the first two spots on the team. So the question them became, who will be the third one?

The week before the trials, I didn't shoot much. In fact, I took some time off to go fishing in my boat with the kids. A lot of crappie were caught, and it took my mind off of the upcoming event.

The trials were set up like this... Monday was a 144 arrow ranking marathon (all at 70 meters) that would determine the top 16 archers, and everyone else would go home. 73 men qualified for the trials, so it was a big cut. My goal was to make that top 16, and I did. In fact, I finished 7th the first day, even after "donating" 10 points to the field by shooting my 72nd arrow into the grass!!! 

The second and third days were 12 arrow matches against the other 15 archers. I was really on a roll, and won 7 of 8 on Tuesday, and 6 of 7 on Wednesday. I beat both Vic and Butch those two days, and it was then that I finally realized that not only could I shoot with these guys, but I had a good chance to make the alternate (4th) spot, if not the team. 

Every evening I would go back to the hotel, call my wife, and relax. I wouldn't even allow myself to think about making the team. It was a non-issue. I just focused on shooting my shot, and letting the points take care of themselves. 

I started the fourth day in 3rd place, only 23 points up from the next guy, and a ton of points behind Butch. I knew that everyone I had beat the last two days would not be underestimating me again, and I was right. I had some really tough matches and only won 3 of 7 that day. My lead slipped to 11 points and I knew I had to shoot my best on Saturday, the final day. 

I practiced that evening, looking for whatever feeling would give me the strongest shot. I found it. I had been dropping my bowarm on Friday, and knew that if I would focus on that, I would be very tough to beat. Oddly enough, I slept very well on Friday night. I had called my wife, and asked her if she was "ready for this", meaning all the media attention, travel and time away from home that I knew would come from making the team. She only said one thing..."John, make the team." I slept great.

Saturday I was the first one at the pracitce bales on the field. I worked on that feeling I "found" again on Friday afternoon, and it was right there. My shots were strong, and I knew it was going to be a good day.

I shot well Saturday, but only won 3 of my 7 matches again. The NBC crew was all over me that day, following me with their cameras to the target, and even putting a camera on my target at one point! They told me that my story was too good to be true, but it didn't matter to me. I still had a job to do. 

Two of the matches I lost (including a second shoot-off with Vic Wunderle) were great scores, but my opponents were ready for me this time. Jason McKittrick was making a run from 4th place, and I knew I had to win the match against him or there would be a 10 point swing (we got 5 bonus points for winning a match). Jason was my first match, and I shot well. He slipped up in the 3rd end, giving me a 3 point lead, and that was the difference in the match. He was very dissapointed, and I knew after that the team was mine to make.

Going into the last match, I still had a good lead on Jason. I knew I didn't have to win, just shoot a decent score, and I would make the team. I shot fine, and Butch Johnson (who I was shooting the match against) was the first one to congratulate me. We hadn't even scored the final arrows yet, and he said "let me be the first to congratulate you. You shot great." That was high praise coming from a four time Olympian and archery legend.

After the tournament was over, there was a drug test, a media blitz and tons of autographs to sign. I had a blast signing kids T-shirts and programs. They really were excited to meet an Olympian, and I was happy to oblige. Then we were whisked away to a three day mini-camp where we practiced team rounds, media relations, and filled out tons of paperwork. The buzz moved into a full humm, and I gave about 20 interviews within the first 5 days after the trials.

More than anything, I missed my wife and kids. I couldn't wait to see them, and I wouldn't tell the media when I was coming home in order to have a few hours alone with my wife. Soon after, there were three television station rigs parked in my front yard, and the circus began. The mayor of my little town put up a sign that read "Congratulations John Magera, U.S. Olympic Archer" right in front of my house. There were other signs around town that said the same. I made the Southern Illinois newspapers five days in a row.

Things are finally getting as close to "normal" as I think they will be for several months. I leave for Turkey (the European Grand Prix) in a few days, then I'm home for a week, then off to the outdoor nationals, then home for a day, then off to Greece. It's going to be crazy, but I think my wife and I can handle it. She is a very capable and strong woman, and she even told me that I would be "public property" for a few months. For her to realize that and be okay with it really said a lot to me about her. I have a great wife. 

I have had offers from sponsors, been asked to make lists of equipment I wanted, seen an attorney and accountant, and given probably another 20 interviews. My older brother called me the other night and said "do you realize you made the newspapers in Australia?" I couldn't believe it. Olympic style archery is such a big deal in other countries, that they keep a pretty close watch on who the team members will be. Sure was a wierd feeling, but one I'll get used to. 

NOW, THE PEOPLE I NEED TO THANK...

A lot of folks have helped and supported me through this venture. Not the least of whom is Bob Gordon (Warf) who was always there to give me a "nice job" when I would send him a picture of a particularly good group I had shot that day in practice. Bob's cousin, Ed Eliason, is an Olympic archery legend, so I didn't take his praise lightly.

O.L. Adcock has been my biggest cheerleader during all of this. He told me he was living his Olympic dream vicariously through me, so I didn't want to let him down. Not that he would ever be dissapointed in me, but it's nice to give a friend something to cheer about 

At the trials, several traditional shooters came up and introduced themselves to me. In fact, Don (a.k.a. "tuffshot") and his son were a load of help during the trials. They shot video for me, helped me carry gear around, took me to lunch one day, and always had a smile and positive things to say. That meant a lot to me. Thanks Don. I also me "arc of the arrow" and a few others whose handles I can't recall. All very nice and very positive. 

Many other traditional folks have pushed me forward and given me encouragement, even when my bow didn't look like theirs, or even have a wooden riser! The night after the trials, I checked this board and a few others I frequent, and the positive comments almost overwhelmed me. It was as close to breaking down as I've come in the past few weeks, and I am just very touched by the kind words.

Well, that's all I have for now. I'm about spent. I have a lot of training, tournaments and wonderful experiences to look forward to, and I will enjoy them all.

Oh yea, I’ve already reached my goals in a way. Yesterday I opened up a box that had three "U.S. Archery Team 2004" shirts in it. Man was that a proud feeling when I put one of those on. It made all of the work and travel worth it for sure. And Saturday my son and I shot in the Prairie State Games again. We both won a gold medal, and I set the new PSG record for the 900 round. Mission accomplished )

Thanks to all of you who posted and have supported me. My wife and I are very touched that we will be receiving donations from members here to help pay her travel expenses to Athens. That was totally unexpected and sincerely appreciated.

God Bless,

John.


----------



## Jacob Wukie (Dec 18, 2004)

rpdjr45 said:


> And the purpose of a complicated system is that it is being set up to favor one group over another. Could be all wrong, it's happened twice before. And sure it is that no system will please everyone. I would find it refreshing to see and hear a simple, "Shut up and shoot" approach.
> 
> Easton is bank rolling both the NFAA and USAA, so there it is. Neither of those groups are going to do anything cut off their financial supply line. And I love Easton products. Best arrows on the market. But business is business and neither national organization can't make it on their own. So the ranking system comes up and through that venue control is established and the right people get a cut. And Spotshooter, you're screwed. Not because you haven't the skill, but you've been priced out of it. You're one of "those sorts."


First I would like to comment on the ranking system. The only thing I would like to comment on is whether having more than one event is fair. As Rick stated he thinks one tournament is the best, I disagree, I personally have good and bad weeks and depending on the week I may or may not make a team. I think two events would be more likely to pick the archer that is more consistent and more likely to compete well for the US. Agree to disagree but why are so many people saying it's a conspiracy to put RA's on the team?

Is our goal to give the backyard shooter the best chance to make the team, or to send our best team? Maybe sometimes they are mutually exclusive. And before people say that I think RA's should be given an advantage, that is not what I said, but if more than one tournament is better but also is too much of a burden for some, I say go with the method that will give us the best team.

Regarding the comments about Easton, I think they were totally uncalled for. Saying that Easton is bank rolling the organizations while providing no facts, especially with how much Easton has done for archery in this country, is dissrespectful and ungreatful.


----------



## Jake Kaminski (Mar 10, 2007)

gairsz said:


> Jake, it's not a level playing field, bottom line. I support USA Archery and the RA program, and I have excepted what is reality. You are a very talented young man that will undoubtedly be at the top of the pile of USA archers for many years to come. By limiting the ability of others to compete because they, can't be, don't want to be, or are unwelcome in the RA program isn't right. You and Brady are the best chance for USA Gold in 2012, and I wish you both continued success and growth in pursuit of your dreams.
> 
> Gary Zumbo



Who is unwelcome in the RA program? Really I have no idea who is not welcome in the program, if you meet the minimum qualifying requirements and are a strong person with the ability to live in a stressful environment then you will be great in the program.


----------



## rpdjr45 (Jul 28, 2007)

"Regarding the comments about Easton, I think they were totally uncalled for. Saying that Easton is bank rolling the organizations while providing no facts, especially with how much Easton has done for archery in this country, is dissrespectful and ungreatful.[/QUOTE]

Easton has done much for archery in this country and the world, and part of that is supporting the organizations with funds and supplies. If you do not believe Easton is helping to bankroll the NFAA and USAA, fine. Ask yourself the following: how has Easton done much for archery? Just making arrows? What about all the funds and materials that they "donate?" They generously give to organizations, JOAD Clubs and others with a tax exemption status, don't they? Yes, they certainly do, and we're all grateful for they assistance. I think that Easton is the primary source of funding for both organizations, and that is all right. Just be honest about it. If Easton says or suggest that things be done a certain way, and the organization is dependent in large part upon their support, the organization will do it, and should do it. If Easton gave my club five thousand dollars and said we want four field tournaments a year in exchange for our support, they will get four field tournaments. Just be honest about who and what and why? But do not pretend that Easton does not have a vested interest in the NFAA and USAA. Nothing I've stated was "disrespectful nor ungrateful." Yes, I spelled both words correctly. (Arcus, take note what I just done didded.) So, in conclusion, business is still business.

Arcus: What? Me maked a missteak? That be unpossible!:wink:


----------



## Archergirl_ (Jan 3, 2009)

I have looked at this thread for a couple of days now and cannot hold in my concerns for how people can’t see that some make sacrifices. 

Why do think that "backyard" shooters should be able walk up to that trials day and make the team? With no real hard work being done about it? I have had the dream to go to the Olympics since I was six. I took the initiative to practice at home and I wanted to become the best. I turned down many offers from friends to join sports at my high school because I knew it would only take away from what I truly wanted. I have had some rough times and some really great times. They have made me stronger and I now got the chance to become an RA; to finally take the next step and make my shooting even better. So when Lizard says, "_though you seem to feel ENTITLED to live your dream, through my most generous donations to the USOC_".... First, people who usually donate out of the goodness of their hearts don't feel the need to wave it in people's faces that they made a donation. It's called being humble. Second, work hard at what you want to achieve. If your priorities aren’t on making an Olympic team but on trying to impress your boss, or filling out that college application to the school you have been dying to get into. You can’t just assume you can do everything and then some. Choices. Some are easier and some are harder. You will have to make your own for what you really want out of life. 

Yes, I know it is hard in the present time with funding for people to get to these tournaments. I have had to go through all the hoops too of “what tournaments can we afford, benefit from, the trials, and so on.” Let's think of it this way, instead of trying to figure out how to get to _all_ of them, just try to go to the ones that are important to YOU; the archer who remembers having fun shooting a bow and doing it for the love of sport. I give props to Scott Barrett who posted, _“We are talking about competition here, the best of the best....you have to bust your butt to get here and perform when it matters.”_
If your only goal is to be a backyard shooter and try for that one shot at the trials to make a team, then great! I say go for it. But you shouldn't be so upset if you do not make it purely because you _expect_ to make it. People work hard at this sport, so if you would like to better your chances, then there are sacrifices that you have to _choose[i/] to make.

“Again, this in no way attacks archers like you, just the guys behind the curtain"(Rick McKinney), Your comments that you have made Rick seem not as directed toward us, but there are some on here who have definitely made it their job to take it out on something/someone. Mostly being us, but I thank you for your kind thoughts. 

John Magera’s story is quite interesting. He certainly was the backyard shooter. But what we don’t read is how he actually shot in the Olympics. I have heard that he barely even practiced and went sight seeing. It cost them a medal; for what? To show that backyard archers can still make it?

Times are tough. We have to live within our means and make choices. That’s what being an adult is about, not taking out your frustrations on those who you think benefit from said system. We have ALL worked hard to get here. We don't get to spend a lot of time with our families and you seem to think that we aren’t slighted in the least. If you think you work as hard as we do, you are welcome to fill out an application. Please stop the complaining, the bashing, and the judging. It’s time some of you act your own age and move on from negativity. Make the sport of archery grow, not keep it in the same ‘not-going-anywhere’ rut that it has been in for all these years.

Learn from the past, and move forward.

Heather Koehl 


***As a side note….I would like to bring to light Mr. Rpdjr45…seriously? The only thing you can pick on people for is their grammar and spelling? He can outshoot you any day of the week and you feel obligated to repeatedly bring down his lack of spelling…..who is the more mature one here, English teacher?***_


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Interesting to see so many RA’s responding. Many of you have made some very valid points. However, you are still missing the real reason so many people are upset with the “system”. 

Jacob. Your comment about needing two opportunities to prove your worth says to me you are not ready yet. You will be in time but it does take some time to become consistent. Look at Brady a few years ago. He was just like you. Getting there but not quite ready. He is now. You will be if you continue working. The consistency comes with lots of work and time. 

And just a side note. I am sure you all know how the track and field team are chosen. Right? One trial. And there is a LOT more money at stake! And they do very well. 

Jake. It takes a special personality to be an RA. Some people do not have that type of personality. That should not disqualify them from having an opportunity to train on their own or in a different environment to achieve the very same goal you are working towards. And yes, some very good archers have been turned down. 

Heather. Keep focused and prove to us all you are one of our best. You appear to have many qualities that points to champion caliber. 

Let me ask you RA’s a very simple question. Suppose you had this current RA program, which included the USOC housing, the USOC food, the training field and the coaching. However, you did not get the monthly stipend and most importantly you did not get any funding to go to any tournament. Would you still think it fair that all of a sudden there were 8 USAT ranking events you had to go to and there were two World Team Trials you had to go to? Now, I understand you do not have to go to all of the 8 USAT events (only the mandatory week long Nationals), but would you take a chance on not making the team because someone else might be at an event you were not and they received a load of extra points? 

As I have said before your shooting will speak for itself at the big events. The best, no matter where you come from will rise if allowed to. The financial burden that has been placed on the people who will not or cannot be an RA appears to be unacceptable. Again, I preface, this is not your fault. You should stay focused and let nothing get in the way of your dream. Ask Khatuna. She has been in more hardships than any archer I know and she still knows what she needs to do. A great archer, a great lady and a great champion. 

As for the “backyard” shooter comment, keep in mind that’s where the Reo’s, the Erika’s and other top compound archers come from. I think you really meant the “one shot wonders” which I agree with you there. However, if you are prepared to compete, the “one shot wonders” don’t have a chance. 

Many of you RA’s were not even born when the US recurve archers were dominating the scene so you probably have a hard time understanding what we did and how we did it. If you look at the US top compound archers you will get a snapshot of what it was like then. Actually it was harder to make a US World Championship team than it was to medal in the World Championships (just like today’s US compound archers). I bring this up because the US still has a deep internal drive to excel no matter what. However, nobody should be tossed to the side because of “the system”.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

This is slightly off topic but pertinent considering the subject matter posted. 

I will paraphrase from my favorite 'roid boy and fellow ASU Sun Devil, the one and only Barry Bonds. He said that when he went from high school to college baseball, baseball quit being fun and became a business. In other words, it's real work. 

I say unto the masses gathered here that to the RA's and others who have achieved a certain status level that you are doing this for work. Yes, the shooting enjoyment is there, but the raw reality is that when you get yourself to a certain level in sports, you're doing work for someone. In this case, it's the sponsors. 

I personally am not looking forward to see how things evolve as my own child continues his progress as an archer, albeit a compounder instead of a recurve shooter. He's already seeing the business side of things as I struggle to shield him from that. 

I also struggle with something that I've had a hard time digesting, so in my typical blunt fashion, I'm going to lay it all out. 

Matt's Dad has posted here about the inequalities that are perceived in the proposed system. Matt is "in the system". Yet, I'm basically seeing the virtual cold shoulder and virtual walls being built to shun his comments. 

This, seen from this "outsider" (and I use the term sarcastically), smacks of eliteism from the get go. 

You (I'm using the broad brush stroke "you") all state that you want to see archery grow. The mere fact that no one in the current system has risen to back Matt's Dad speaks volumes. And for those who are astute enough to read between the lines can discern that Matt's Dad is hitting a raw nerve. The apparent fact that it's being ignored means he's onto something. 

Finally, change is inevitable. Do too drastic of a change and you lose people, and in doing so, you lose the structure. Tornadoes change things, but they don't last even though they provide a hellish amount of power. The same thing can occur here - change too fast and people will rebel and abandon. 

-Steve


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

The team with John Magera did not medal. That is true. But what alot of people seem to forget is the fact that the USA 2004 team beat-on their way to the semis-the Italian team which, on paper, had to be one of the strongest threesome in history. A team that featured the then Current World Champion (M Frangilli) the then current World Indoor Champion (IDB) and of course, the man who had just won the individual Gold Medal. I was at the trials where John won his place and the fact is, over several days of tough conditions, he shot well. Those who were the full time shooters at the OTC did not. You would think with all the advantages those RAs had, they would have no problem overcoming a "backyard" shooter as some call Mr. Magera. And if we remember Athens, lots of full time archers didn't exactly live up to expectations. Look at all the big stars who went out in the first round due to (among other things) unpredictable gusts of wind etc. 

To criticize Mr. Magera-who is one of the best people I have met in the sport serves no useful purpose. If those whose career is full time archer cannot beat a guy who works for a living and shoots on the side, the fault is not with the system or Mr. Magera but has to lie someplace else. The solution is not to prevent people like John from being able to attend the trials or make the USAT ranks. I would suggest that if full time archers cannot overcome the John Mageras here in our country when a world team or Olympic berth is on the line, I suspect they won't be able to win against the full time archers Korea etc fields as well. 

So let the trials pick the most talented people and not reduce to field based on a sense of entitlement.


----------



## rpdjr45 (Jul 28, 2007)

Ahhhh. I've come to the conclusion that some younger members of the archery world neither write clearly, nor read clearly. You're pulling things out of context and reading into the statements things that are not there. You and Jake seem to think that people are attacking you personally, and the RA program in general, and you are both wrong.
1. The new system seems to be complicated, more so than needed. Why?
2. Postings about the pros and cons, attempting to answer the why.
3. Suggestions that the new system favors those already in the program, thus making it harder for seemingly nonfavored archers who may have the skills to crack into the top ranks, but won't be allowed to compete.
4. My suggestion: the one who pays the piper, picks the tunes. Business is business and if Easton is behind it, as I think they are as they have much invested in the sport, and in particular at Yankton, site of the 2011 Nationals of both organizations, then be honest about it. From Easton's point of view, the desire to get the biggest bang for their buck is normal. Just be honest about it. And from my worldly experience as an athlete and coach for over 30 years, whenever an organization decides to complicate things, it is usually not for the better. (Think of tax laws as an example.)
5. A gentleman makes donations to the USOC, praises, yes, he praised the athletes, and noted that donations such as his help the RA program and that RA program does help. His hope is that the new system does not get so complicated as to reject the "back yard" super star archer from the opportunity compete because they are not in the club. In other words, let us not close the door to those knocking just outside.
6. Rick makes his points based on Olympic experience that this retired, semi-old English teacher can only day dream about. His point was that the system of USA team and Olympic team selection that he participated in was simpler, and functional; he wonders who behind the curtain is making the changes and why.
7. Steve pointed out that from his perspective as a parent of an archer(s), a coach, and a judge, that the system is indeed getting complicated and it need not be so. He pointed out that if an archer, youth or adult, wishes to pursue an Olympic dream or the dream of achieving high goals in the sport, that it takes a lot of money from the family which could go to other things, but the family rallies around the archer and so they go forth. He states that it would be wonderful if all the good archers could be in an RA program, but that is not logistically nor realistically possible. BUT --- just because the archer is not in the RA program should not mean the governing organizations should complicate the process to keep them out or make it nearly impossible to even try. 
8. Then we get postings from young (anyone under than 30 is young to us "semi-old guys") complaining about being picked on, and dissed, and making statements that if an archer is good enough they'll get in the program, so leave me alone and the rest of us alone. No one, no one went after any RA archers. No one wrote anything remotely close to being disrepectful. And apparently, only the younger "posters: were writing without proof reading, and making such silly errors that it is hard to take anything written seriously. And personally, I suggested that one not write while angry as one is prone to make errors. You want to blame it on fat thumbs and tiny phone keys, fine. Any idea not stated clearly in writing is lost forever. 
9. I concede that just about anyone can and does outshoot me. A 13 year old beat me 111 to 109 in a field shoot. I was happy for him. We had fun. Remember fun is a fundamental part of archery or we wouldn't be doing it, right? As for maturity, I win hands down. And for writing skills, though not perfect, I win that one too. So you pluck away at your bow string which is what you do best, and I'll peck away at my keys, which I do better. 

No matter what, the new system is overly complicated and the people behind the curtain owe the US archery community an explanation. Without information we are left with our imagination and imagination almost always runs wild. Now, all of you, go get your bow and arrows and get ready for Nationals, which are only eight months away.


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Rick McKinney said:


> And just a side note. I am sure you all know how the track and field team are chosen. Right? One trial. And there is a LOT more money at stake! And they do very well.


Hi Rick,

I think an important thing to realize here is that not just anybody can show up to the US Track and Field Finals and compete....you have to be ranked and have times or distances that allow you to be competitive. Are we not getting closer to that paradigm with the new system. I agree that most are probably concerned about the inconsistent "one day wonder" beating the always consistent champ by a point. I don't think anyone would say that that would help choose the representatives from our country, except for the one day wonder!

I don't believe any system should impose a financial barrier to entry, but our only other option would be to hold regional qualifiers and that would/could never be fair just because of weather conditions. Perhaps we could shoot a FITA indoors?

While this is probably not the best implementation, I would still want to see a system where you qualify first and then shoot it out....perhaps a MQS at a tournament of your choosing and then shoot it out at Nationals?


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

I'd like to add a small example here, but I think it pertains more than it's face value might show.

We held JOAD Nationals here in Des Moines. After we were done tearing the field down, we invited one of the officers of a GREAT sponsor we had out to dinner. Sitting at dinner, conversation came up about something or another, and Miranda jokingly said "well if I had a job, I could afford....." (don't remember what it was). Said representative of the tournament sponsor just piped up and said - "Well we're hiring!" (true, they were). Miranda, actually interested in what she heard, says "but I'll have to go to....." and rattled off two or three tournaments that lasted quite a long time close together. The sponsor then replied with "Oh, I don't think we're hiring then."

All of this was said in good light among friends, but it was all true. Now, how do you think MY employer would look at the schedule if it were ME in her shoes? Just take a look at the tournament schedule that has been laid out so far for next year.......the first selection shoot for SR World championships is a week or two before finals start. There are several shooters of all ages on all sides of the game that this schedule affects.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Actually, a MQS idea isn't a bad one. There you have the advantages of a two step system, backyard archers can take advantage of the fact that they can shoot a MQS nearby, and it helps winnow out the weaker archers.


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Beastmaster said:


> Actually, a MQS idea isn't a bad one. There you have the advantages of a two step system, backyard archers can take advantage of the fact that they can shoot a MQS nearby, and it helps winnow out the weaker archers.


It is already in the current draft with a MQS of 1230 for both men and women. How about we skip all of the cutdown procedures and just say you have to have a 1250 and be in the top 3 at Nationals?


----------



## Archergirl_ (Jan 3, 2009)

I honestly didn't mean it as a personal attack on John. If there was a way to remove it I would. He made an Olympic team and that is certainly something to admire. I am sorry and I hope John does not take it that way.


----------



## Jake Kaminski (Mar 10, 2007)

I realize now that you guys don't insult us or the program it just makes us feel uneasy that you feel like we have such an advantage. I just don't like the lack of respect persay. I know none of the comments are directed at us. But we feel that if you don't like what's going on and say that we have it all basically hurts our feelings. We work very hard to be where we are I just don't feel like you are directing your comments as to where they should be. We may misconstrue your statements it's both our faults. 

Who cares if I type without care and I make mistakes. If it makes me look bad so be it. Keep it to yourself and not point it out and make a mockery of it. This isn't you got served. 


Bottom line I just feel like there is a few people on here that know who they are make me feel like you want me to be handicapped and not aloud to win.


----------



## Shinigami3 (Oct 7, 2009)

Jake,

You're right, and you're playing right into the hands of some people who have a long history of going after people psychologically with tactics like this. Just sayin'... as a top athlete, you might want to ignore places like this.


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

With a MQS of 1230* or 625*, for Mens Senior Recurve, this is the list.....
*(based on scores in 2010. MQS scores would be counted from July 2011 to July 2012)

Aaron Henslin 
Anthony Don
Brady Ellison
Butch Johnson
Dan Schuller
Forrest Blakley
Jacob Wukie
Jake Kaminski
Jeff Andersen
Joe Fanchin
Joseph McGlyn 
Josh Smith
Matthew Zumbo
Jason Mckittrick
Nick Kale
Peter Kelchner
Michael Quayle
Richard Johnson
Rick Tollis
Shawn Rice
Staten Holmes
Ted Holland 
Thomas Stanwood
Vic Wunderle


That is only 24 people! Could we not just take these people and have them shoot it out at Nationals?

The next question is....is our MQS score set too low?


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Scott.Barrett said:


> With a MQS of 1230* or 625*, for Mens Senior Recurve, this is the list.....
> *(based on scores in 2010. MQS scores would be counted from July 2011 to July 2012)
> 
> Aaron Henslin
> ...


Sorry...only 23....Richard and Butch being the same person....


----------



## gairsz (Mar 6, 2008)

I sent Jake a private message and then we talked on the phone. After talking with him, I realized this is getting out of hand. We need to let the kids focus on winning. That is all they should be expected to do. The politics are getting in their way. We are all frustrated, but cooler heads must prevail. They should not have to spend time defending themselves. Showing more support for the program is a good thing and the right thing to do.

Just my thoughts after a very good conversation with a very understaning young man who is just trying to reach his dream.

Gary


----------



## MyLifeIsArchery (Aug 10, 2009)

Scott.Barrett said:


> With a MQS of 1230* or 625*, for Mens Senior Recurve, this is the list.....
> *(based on scores in 2010. MQS scores would be counted from July 2011 to July 2012)
> 
> Aaron Henslin
> ...


I like the idea of a MQS score but I think if we have one it needs to be based off of a score that would make an inter nation cut. I don't know what that is but maybe around a 1270 for men recurve.


----------



## MyLifeIsArchery (Aug 10, 2009)

Ok here is a thought. I am the athlete rep along with erika. Most people seem to not like this new system...... I am going to the board meeting in dec. If any one wants to create a new system or make changes to the new one tell me. Post it, pm it I really don't care, if your that upset with things I'll go to the board with your concerns. No promises but I will try. As the rep I'm here for u guys and I'll try to do my best.

Brady.


----------



## gairsz (Mar 6, 2008)

MyLifeIsArchery said:


> I like the idea of a MQS score but I think if we have one it needs to be based off of a score that would make an inter nation cut. I don't know what that is but maybe around a 1270 for men recurve.


Brady you are probably right. Any idea how many would be left on the list if the MQS was 1270? Looking at the names on the posted list I don’t think it would change that much.


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

MyLifeIsArchery said:


> Ok here is a thought. I am the athlete rep along with erika. Most people seem to not like this new system...... I am going to the board meeting in dec. If any one wants to create a new system or make changes to the new one tell me. Post it, pm it I really don't care, if your that upset with things I'll go to the board with your concerns. No promises but I will try. As the rep I'm here for u guys and I'll try to do my best.
> 
> Brady.


Hi Brady,

This is what I would propose to keep the costs down and give every opportunity for everyone to succeed and still find the best archers....

1. A minimum qualifying score. Based on the median score of the 2008 Olympics, 660 for Mens Recurve AND a 105 for the OR Round. This score should be achieved within the year leading up to 2012 US Nationals, at any USAT event or International event.

2. Top 3 placing at 2012 National Trials....To take place at the US Nationals, all qualified archers would shoot a Qualification round and an OR Round to determine a final ranking for who will make the team, following FITA rules in place at the time. 

This is pretty simple and the MQS may need some adjusting, but this gives ample opportunity for someone to qualify or to qualify quickly and keep costs down. Once qualified, you only have to go to the Trials in one place, where you would end up going to anyway for Nationals. With a little calendar or format adjusting, this could easily occur within the time frame.

Thanks for jumping into this Brady!

SB


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

gairsz said:


> Brady you are probably right. Any idea how many would be left on the list if the MQS was 1270? Looking at the names on the posted list I don’t think it would change that much.


Not by much, I'll have to pull the data again and put a high score list together....

SB


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Scott.Barrett said:


> Hi Brady,
> 
> This is what I would propose to keep the costs down and give every opportunity for everyone to succeed and still find the best archers....
> 
> ...


What you are missing is that the selection process has to live up to the standards of the USOC. That's the parrent organization to the USAA. They won't accept a one day trial, I can guarantee you that.


----------



## rpdjr45 (Jul 28, 2007)

Scott's idea is the closest to the true spirit of the Olympics and competition. Scott, it was straight forward and simple. Heck, even the USOC can understand it. Huntmaster, why wouldn't the USOC accept such a proposal? We could always stretch it out over two days if that is the only concern.

Jake, come on, man, buck up. Don't act as if you need to go to mamby pamby land and get some self confidence. And the word is allowed, not aloud. :doh: And I point that out in the most loving and sportsmanlike way possible. By the way, your last posting was a great improvment over the earlier ones. Now, go out there and drill those arrows in the center and stop worrying about semi-old guys such as me. :usa2:


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Dear AT Reader,

I apologize for bringing my opinion into this matter. I have gotten many PMs from RAs and in retrospect, I should have entitled my response something like "To Jake" because that would have been correct. 

That said, I want to express my gratitude to all the RAs for the work they put into training for the upcoming 2011 tournament season. I know many of you have given up much in order to be out there training the LONG hours you do, and I truly am sorry that I upset many of you. 

I am sorry I even thought about the families of the RAs, because they have given up much to have there children at the OTC.

Please accept this as a token to express my gratitude, and to EACH RA, AND THEIR FAMILIES FOR LIVING YOUR DREAM! 

Please accept this as an apology for my blanket statement, of which it was NOT meant to be.

I wish each of you and your families all the best and a Happy Thanksgiving.

Sincerely,

Liz Coombe


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Scot. You are right in that aspect that Track and Field have qualifying standards. However, I would wager to guess it is due to the enormity of the event if everyone was invited! ☺ I have no qualms with an MQS except it has to be taken in perspective. Weather can be a huge factor for an MQS. I think you are right about some form of qualification. Years ago they required 4 scores of a specific number. You had one year to get those scores in. It worked great because it forced the archer to shoot tournaments (gave them more experience). It helped the clubs via participation numbers and the USAA had many more prepared archers at the trials. The USAT ranking events were a great system of meeting specific qualification standards and most of the best were at the three events, until someone or some group wanted to increase those events to eight (that curtain thing really bothers me!). If we still had just three USAT ranking events and since they were early in the year, you could have used those events as qualifying events. Something similar to how the FITA World Championships are used as qualifying positions for the Olympics. It could be very simple and have just 64 or 128 archers at the Olympic trials. But realistically there are only about 10 women and 15 men who remotely have a chance of making the team. So it still does not eliminate the concern of the “one shot wonder.”


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Brady,
Thanks for clarifying!
See my last apology post! 
I think the RA program is a great thing, I just hope that the team selections are fair to those who do not or cannot live out there at the OTC! What I don't want to see is the advantage ONLY going to the RAs! These new guidelines favor RAs, and I don't think that is fair to many people who will spend a lot of money going to tournaments, to feel as though, "What's the use! They eat, sleep and drink archery! I have a job, I have a family who I have to provide for, who are sacrificing for me to be able to go to these tournaments." (We actually have a gentleman in our club who has that exact situation!) Now, is it fair for me to dash his hopes? No because the neat thing about archery is any given person on any given day can get hot, and shoot incredible scores!
That said, I hope that one day one or two of our kids can come out there for the OTC experience of being an RA, it would be incredible! 
The solution to the problem is to open up the program to as many as possible, not to limit the selection process to only a few tournaments. How about we reevaluate the situation and look at how it was when the USA was on the top of the medal stand, when Darrell and Rick ruled the roost! 






MyLifeIsArchery said:


> Lizard
> First off thank you for your support of the Otc and all the athletes. We all apprieciate it grately.
> 
> Now I have read all this thread and I think some facts need to be brought to light. First off the reason for a two shoot process for world trials is the USOC. They wanted a proccess closer to the olympic proccess because of the importance of world championships. I think that it is a good idea.
> ...


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Rick McKinney said:


> Scot. You are right in that aspect that Track and Field have qualifying standards. However, I would wager to guess it is due to the enormity of the event if everyone was invited! ☺ I have no qualms with an MQS except it has to be taken in perspective. Weather can be a huge factor for an MQS. I think you are right about some form of qualification. Years ago they required 4 scores of a specific number. You had one year to get those scores in. It worked great because it forced the archer to shoot tournaments (gave them more experience). It helped the clubs via participation numbers and the USAA had many more prepared archers at the trials. The USAT ranking events were a great system of meeting specific qualification standards and most of the best were at the three events, until someone or some group wanted to increase those events to eight (that curtain thing really bothers me!). If we still had just three USAT ranking events and since they were early in the year, you could have used those events as qualifying events. Something similar to how the FITA World Championships are used as qualifying positions for the Olympics. It could be very simple and have just 64 or 128 archers at the Olympic trials. But realistically there are only about 10 women and 15 men who remotely have a chance of making the team. So it still does not eliminate the concern of the “one shot wonder.”


Thank you Rick for the insight. From what I have seen in the draft document, it does look like there is MQS in place and the multiple tournament system that is being required by the USOC. I guess the issue is more likely tied to the economy and the costs associated with attending the multiple qualification tournaments. This affects all of us(well not me, I shoot compound!), but the reality of the MQS is that it is truly only and issue for a handful of people....


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

*National Ranking System and Team Selection Procedures - Blog*

National Ranking System and Team Selection Procedures
by Robby Beyer / November 24, 2010 
http://usarchery.org/blogs/blog-for...-ranking-system-and-team-selection-procedures


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I'm not even sure what to say about all of this. Obviously I'm all for raising the level of performance by US recurve teams at international events, but I don't think that "managing" the trials process to effectively exclude working archers is the right way to do it, or responsible to the membership either. I will point out once again that the highest finish in the past decade by a U.S. recurve team at a world championship or Olympic event (the two events where EVERY country shows up and sends their best archers) was our team in '04. Certainly with *Jake and Brady doing as well as they are*, I think that trend should and will change soon, but all the changes to the trials process we've seen since '04 haven't made a difference yet. (bold was for you guys if you're reading this...  )

As usual, Mike and Rick pretty well summed it up. And they should know. They've been there longer than most...

The only advantage that full time archers should have is the opportunity to train more than the rest of us. If that alone doesn't allow them to rise to the top, then maybe they should consider another line of employment... Look, our Oly. training center SHOULD produce the best archers in the world, and they should be capable of proving that in 2, 3 or 6 days. 

And Jim, by now we all know that Shin is just a disguise or at least a mouthpiece for GT. 

John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

One other thing... so long as the tournaments are set up in the single-elimination "crap shoot" the way they are, NO selection system will consistently produce winners. It's impossible. You just have to find the archer that are hot at the right time, and have luck on their side.

Ours wasn't the most talented team to shoot in a world champ. or Oly. games in the past 10 years for sure, and yet look at the results of late. We moan and groan over training programs and trials processes here just to cast our pearls before the swine IMO... It's frustrating for everyone, I know.

If FITA wants elimination rounds to make things exciting, it should be double elimination at a minimum. Because what we do today involves luck as much as anything...

John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Ahh, geez. Wish I hadn't gone and read back into this thread now. Boy do I miss this place! LOL!!!

What Heather wrote confirms what I suspected (and I'm truly sorry that she's caught up in this). There are those out there who would love to paint the working person as someone "not worthy" of wearing the uniform. I'm sure I got under the skin of the fita elitists in '04, and apprently still do. What they don't understand, and never will, is that hard work is it's own reward, and just because that work is being done in a "back yard" instead of a National stage, all over flashy websites and sponsor's pages, doesn't make it any easier.

What many of the fita elite in this country either don't know or won't admit is that there just might be archers out there who are pounding 1000's of arrows/week into 70m targets in their yard, or blank bales in their garage, or analyzing video late into the night of their shot sequence or of other world class archers. And that at the end of the day, all that really matters is the score on the card. That's the beauty of this game to me. That someone can take a 10 year old bow made up of three different company's components, with used arrows, and still beat the full time-full sponsored archers pants off...

But only if they let them 

Look, hard work is hard work regardless of where it takes place. 50,000 arrows/year shot in someone's back yard or at the OTC are still the same. I wouldn't ever take away from the committment and dedication of those archers who put the time in, regardless of where they train. We have great young archers training at the OTC through our RA program, and we have great young archers training at home too. They are not mutually exclusive. I wish it wasn't such an "us vs. them" system here in the U.S. Unfortunately it seems that's what the OTC program creates. Did in '04, and apparently still does. That's too bad. This same old "RA's vs. the rest of the world" nonsense has been going on since I got involved in '03, and probably long before then too. Rick would know.

I coached at the OTC, and unfortunately had to leave because I was out of vacation time at work, otherwise I'd probably still be there. It was a great experience that I really enjoyed, and the kids told me the got a lot out of my efforts. The place isn't "evil" but there could be some things done to minimize the "us vs. them" attitude that seems to prevail. Some of that is unavoidable, because you have a group of young archers searching for their identity and struggling for success together as a group. It binds them together, which is a good thing. Then you have the folks on the "outside" that wonder what's going on "in there". Or feel like they aren't part of the process because they either can't afford to give enough time or money to get themselves or their kids into the program. That's too bad.

If anyone wants to know where my personal loyalties lie (as if it really matters anyway), all they have to do is look at the one student I worked with the longest. Forrest Blakley. I agreed to take him as a student when he was 13. I worked with him through a number of National Championships and we were both eventually asked to help create the Jr. Dream Team in '06. Me as a coach and Forrest as one of the first young athletes. We were both very excited to help get the program started, and I was honored to be asked to coach there. When I had used up all my vacation time and had to step away from the program, my recommendation to Forrest was (and still is) to stick with the program. I told him over and over again that his best opportunity to become a truly world class archer was not to continue to work with me, but to train at the OTC under coach Lee. This required a great deal of soul-searching and humility on my part, but I knew it was the best thing for him to develop as an archer and it was. Forrest once again represented the U.S. a few months ago on the international stage in Columbia, and was the top finishing U.S. men's recurve archer. This confirms what I knew - that sticking with the program even though he didn't always want to - was the best thing for him.

I had another student who was also an RA for a while, but chose to accept a full scholarship to college instead of continuing his training in archery. 

The RA program is doing what it set out to do. We should be supportive of it. However, the trials processes should remain as open and inclusive of all archers as possible. The best archers at the time will still be selected. And you know what? It's not the worst thing in the world for the athletes at the RA program to see someone from outside the program make an international team every now and then. A little competition and diversity is healthy for any program.

Sorry for rambling, but since my name was drug into the debate - once again - I thought I should share some of my thoughts. I'm proud as hell of our RA's and their families. I'm thrilled that Brady, Jake, Emily and Heather are doing so well. I worked with Emily in the Jr. Dream Team camps and she's one helluva great young lady. But I also know that there are some very talented archers working just as hard, if not harder, at home in their "back yards..." 

God bless.

John


----------



## JaMag (Apr 13, 2007)

Wow! 
So after spending an hour reading this thread last night, I decided that we really need to lighten things up a bit.
I agree with Brady that this sight is depressing sometimes, no... make that most times. Hence the reason I rarely post anything on this sight unless I feel I really need to be heard. Unfortunately, this is the one place that we can all come to and voice our opinions without having to travel across the country to some "USAT members meeting?". 
(In my opinion, USAT needs to do a better job of opening up communications between the management and it’s members) Use the blog site and let people post comments to it is my suggestion, or something similar.

Anyway, while I was reading the back and forth between the RA's and everyone else. I kept thinking of how similar this was to one of mine and my kids favorite movies... "Kung Fu Panda". IMO one of the greatest animated movies EVER!  (Jack Black is pure awesomeness!)
Having studied Kund Fu when I was younger as well as being the underdog most of my life, I can relate to the story. 
If you replace "Kung Fu" with "Archery" you have what I feel 95% of the competitive archers in this country feel about the RA's and the current system. (watch it and you'll understand)
We all have great respect for the RA's, with their dedication and abilities, but we can't help but feel like the outsiders who are quickly becoming "unwelcome" with this ever more exclusive system that's being put in place.

We’re not asking for any special favors here. We just want the system to be fair across the board so that everyone has the same opportunities to make “the Team” as anyone else. Stop making it financially and logistically impossible for us to do so!
Let the scores do the talking, period. No need to make it any more difficult than that.
Like Rick said: If you can’t step up at the time when it’s needed, then you’re not ready to be on the team.

And about my brother John making the 2004 Olympic team. He’s no “one shot wonder”.
Both he and I have been shooting archery since we were young kids. He didn’t just pick up a bow one day when he was in his 30’s and start shooting. He had been shooting either a recurve, longbow or compound bow his entire life. So when he decided to make the switch over to Olympic Style archery, he was already better than most from years of practice. All he had to do was to put a sight on the riser and stop canting the bow… piece of cake. 
Plus, I've seen him make shots while hunting that would make your jaw hit the ground. He is that good!

So remember three things.
1, This is America. We hate rules preventing us from attaining our destiny. 
2, Also, as Americans, we not only root for the underdog. We expect the underdog to win! Just like "Rocky" and "THE big fat Panda".
3. And, as the wise old Tortoise says, “There are no accidents.” We all have a destiny and John was ready when his arrived.

So everyone, stop bickering and get out there and shoot. Whether it be at the OTC or in our back yards, and let the best archer with the best score win!

Shoot well everyone! Peace!
-James


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

I see this comment a lot in this area, that it should be fair for everyone to attempt to make the team. I agree with this completely, but don't understand what all the fuss is about!!!!!!

Seems to be explained pretty easily and directly here: http://usarchery.org/resources/team-selection-procedures

You have to shoot very well and it costs money to compete. I'm sure we all knew this going into it....


----------

