# US Archery, RA Advantages, Olympic Team selection



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

I toss the following out for CONSTRUCTIVE discussion and comment.

Please keep things civil, whether you agree or disagree.



> US Archery, by hiring a national coach to teach a cohesive form and training coaches to impart that form to our athletes is a very good step towards regaining our dominance in archery. The notion, however, that the National Head Coach along with the High Performance Manager should have total discretion in setting policy and criteria is detrimental to our sport, to our athletes, and to the members of US Archery. To allow one or two people total control of our organization flies in the face of what we stand for as Americans. The US Archery charter does not allow for sole power to be self-bestowed as has been done by the High Performance Committee. Our charter, and the Ted Stevens Amateur Athlete Act, requires our Board of Governors to set policy, criteria, and standards. That balance of representation is imperative to ensure fairness to all athletes, especially when the National Coach and the High Performance Manager have conflicts in that they need ‘their’ athletes to perform and therefore are attempting to make it difficult or impossible for athletes outside their purview to compete or attend international events, and receive monetary assistance.
> 
> The current trend is that the High Performance Committee, which is made up of the head coach, the assistant head coach and the High Performance manager have taken it upon themselves to set the direction for US Archery. This has led to policies and requirements that are biased against athletes who are not part of the resident athlete or dream team programs. Athletes who train ‘outside of the system’ are not being given the same opportunities, funding, and advantages as those ‘inside the system’.
> 
> ...


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

Note: If anyone wishes to comment but remain anonymous, feel free to send me your comments via PM and I will post them.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Here are a couple tangential thoughts on this issue given I have had several athletes (who I will not mention) contact me for some legal advice (I cannot serve as a legal counsel for anyone in question BTW) concerning these new requirments (of which I have no official position on anyway)

1) the selection to RA is not purely based on "merit" but on promise. example-former RA Raquel Caldwell whose name could not be found in any tournament winners circle the year before her selection. Rather, she was selected based on talent (which I am in no position to argue about)

2) promise is a dubious standard that opens up avenues for litigation if people are given an advantage in being selected for a team over those with more "merit"

3) NO SELECTION MATCHES should be held on the OTC field IMHO. The NRA (which is NO LONGER THE NGB for USA shooting-long story-I know it since I was an attorney involved slightly in the issue) once held tryouts at the OTC colorado springs which is a weird field for skeet due to the mountain in the background which gave RA's a huge advantage

3) the olympic selection events should be open tournaments held at temporary sites such as the CANTON field or the field where My club ran the last trials rather than the HOME FIELD of some competitors

4) making world teams dependent on being a full time archer may sound like a good idea-and in the short run may well be-in the long run it may well kill off some of the talent pool which could be deleterious in the long run

5) archery and our government are not such that a large number of talented people can forsake jobs and education leading to jobs to shoot full time. limiting selection to full time archers will forclose the teams to many talented people-such as 2 of the people who made our last olympic team (and beat RA's rather severely in doing so)


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Well Good grief! All I can say is that change is hard. Obviously harder for some than others.

Even if all the points were true (which they are not), as an athlete who trains "outside the system" and expects to compete at the upcoming Olympic trials, I could honestly care less...

My position on this issue has always been that if your dream is truly to be an Olympic medalist, then you will find a way to achieve that goal. And you certainly won't let trivial things like rolling rankings, Grand Prix teams made or not made, monthly stipends or anything else get in your way. Yes, I consider those trivial items. Not worthy of even worrying about.

In '04, after having only shot competitively for 9 months, I decided to qualify and enter the Olympic trials. I was training so far outside of any "system" that nobody short of Guy Krueger, Mark Williams and Larry Skinner even knew my name. I didn't keep track of rolling rankings, monthly stipends, health insurance, the RA program, or the NAA staff. Honestly, I couldn't have cared less.

I knew the rules of engagement, was determined to compete, and followed those rules to achieve my goal.

If the new program doesn't suit you, and you don't fall into one of the "privleged" or "supported" categories, then I suggest you do as is suggested above and complain to your appropriate representative or ombudsman. I wish you luck. 

However, if details as fine and insignificant as these are on your mind right now, just 7 months before the first leg of the Olympic trials, I strongly suggest you find some focus, or else run the risk of having another archer who maintained their focus show you where yours should have been come September.

I am trying to remain civil here, but it's tough. I've heard enough whining about this issue to last me a lifetime. Some people have to create excuses in advance in order to have them available when they are needed. IMO that's what's going on here, and I don't apologize for saying that.

So long as the goal is an Olympic medal, and the trials are open for anyone to enter, then as far as I'm concerned that's all I require. It is my choice to train how I see fit, according to where my Olympic dream sits in my list of life priorities. If my job, wife, family or other hobbies are higher on that list than they are for someone else, then I feel that I have no right to complain if that person beats me in September. They have made the sacrifices commensurate with their priorities and their Olympic dream.

Folks, we have it pretty easy in Archery, I think. I don't see 15 year old's who've only been skating for a year and a half out there on the ice with Michele Kwan and Sasha Cohen. The kids that compete for spots on other Olympic teams have poured their life and soul into their training and made sacrifices that no archer I know would ever be willing to make. Getting up at 4:00 a.m. to train before school, whole families moving closer to training centers, kids training 5-6 hours a day and still going to high school, Parents spending tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars and changing careers just so their kids have a chance to compete for an Olympic team, much less make one.

Sorry, but I don't see that kind of sacrifice in archery. Maybe there was at one time, but this is still viewed in the U.S. , even by die-hard NAA competitors, as a hobby sport. I can think of very few archers who have given up careers, schooling, or TRULY changed their life to train full time in archery. Everyone else wants to have their cake and eat it too, it seems, and I think that's exactly why we fall where we do in the world rankings.

And best of all, we can set up an Olympic sized training facility for a few hundred dollars in our own back yards, or even at the local park if we don't have the property. What other sports have that luxury? Where would you have to live to train as a competitive ice skater or bobsledder? Where would you have to live to be competitive in so many other sports that require huge facilities or training complexes? And what would you have to do in order to be able to use them? I doubt that ski jumpers who just took up the sport last month have access to one of the few jumping facilities in the U.S. What kind of wailing and gnashing of teeth would we hear if we told every prospective U.S. Olympic archer that they had to get on a waiting list before they could be eligible to shoot at 70 meters. They would just have to shoot at 30 meters until they were proficient enough to use the 70 meter targets...

Sounds absurd I know, but isn't that what goes on with other Olympic training facilities? Imagine for a second what that would be like. What kind of sacrifice we would have to make just to be able to use the proper training facilities.

Well thank God we don't have to do this. Regardless of what's going on in Chula Vista or Colorado Springs, every one of us is more than able to set up a genuine Olympic size archery range with an official face, obtain equipment that meets the rules, and fire at will... We can even hire whatever coach we want to help us get better at hitting that 10 ring. God Bless America.

And as I said, so long as they let me put my skill up against anyone else on the same field at the same time, that's all I'll ever ask for. If the other archers are more well trained and better prepared, then why on earth is that their fault? I should have done the things that prepared me better for the challenge. 

If I remember correctly, there were a whole bunch of RA's at the trials in '04. I also recall not one of them making the Olympic team. Why on earth would we sit on our rear ends and continue doing the same thing that we've always done if that were the case? How much sense would that make? In the end, the top 5 finishers for the men were train-at-home self supported archers working outside of the RA program. Obviously, they had all figured out how to prioritize, train and compete. I have no idea what will happen in the fall, but I say everyone has choices to make, and priorities to set. It is not the fault of the USOC, the NAA, or anyone else that you and I have a day job, a spouse, or 3 kids. It is simply ridiculous to think that the NAA or USOC should be responsible for accomodating every archers individual training and personal needs. Ridiculous.

Figure out where your priorities are, and where archery fits into them. At the end of the day, it is you that has to live with those choices.

It's issues and debates like this one that make me realize just how lucky I was to be so far outside the system in '04. It was one of my strongest assets.

Finally, to respond to one of Jim's comments, nowhere do I see anyone or anything that limits selection to the Olympic trials. Limiting training resources is another matter entirely. So long as the trials process is still fair and open (and like Jim said, on a neutral field), I feel that nobody has the right to complain.

Personally, I hope we have an enormously successful training program in the U.S., and I hope we go to China and then London and kick some serious butt because of it. My loaylty is to team USA, not team Magera.

John.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

I was asked to post the following:



> There are a number of athletes and US Archery members who have asked for changes to be made regarding not only the currently posted DASP and WTT documents on the US Archery website, but also trying to effect an overall change in the manner that things are being controlled by the High Performance Committee. There are upcoming issues with the Olympic Team trials requiring 2 months of mandatory training at the OTC for the Oly team... regardless of what is in the best interest of those athletes and maintaining their high-level performance...and there are still more issues surfacing as the HPC tries to bias things unfairly towards the resident athlete and dream team programs. As the outdoor season nears and rolling rankings begin to change..... everyone needs to contribute to ending this monopoly of setting policies, standards, and criteria that are not in the best interest of ALL archers.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Well Good grief! All I can say is that change is hard. Obviously harder for some than others.
> 
> Even if all the points were true (which they are not), as an athlete who trains "outside the system" and expects to compete at the upcoming Olympic trials, I could honestly care less...
> 
> ...


Thanks John. I appreciate you sharing your opinion on the matter:thumb:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

One other observation while I'm online... and my apologies if it offends... but

In '04, one of the most valuable lessons I learned was that while we spend all our time and energy trying to figure out how to beat other U.S. archers, we too often arrive unprepared to beat the rest of the world.

The standards in the U.S. are miserably low. 108 is NOT an internationally competitive OR score. More than ten years ago, Justin Huish needed three consecutive 12 arrow match scores of 112 to win, and consider the 115's shot in the semi-finals in Athens! And yet 108 was all that was needed to rank 2nd on the men's rolling rank in '06. It was no better in '04 when a guy who averaged 107's ranked 4th in the U.S. and made the Olympic team. I won't even get into the women's scores.

Folks, we have got to figure out a way to do better, or we will never be taken seriously by international teams at major events. I am not satisfied with our archers simply competing well against other U.S. archers. I want our archers to be so well prepared that they compete well against any archer in the world, and win.

John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> One other observation while I'm online... and my apologies if it offends... but
> 
> In '04, one of the most valuable lessons I learned was that while we spend all our time and energy trying to figure out how to beat other U.S. archers, we too often arrive unprepared to beat the rest of the world.
> 
> ...




great goals-how are those going to be implemented given the realities

1) that no one really cares about archery save us archers

2) that most people find it boring-I busted my butt trying to get some coverage of the Junior Nationals-one TV station told me a dog show was more important-more people have dogs than shoot archery

3) that we don't have (in many ways THANK GOD) a government that funds sports like happens in the former Iron Curtain countries

4) that archery rarely attracts the most talented athletes-there are lots of golfers etc who are 1350 FITA shooters chasing a silly white ball :wink: 

5) that this talent pool will be even smaller if the costs of making a team go up. No doctors, teachers, government employees, lawyers. just the wealthy in many cases who can afford to do so

face it John-the main sports where people "sacrifice" are ones like Ice Skating (which is very lucrative) or swimming (where the competition is stunningly hard). I know what the skeet shooters went through (and its similar to archery-even less physically demanding) and it wasn't anything like what say friend of mine trying out for Crew or the swimming teams went through


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> there are lots of golfers etc who are 1350 FITA shooters chasing a silly white ball


LOL! Jim, I've often thought the same thing when I watch the PGA tour, or even go play a round of golf with some kids on the high school team. I've been guilty of thinking... "man if I could just get them to train like that with a bow instead of a golf club!" ha, ha.

Jim, I don't have the answers. Remember, I'm still pretty new to Olympic sports. But I have learned a thing or two by actually being there. And it sucks to be there and not be competitive, even though you were back in your own country...

You talk about the cost of things, but then mention the cost and sacrifice to swim. What's the difference? I don't see folks making loads of money from swimming.

Maybe if the U.S. was known by the media and the average Olympic fan as an archery powerhouse that regularly takes home medals, then we'd get the coverage that would bring the talent pool... ;O) You know how much the media only wants to cover sports that we expect to medal in...  

I can't tell you how many non-archers will recall to me that little bit of coverage that they saw in '96 of Justin shooting across his street and through his garage. But then, he medaled not once, but twice ;O) That's what brings the media, and then the attention, and then the talent. Look at Geena Davis. She began to shoot because she saw that coverage of Justin (or so she's quoted as saying as much)...

Do you think archery is as big in Australia as it was before coach Lee arrived and they won two Olympic medals by following his program? My guess is it is considerably bigger, and the talent is much deeper than before. And it is a product of having success with just a few, well trained archers.

So in reality, possibly the best thing that could happen for U.S. archery collectively (not necessarily for a few individuals) would be for us to train a few archers so well that they consistently medal and garner media attention for the sport. That would unquestionably bring in a new wave of interest and talent (if we were ready for them, but that's another topic) we could take advantage of. We've already seen how much attention we get when just "anyone" is able to make the team... :tongue: and the chances to medal aren't seen by the media as realistic. 

Of course, if we are successful, then there will always be those that have to complain about the "new talent" being attracted and then, "woe is me...I won't be able to compete anymore against all the new, subsidized talent" mentality will show up once again...  

I don't know Jim. Like I said, I think I was better off not knowing anything.

John.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

i am not from the united states but have been involved in trying to improve the development of archery in my country for some time and have researched and observed the training and development techniques of the leading archery countries like korea and china and it seems that with these recent announcements the US is heading in a similar direction...prior to kisik lee's arrival i doubt if many archers were aware that an archer in the korean training pool was required to shoot 500-1000 arrows in 9 hours a day 6 days a week!!....a 1340 archer is not even on their first team...shooting an 8 at 70 meters meant they had to duckwalk to their target to retrieve their arrows... if you develop target panic you're out...they have an archery coach and an discipline coach...i leave it to your imagination what else the discipline coach does.....the point is..these countries are currently dominating olympic archery.....any country wanting to replace them must do what they do BETTER!...... can't disagree with what john and jim have said but IMHO thats the bottom line....


----------



## sundevilarchery (May 27, 2005)

*Just another comment*



jmvargas said:


> i am not from the united states but have been involved in trying to improve the development of archery in my country for some time and have researched and observed the training and development techniques of the leading archery countries like korea and china and it seems that with these recent announcements the US is heading in a similar direction...prior to kisik lee's arrival i doubt if many archers were aware that an archer in the korean training pool was required to shoot 500-1000 arrows in 9 hours a day 6 days a week!!....a 1340 archer is not even on their first team...shooting an 8 at 70 meters meant they had to duckwalk to their target to retrieve their arrows... if you develop target panic you're out...they have an archery coach and an discipline coach...i leave it to your imagination what else the discipline coach does.....the point is..these countries are currently dominating olympic archery.....any country wanting to replace them must do what they do BETTER!...... can't disagree with what john and jim have said but IMHO thats the bottom line....


IMHO it's not the bottom line... it's socialized sporting with much greater rewards after success in other countries, and it's abusive. And we do know that it takes that kind of time and effort to be competitive... at home and internationally. 

Next topic.

USA archery is clearly moving towards a nationalized system and coach selected teams. (For example... the top ten are invited to a trials tournament. They shoot, and then the National Coach picks the three he wants to take based on what he has seen. Technically, a trials has been held, so it's meets the rules.) I am surprised it has taken folks this long to acknowledge this directional move.

While I understand the pressures of the USOC, I find the beauty of our sport in the idea any body type, personality, or coach/athlete mix can be successful. I think an RA program is a great opportunity for those who can participate and flourish physically and emotionally in that environment, *but I don't think that it should not be the end all be all*. That kind of work and commitment should/will eventually produce results, but I believe that it is currently being operated and pursued at the expense of others.

John, you mentioned sports like ice-skating and such. Coming from a gymnastics backround, yes those kids/families make enormous sacrifices and it pays off... but for less than 1%. Those sports also have parents footing the bill, a GIGANTIC talent pool to select from, and coaches who pull the right body/muscle/mental/talent types out of recreational classes at the ages of 3 of 4 and train them until they break or their bodies fall apart. Then it's on to the next kid. I know, I used to move through the pre-school class kids (roughly 200 per day... 6 days per week) in the gym once per month to pull the ones that I wanted. Then I would work with them, and weed them out to a VERY select 4-5 over a series of 6-10 years. We don't have that luxury in archery.

So, do I support the idea of an RA program and some of the High Performance changes, sure... but NOT at the expense of other top producers. *THERE ARE* archers in this country who get up at 4 am to weight train, do cardio, and work on their mental game at home. Then they go to school or their jobs. Then they come home and shoot 500 arrows. They watch what they eat and they miss social events at all levels in the name of their goals and sport. No, not everyone does this, but those who do rise to the top and are pushed by others who rise to the top. It's these people (High Performance selectees and non-High Performance selectees) pushing themselves and each other who will eventually re-challenge others on an international level. In the meantime, I am not willing to cut what little support the non-High Performance folks get from our national governing body in the HOPE that someone else can take their place.

Rick McKinney once said at a seminar a million years ago that he would tell anyone in the room what he did to prepare for success minute by minute, and if they then out shot him, more power to them. He followed that statement with something to the effect of, "because I know you won't do it, and that's why I'm going to continue to beat you." That's what I see here. More power to the RAs for their committment, but until they are successful on their own merits (which some are), without scewing the playing field, then they are just like everyone else and nothing extra should head that direction.

I know this is not a popular opinion right now, but still I am happy to sign my name to it... Kari Jill Granville


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

in addition to what i mentioned earlier, our olympic committee has chosen to fund 10 sports for specialized training abroad with the objective of garnering a medal in the 2008 beijing olympics...archery is one of the 10 sports chosen and we are alloed to send one male archer and one female archer from our national archery training pool PROVIDED they can commit to a 9-month contiuous program in korea...if the no. 1 choices cannot commit due to work, studies or family reasons we will go down the rankings.....the rest will be trained locally by a korean coach....


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> You talk about the cost of things, but then mention the cost and sacrifice to swim. What's the difference? I don't see folks making loads of money from swimming.


A full scholarship to places like Stanford or UCLA is more than a top pro archer will make in a lifetime. Places like Yale and Harvard usually find a way for a top swimmer to attend as well. Cincinnati has been an olympic swimming hotbed for years (gary Hall Jr, Joey Hudepohl are both recent gold medalists from this area) and while they don't have a pro career after the olympics, they both got full ride scholarships and some commercial endorsements.



limbwalker said:


> aybe if the U.S. was known by the media and the average Olympic fan as an archery powerhouse that regularly takes home medals, then we'd get the coverage that would bring the talent pool... ;O) You know how much the media only wants to cover sports that we expect to medal in...


 growing up in the City that turned out more world champions than any other in archery, I saw some coverage-not as much as say what Moeller High School was getting when it was the top ranked HS football team in the USA circa the same years that Darrell Pace and Doug Brothers were two of the top 6 archers in the world.



limbwalker said:


> I can't tell you how many non-archers will recall to me that little bit of coverage that they saw in '96 of Justin shooting across his street and through his garage. But then, he medaled not once, but twice ;O) That's what brings the media, and then the attention, and then the talent. Look at Geena Davis. She began to shoot because she saw that coverage of Justin (or so she's quoted as saying as much)...
> 
> Do you think archery is as big in Australia as it was before coach Lee arrived and they won two Olympic medals by following his program? My guess is it is considerably bigger, and the talent is much deeper than before. And it is a product of having success with just a few, well trained archers.
> 
> ...


there are two approaches to a sport. Sweden and China were-for the last 20 years, the leaders in men's table tennis (China in women's table tennis is like Korean women's archery-no one else is close). Sweden found several talented athletes and they represented that country for years-just a few guys. Waldner-the greatest player in history-was world finalist in 1987-semis in the last olympics (17 years -can you imagine a figure skater or gymnast lasting 17 years?) China has so many good players because of strong grass roots programs they constantly changed teams to keep other nations from getting experience with their constantly changing techniques, etc. Those players tend to play in the regional competitions and when they win there, they move up to national level and from that a team is selected

The real goal is to have lots of grassroots talent that creates a couple dozen top flight archers. right now we don't have that or what sweden has. We don't have a system like Sweden that can support 5-7 elites for 12 years nor do we have the regional programs or competitions like China that would involve 14-15 1330 level archers vying to say make the North team to compete against the Texas team or the Western Team. In other words, in China, by the time the guys get to the level to compete at nationals, they are already world class athletes and then they train a bit with the others for the big titles.

I don't have any answers-just observations from other countries in sports I have some experience in.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Very interesting discussion.

Let me apologize to everyone for my lengthy posts. I have to do a better job of that in the future...

Jim, you make some solid points. Esp. about scholarships. 

I guess the true "American Way" would be to let capitalism do it's job. Take all the money that is going to all the athletes and put it up for grabs at the national events. That would get some serious attention. Then keep the RA program, but have the athletes pay for the use of the facility and coaches. 

That way, folks would have the choice to train for those big money events however they choose, and if the RA program seemed like the most effective way to train to win, then apply and pay your fees.

I dunno. Lots of ways to skin the cat I guess. However, I bet if each of the USAT ranking events had a $10,000 purse (or more), you'd see better competition and eventually higher scores.

John.


----------



## sundevilarchery (May 27, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Very interesting discussion.
> 
> Let me apologize to everyone for my lengthy posts. I have to do a better job of that in the future...
> 
> ...



Hmm interesting thought. If you had that kind of $$$ up for grabs, you might have some talented compounders switch over to recurve.. which would create a greater talent pool and more high level shooters... which would in turn force/push those already shooting recurve to climb higher to compete... etc. That would also potentially put more kids in an "Olympic sport" in colleges, which might lead to scholarships, which might lead to more kids working harder at a younger age to raise the bar in a fight for those scholarships. It would also create additional funding to support national efforts (like Coach Lee) instead of spending, spending, spending...

I think you're on to something.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

The more money, the more likely the best athletes will gravitate to that sport.

what causes the money to flow? bottom line is a sport that lots of people who have no desire to play the sport are willing to watch the sport in addition to those who play wanting to watch.

When we have a big tennis tournament (top 15 event in the world) I bet half the tennis players in town show up to watch-but many who never played do.

how many of the archers within 50 miles of Canton or Mason showed up to watch nationals or the olympic trials? I know one guy who came to watch our trials and had nothing to do with archery-but he is a very good clays shooter and thought it would be neat to watch

Right now the best athletes in the world are NBA guards, Strikers on Euro Football teams, Quarterbacks, Golfers and Tennis players. Those are the most lucrative sports. At one time it was boxers and baseball players.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Very interesting discussion.
> 
> Let me apologize to everyone for my lengthy posts. I have to do a better job of that in the future...
> 
> ...


As you might know John, I am also a squash coach and I work as a trainer for the top three junior girls in Cincinnati. Years ago, any kid who worked hard for 4-5 years was pretty much guaranteed a high national ranking and being a starter on a top 4 program in the Country (which back then was Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and Penn). Even top 10 schools like Williams, Dartmouth, and Navy pretty much stocked their teams with walk ons and converted tennis players

Now, Yale and harvard, Trinity etc recruit players all over the world. Last year 20500 kids applied to yale-about 1500 were accepted but those on the coaches "list" had a 206/256 acceptance rate. That means lots of people who want little Missy or Biff Junior to go to Princeton see squash as a good way to cut the brutal odds. Hence, the talent level in squash has skyrocketed: one of the girls I coach is a great athlete, one is good and the other is fair-I doubt the fair girl will be able to go to a top program-20 years ago she would have been on that list at Harvard or Princeton.

If places like stanford and Yale treated archery the way they treat crew and squash, the talent would ratchet way up


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> If you had that kind of $$$ up for grabs, you might have some talented compounders switch over to recurve.. which would create a greater talent pool and more high level shooters... which would in turn force/push those already shooting recurve to climb higher to compete... etc.


That's kinda the line of thinking I've had off and on for some time now.

I asked Dave Cousins at Gold Cup in '04 if he ever shot recurve. He said he had, but could never do better than about a 324 average at 70M, so he went back to compound. I remember this conversation real well, because my reply was "I'd be happy with that!" ha, ha. 

I'm pretty sure Reo has some time in with the recurve, and I know others who approached me after '04 to tell me they had tried to make Olympic teams, but later switched to compound because that's where the money was.

I just don't know if the USOC dollars could be used that way... That might be the hold up, and what's driving everything in the direction it's going now.

John.


----------



## sundevilarchery (May 27, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> I just don't know if the USOC dollars could be used that way... That might be the hold up, and what's driving everything in the direction it's going now.
> 
> John.


I don't know either, but it's an interesting approach.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

sundevilarchery said:


> I don't know either, but it's an interesting approach.


I see no reason why not. Just look at the current and past funding programs. 

In the past, first place archers could get $800 / month training
Now, those shooting over a certain standard can get $400 / month training
Now, the USOC pays $5000 for a gold
Previous efforts suggested paying $30,000 / yr for RA's, or something like that (I'd have to look it up, but I know a good sum was proposed if not approved)
The NAA could offer something like what the USOC is offering
There are undoubtedly ways to get it done. Just the numbers above come up to over $49,000 per year. I'm prety sure anything the NFAA and compound is far below that.


----------



## archerybob (Jul 2, 2003)

ahhhhhhh well it seems my american friends have the same issues as us aussies. im loving reading this thread..........its very interesting as you have chula vista, we have the AIS. You have Mr Lee and we had Mr Lee (lol) alot of his methods and ideas were first tested here and are now being used there. it is a mirror of our system almost the exact same!!!!!


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

Reminds me of what a school board in my area did. They hired an 'Expert' to straighten out their school program. The expert knew how to fix the system. After a few years with his creative new programs the State had to come and bail School district out of Bankruptcy. The State replaced the School Board with a trustee. The Expert left the area and was hired at another school district across the country. His programs worked on paper!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Just the numbers above come up to over $49,000 per year


Okay, so let's say we have 60,000/year to play with. Give us 4 major ranking events (for USAT and Int. team selection purposes only) worth $10K each, and Nationals worth $20K. Broken down between men and women, that would give the winner of an event $3K, 2nd place $2K, and 3rd place $1K for each division. Nationals would be double that.

So an archer could possibly win up to $18K/year if they won every event.

Nope, not enough still. We'd need to at least double that for it to attract the best shooters away from the compounds...

So we need $120K/year for prize money alone. Seems reasonable still, considering what the RA program must cost us.

Put up that kind of money, and even I will come out of retirement, no doubt about it. And I suspect we'd get some of the better compound shooters interested as well.

Then, if an archer wants, they can use some of their prize money to pay their coach. And if an archer wants to win some prize money, they can hire a coach 

Dunno if it would ever work, but it sounds as American as apple pie. Put up the prize money, and the best of the best will train, show up and duke it out.

Fun to think about anyway :darkbeer: 

John.


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2007)

No one has asked this.....Who's the person being quoted to by Recordkeeper.

Art


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

art v said:


> No one has asked this.....Who's the person being quoted to by Recordkeeper.
> 
> Art



Please don't speculate. It doesn't matter so long as the concerns are valid.


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2007)

Actually it does matter. By being anonymous, a person can take a cheap shot at what this program is trying to do. It's cowardly. 

The speculation would be some guy that has a son or daughter that couldn't qualify for to be a RA but he wants the tax payers and the governing commitee to throw money out the door to contribute to the kids coaching. 

Or it is a sour graps individual who has been shut out from the decision making process at the governing body.

Doesn't matter...I think the whole thread should be shut down because of the way it has been presented. And, Let the coward stew in his/her own soup.

As John said above....if someone has the desire to make the Olympic Team...go after it...work a part time job to make it. Do whatever is necessary to make it. Heck look at Jay Barrs....he slept in his car just so he could shoot at an event. 

Anonymous, is a cowards way to deal with something. I'm surprised you would even make the post.

Just my humble opinion of course.

Art


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2007)

archerybob said:


> ahhhhhhh well it seems my american friends have the same issues as us aussies. im loving reading this thread..........its very interesting as you have chula vista, we have the AIS. You have Mr Lee and we had Mr Lee (lol) alot of his methods and ideas were first tested here and are now being used there. it is a mirror of our system almost the exact same!!!!!


So are you saying that Master Lee did the same thing in Australia: tried to monopolize the team trials, the attendance at internatational events and sway things certain ways for his athletes in Australia? 

And if so: how did this play out for the Australia's archers? Did the best make the teams, attend the events, receive the funding or was it special interest and done his way? 

And now that you are Leeless now, what is the program like there in Australia now?

This is important information to receive here at this time.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> This is important information to receive here at this time.


Yes, so that the conspiracy theorists in the U.S. can have something to hang their hats on...  ha, ha.

I love it how so many folks are ready to assume that people who do this sort of thing for a living couldn't possibly be as good at it or know what they are doing as well as all of us who spend a few meager hours/week on archery...  

I don't buy it. I won't tell them how to do their jobs until they come to southern Illinois and tell me how to do mine. And I think it is as absurd to think that somehow I know more about thier jobs than they would about mine.

John.


----------



## Miika (Jun 29, 2003)

chulavistagold said:


> how did this play out for the Australia's archers?


IIRC, some guy won Gold in Sydney, and some other guy Bronze in Athens.

In generally I find it hilarious when someone is hired to make a change in something, and them people get upset when things change.


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

I believe the coach is very good. Specially with an unlimited supply of archers which are to be picked from a national that system works. Our diverse country has always found a way to win as long as politics has not fouled its direction. Eleven years ago it happen using talent which was not expected to win. There is not a sure winner in any sports. Our BOG is still trying come up with instant answers using a coach which has taught high scorers using a foreign nationalized system. It is amazing we even have competed with the world at all. I for one believe in a nationalized coaches system. I believe in the local coaches which should have input to the regional Coaches. The head national coach should not be the one deciding who should be worked with. The combine concensus of the lower coaches and the *performance* of the archers should be the final factor. The last part of it is the total hands off of politics in the decision making. I for one can not see how the latter part will ever be done since coaches positions in the national picture are always political.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> In generally I find it hilarious when someone is hired to make a change in something, and them people get upset when things change.


Yes, it is comical. Problem is there are too many folks that thought we were doing "just fine" the way we were...  

But even some of those who recognized the need for a change were excited about hiring coach Lee.... until he started to do his job. And many of the naysayers would be shocked to find out how many compromises he's already made to work with us Americans. I just wonder how many compromises he can make and still be successful sometimes.

I'm confident they will find a way to keep things fair for those "outside" the system, and still conduct the training program that coach Lee and/or the USOC wants. But then, I'm an optimist too... :wink: Had I been a pessimist, I would have never bothered to show up in Ohio 3 years ago... 



> The head national coach should not be the one deciding who should be worked with. The combine concensus of the lower coaches and the performance of the archers should be the final factor.


Playing devil's advocate for a moment, why then would we need a head coach?

John.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> I'm confident they will find a way to keep things fair for those "outside" the system, and still conduct the training program that coach Lee and/or the USOC wants.
> John.


I think this is all that everyone wants.


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2007)

*observer....*

From an Anonymous observer.

Yea, unfortunately I read it . I agree 100% with John's initial response.
It sickens me that some of these folks can't see the big picture. They are
so caught up in their own righteousness and the need to protect there kids
opportunity even if they don't cut it. Why they need to dump on the RA and
Dream Team members is beyond my understanding. These people didn't *****
about the previous RA program where only a few people were allowed to
attend. The only difference between then and now is the RA members are
actually required to train and are being held responsible for what they do.
The idea we would take a limited budget and spread it amongst all the
archers in the US is ridiculous on its face. Giving a little to a lot will
accomplish nothing but spend the money. People don't seem to understand
that the NAA has two purposes. One is to cater to all the members. The
other is to act as the governing body for US Olympic Archery. What happens
with the USOC is all toward the Olympics. When we spend their money we have
no choice but to act toward that end. The problem is we were spoiled. We
took the USOC money and spent it as we wished. That was the old program.
Now we are being held to a higher standard and we have to protect the USOC
investment. If we don't, we will lose it. These people just need to shut
up and crawl back into their hole.


This is not me talking....I had my post pulled.

Art


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

Miika said:


> IIRC, some guy won Gold in Sydney, and some other guy Bronze in Athens.
> 
> In generally I find it hilarious when someone is hired to make a change in something, and them people get upset when things change.


That some guy had already been a World Champion and that some other guy shot 108.2 average in the 2003 WC and 2004 Olympics if you count all his matches normalized to 12 arrows!

No one is upset with change, only the changes that put up barriers to compete. If a system is superior it will produce results of its own accord. There should be no need to put up barriers or onerous requirements as is the case here now and in Australia.

None of these changes are making recurve archery a more popular sport in either country. None of these changes are inclusive and encouraging for our sport.

The bottom line is that the USOC has graciously put in close to $1,000,000 a year for this new program and it's not produced the desired results. All of these changes this year as seen in that light look rather dubious.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



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

*Time*

Pete,

Give it time. The program is just starting.

Terry


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

art v said:


> From an Anonymous observer.
> 
> Yea, unfortunately I read it . I agree 100% with John's initial response.
> It sickens me that some of these folks can't see the big picture. They are
> ...


Art, thanks for posting for this person. I wish everyone could fess up and voice their opinion on their own, but I understand the fear of backlash.

I have a couple issues with this though. Number one, and make no mistake, we are trying to protect our kids opportunity / rights (and for a few I know of, their own), but *not* "even if they don't cut it". The top should be the top, and the top should be determined in a "trial by fire". 

The responsibility of the NAA and the coaching faculty should be to seek out potential and willing participants in the program and train them, just as they are doing now. NO argument here, but that should be the limit of their effect on the rest of the archers in the US. Out train the rest, don't cut them out.

The problems stem far beyond just the money, and those suggestions were just an example. The NFAA has proven how to get archers to participate, and it has benefited the NAA and its compound component, even if no one wants to admit it. 

The money is only a portion of the problem, and it does directly effect those outside the program. There are so many grievances, I don't want to cover them all. Some I do agree with, some to me aren't as big of an issue, but the direction is, and we intend to protect our kids future. I think every parent would


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2007)

Huntmaster....As I see it. What you say is exactly what they are trying to do. Train only those that can, as you say, "cut the mustard". The competitive world is tough. No one gets paid in the "pro's" until they make the pros. Archery is no different. If you got it, you got it. But, pardon me if I want to only put my money in on those the "have it". 

C3...good point. You need to give it time...the new program only started. Quite frankly, the only thing I hear is crying and yelping from folks that simply don't like the change. They seem to think the old way is better...well, were is the results? Come on show us where the results are from the old way.
Otherwise, sit on it! At least until there has been enough time to see if the new program works. 

You know this guy that is in charge has some credentials that no other coach, (at least here in the US), head honcho, or any of us has...maybe it would be a good idea to listen. Heck, someone might even learn something...imagine that!

I still can't believe this convesation was allowed to be stimulated from an anonymous cowardly person who stays anonymous.

Art


----------



## mbu (Oct 22, 2003)

There are many great archery coaches in the US. Most of these coaches work as volunteers and can’t spend as much time with their students as full-time coaches. Due to time constraints, volunteer coaches might not always produce the same results as full-time coaches. The RA program offers a good opportunity for talented US archers who seek full-time coaching help and some financial support. These archers are willing to leave their homes and families and put their careers on hold in order to achieve significant archery goals. I have a lot of respect for these archers. 

Currently, most of the top US archers have permanent jobs and other time-consuming boundaries. The US Archery (NAA) suggested policies that will make it very difficult for these archers to attend the 2007 World Outdoor Championship and to be on top of their games in the future, due to additional requirements. Their financial support has also been significantly reduced. Many of these top US Archers already have great coaches which have worked with them for many years. I have even greater respect for these archers, which maintain their top game while staying with their families, working full-time jobs and while continuing to be loyal to their coaches. 

A possible approach could be very straight forward: provide as much support as possible to our current top archers (RA or not RA) while we keep building a foundation for future success. This help should not be conditional to converting to a specific shooting form, practicing at a specific place or with a national coach. It should offer equal opportunities to all top archers and not a preferential treatment for just a few. The more top archers we can work with for optimal results, the better.


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2007)

MBU. Good suggestions. Problem becomes how much money is there and who should it be passed to. Up and comers or those that have made the investment of time and dicipline to achieve some pretty lofty goals already.

Your suggestion about passing money around is exactly what has been happening. With minimal results. The impact of the money gets deluted.

This is hardcore. Perhaps some who might make great archerys are gonna get passed by because of economic, social, or work related restraints.
Well, these things would still be a problem if they made the team. where will the team be then.....This is not about individuals or individual specific needs outside of archery, or wannabees. It's all about a National Team which is greater than the individual. It's a different way of thinking than most American have come to expect. This isn't about what "I" want. It's about what is right for a national team.

Art


----------



## inno300dude (Feb 21, 2007)

Let me see if I understand this discussion correctly. There appears to be three trains of thought on the issue.

1. Many people see this new National Coach and High performance leader as the people who should choose what is to happen with the future of US Archery internationally. These people can determine who will be eligible to compete internationaly, go to the RA program, become coaches, etc. In other words if they like you and you hvae some talent, you are in. If you are an oddball you are out. If you do not shoot so well, you are out. Makes sense. Especially if the top archer (those pesky elites! :wink: ) does not conform then they should retire and let those who are willing to conform to the new order to take their places. 

2. Some of the top archers and some coaches and some parents are upset because they have spent maybe 5 to 20 years working at climbing the ladder of success and just when they are there or are about to be there, the rug is pulled out from under them and they have to start over again. Or maybe someone like Vic or Butch who have a couple of Olympic medals under their belts, but do not want to change their form (I know, a Gold, Silver and couple of Bronzes doesn't make that good of an archer! :wink: ) need to get out of the way so the new RA team can take over. But I think the top archers really just want to have a fair chance at the International events as well as be treated fairly. After all, they did "sacrafice" time, money and effort they should be treated fairly and not pushed to the side.

3. The third group is one I happen to like (but then, who am I?). Get the RA program going and still encourage and support those top archers and in time (a year or two) the RA will stand on it's own merits and they will become the top archers with a whole new training program and a bunch of little archers wanting to be just like them!


----------



## archerybob (Jul 2, 2003)

http://www.ais.org.au/archery/selection.asp
http://www.archery.org.au/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService=ASP0009/ccms.r?pageid=10252

here is a few web sites concerning the AIS and olympic selection in aussie land.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I think this is all that everyone wants.


Huntmaster, yup, that's all I want. Give the new coach and program a chance, and still figure out a way to reward top performers in open events. I don't think it's too much to ask. I'm confident we can do that.



> A possible approach could be very straight forward: provide as much support as possible to our current top archers (RA or not RA) while we keep building a foundation for future success.


Again, MBU, that makes perfect sense. Too much sense for some I'm afraid, and the devil is always in the details... 



> he bottom line is that the USOC has graciously put in close to $1,000,000 a year for this new program and it's not produced the desired results.


Okay then Pete, if that's the case, you will get your wish in short order I think. I can't see the USOC investing that kind of money on a losing program for very long. Nor can I see them being easily fooled by "crafty" coaches or NGB executives. Surely other sports have had underhanded things attempted, and the USOC has some pretty deep experience with keeping tabs on how their money is being spent... I'd bet so.



> That some guy had already been a World Champion and that some other guy shot 108.2 average in the 2003 WC and 2004 Olympics if you count all his matches normalized to 12 arrows!


Pete, I don't recall, but did Simon's world championship (I think in '91?) include single elimination matchplay? You know that some archers - like many of the Korean men at the Olympics - can excel in a ranking round, FITA or Grand Fita format, but fall apart in matchplay. Dare I say that even our two greatest U.S. archers never had to be truly tested by the 12-arrow matchplay format? So have we really learned to succeed in this new game? And as for Tim's average, I think you are not showing it in the proper light. Shooting a decent score when everyone else around you is shooting well below their average, is the mark of a champion. He and Simon both learned how to hold up well, and even excel, under the pressure of medal matchplay. That's all coach Lee has ever claimed that he can help teach, and all the BEST method is designed to do as far as I understand it.

We (the RHP coaches and Jr. Dream Team coaches) are learning to teach this method for one reason and one reason only... because the single elimination, head-to-head 12 arrow matchplay format requires a different approach to consistently win. Coach Lee is QUITE clear about this, and believes that this is the proven method for performing well in high pressure matchplay events. 

I for one am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now, and see what kind of results we as coaches can help obtain. If the system falls flat, then it's time for a new approach yet again. But give it a chance first. I think that's only fair. I have invested a tremendous amount of time, energy, emotion and money in a couple of students that are currently in the RA program. Do you seriously think I would recommend to them that they stay in this program if I did not believe it was the best way for them to succeed?

I don't want either of them to have the same experience I had in '04. Sure, I want them to make an Olympic team, but I want them to do better than I did - to be better equipped and prepared than I was - so they can bring home some hardware instead of dissapointment.

I know how to train them to do what I did. But I don't think we in the U.S. are satisfied with that. I know I'm not.

Finally, I will say that the money issue is totally overrated. I did what I did in '04 not because of money, but because of an Olympic dream. I did not receive, nor expect, a single dollar from the NAA, the USOC or a single sponsor before I made the team. And I would gladly do it all over again - investing my own money, time and resources - to have a chance to represent our country. There will always be folks like this in the U.S. That's what makes this country great.

So when I hear folks whining about who is getting money and who is not, it makes me shake my head. Money should be the LAST reason that ANYONE competes with an Olympic bow.

John.


----------



## Guest (Feb 22, 2007)

Bravo, Bravo John.

Art


----------



## ASA-ARCHERY (May 1, 2003)

*Olympic Team selection*

Do You Think We Will Have A Winning Team? Seems Like We Could Do Better!


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

team hasn't been picked yet.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> team hasn't been picked yet.


Jim, you mean nobody has earned a spot on the team yet...  

Gotta be careful how you say that these days! Just the thought that someone might be out there "picking" team members is enough to create a feeding frenzy 'round here :wink: ha, ha.

John.


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

I don't have to like some of what's being said here. What I do like is the fact that so many people feel passionately about olympic recurve archery. That speaks well for the membership (or at least the vocal minority :wink: ).

There clearly has been lots of thinking and speculating going on about the selection process. I'm going to throw my hat in and stick with supporting the RA/Dream Team program. I also would like to continue to see the top shooters be recognized/rewarded for all of their hard work and dedication by being allowed the opportunity to make the olympic team on a fair basis. 

I am also very curious about the entire selection process, but I haven't seen the process at work long enough to decide whether I'm for or against it. Guess we'll have to wait and see... If Brady Ellison is an example, then the RA program is doing OK...


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Jim, you mean nobody has earned a spot on the team yet...
> 
> Gotta be careful how you say that these days! Just the thought that someone might be out there "picking" team members is enough to create a feeding frenzy 'round here :wink: ha, ha.
> 
> John.



wait til I tell them that Skull and Bones buddies of mine in black helicopters are part of the selection process:wink: :tongue:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I'll go get my Jackboots on Jim!  :tongue: ha, ha, ha.

John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> I'll go get my Jackboots on Jim!  :tongue: ha, ha, ha.
> 
> John.


Don't forget the Blue UN helmet and the Masonic handbook (and don't forget the 04 trials were held in MASON )


----------



## Reo (May 23, 2002)

I think this is funny. Give it time people say it will work. Were is the country he left know? Did his teachings make them a power house in the recurve divition? They are the 21st ranked team in the world wich is lower than the US is wich is 18th. As for the indivdual the top Aus. is 36th well the us has Vic who is 28th. These are FITA rankings wich do the Olympics so they should count for something. 

With the amount of money the NAA is putting out they need the results. A NFL or NBA or any major coach being payed this kind of money is expected to make more of a inpact in a year or they lose there job. Why should archery be any diffrent? The juniors didn't do anybetter then in the past at the junior worlds and this is were his pool is coming from. 

I think that the best plan is to make them work harder for the money the USOC or the NAA gives them. We compound shooters have to win to get money why shouldn't they? This will make them better shooters not a coach. Look what it has done to the US compounds are the most dominate group in any archery divition. Just my thoughts but I think if there is a example and it has proven to work in the US why try something that your resaults are almost as good as now? 

Reo Wilde


----------



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

Junior worlds is a bad example to use. Coach Lee didn't start working with the kids until after the Junior Worlds was over with. He didn't want to change anything so soon before the tournament.

I could be wrong with this but Compound shooting on an international level is much like the NBA and College basketball players. We owned the world in both of these areas and now that the rest of the world has had more time, they are catching up. That is one of the (not the only) reasons we had our behinds handed to us in a number of tournaments. Skill alone isn't enough anymore.

The rest of the world is slowly catching up. We will see where things are in a few years. It is also a bit interesting that you think someone can just step in and change things overnight and we are suddenly on top of the world or close to it. Change takes time. With the NBA, a new coach isn't trying to teach the players how to play basketball, you are trying to teach them how to perform better as a team. 

Coach Lee's emphasis is on Olympic medals. With THAT in mind, Austrailia didn't do to bad.

Terry


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Reo, I'm not saying you're wrong (you know I love ya' man), but...



> With the amount of money the NAA is putting out they need the results. A NFL or NBA or any major coach being payed this kind of money is expected to make more of a inpact in a year or they lose there job.


One NFL or NBA coach makes more than the entire budget for this program. Did you see what they were offering coach Lee when he was hired? It wasn't all that much IMO to run a national program. I know plumbers and farmers that make more than that in a year, and don't have 1/100th the politics or whiney parents (and coaches) to deal with either.  



> The juniors didn't do anybetter then in the past at the junior worlds and this is were his pool is coming from.


This is the same kind of thinking that gets NFL coaches fired after one or two seasons of playing with personnel they had nothing to do with choosing or training. And I for one can see some real results already with my own students who are in the RA program, as well as with Brady and a few other RA's that are shooting far better than they would have if they had stayed and trained at home. 



> I think that the best plan is to make them work harder for the money the USOC or the NAA gives them. We compound shooters have to win to get money why shouldn't they?


I cannot totally disagree with this approach. I think it could work in the U.S., as it has with the compounds... And if this current program fails to show results in 4 or 5 years, I will be the first in line to make the argument of "show us the money and the best will climb out of the woodwork on their own." I think the NAA had to make a decision on where to go with the program after '04, and they could have even tried that approach instead of hiring coach Lee. I'm not sure how the decision was made, but it was made. Now we need to do what we can to make it successful. 



> Look what it has done to the US compounds are the most dominate group in any archery divition


Not taking anything away from your tremendous accomplishments, or those of our other talented compounders, but even you will admit that the international compound talent isn't nearly as deep as it is for recurve. However, it is getting better, and I do think they are catching up.

John.


----------



## Guest (Feb 22, 2007)

*Interenational competition`*

Bownut. You're spot on. Something many do not understand in the US is team play. Sure we have teams...NFL, NBA and so on. However, a National team is different. The phycology is different. That's why when we field a bunch of star NBA players in world competition they get dumped on. The US isn't rated in the top 5 in basketball anymore. Heck, Slovakia beat them the last time they played them....a country that has less than the population of NY.

I believe Coach Lee is trying to guide us in this direction. He wants to build a National Archery team...not a local club team, not an individual star system, but a National Team. It's a concept Americans are not used to. We have been so in to the "Star" system instead of the team concept it's hard to grasp. 

Some of the local stars will be left behind. 

Reo, there isn't any money in international competition to shoot for. For wheel bows or recurves. The only money compound shooters shoot for in the US is manufacturers money and of course entry fee payback. There is only a very very few compound shooters that make any money at it...the vast majority shoot for fun without any hope of being competitive with the top shooters. 


Art


----------



## Reo (May 23, 2002)

Art I will tell you there is money to shoot for and I made a good share of it last year. The thing that I still think is missed is that US compounds are just that great because we made the compound. This is wrong the first person to win all three indoor outdoor and field wasn't a american. Other than my world indoor who from the us has one a world and when? These are things that most don't know. 

I don't care about how Lee does he won't make the US any better than we were already. Brady was a great shooter before he got here and will be after. I'm not baging on Brady but if he was doing so well how did he do against the juniors? Brady will be one of our top shooter but Lee is paid to make us have some of the best in the world and only the person behind the bow can do that. 

As for the pay did you know the money they are spending is more then one of the Super bowl coachs makes and that Lee is the highest paid coach in the world. Well I really think that a set program will have a hard time working in a free country or are we free anymore? Threw the new rules set up to make him look good it seems not. I just think that we should give the best the most chances and not just say who we think is the best and give them the chances. Is this like figure skating? Were we pick who is good and not because they shot the best then why would they ever strive to be the best? 


These are things I know and think are right. I do know that no one person makes anyone great without that person wanting to be great and having great talent. If we can just make a great shooter then I will give you names and they will pay way better then Lee makes. It has to be a talented shooter not just a shooter.

Reo


----------



## Shirt (Aug 31, 2002)

If you're all already the best in the world, why do you need a coach at all?


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

Reo said:


> These are things I know and think are right. I do know that no one person makes anyone great without that person wanting to be great and having great talent. If we can just make a great shooter then I will give you names and they will pay way better then Lee makes. It has to be a talented shooter not just a shooter.
> 
> Reo


Well said!


----------



## Reo (May 23, 2002)

You may need help to get there and maybe stay there, but if you weren't good or great there is no coach that can help that much.

Reo


----------



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

Part of the job of a coach is to help a shooter that has the postential to be great to actually have a chance to obtain it. Sort if like what Michael Angelo said (assuming he did) "The scupture was already in the stone, I just chipped away what wasn't needed and polished the edges). That's what a coach does. Some folks are self taught and it worked fine for them. Others can't use that process. If a shooter has a technique that is limiting his or her ability to show the greatness and a coach can change that technique to help unleash the brilliance of the archer, is that bad? Does that mean the coach served no purpose? Does that mean the shooter did it all on their own? Sure the archer has to shoot the shot but if they don't know how to do it to maximize their chances of winning, then what?

Coach Lee is taking a shooting process that isn't very efficient or consistent and changinng it into one that he believes has a good chance of meeting that goal. We can either try it or keep bringing back more rocks that aren't the ones the archer needs.

Terry


----------



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

Since a lot of young archers haven't shown if they are great or not, Coach Lee is trying to find the masterpiece that lies inside some. We don't have a program setup to make that easy for him so he has to use what is available based upon some preliminary observations and oppinions from others.

Terry


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Reo, you represent the old school very well 

And if we had medaled again in Athens, most likely there would be a whole bunch of recurvers - both athletes and coaches - who would agree wholeheartedly with you. 

And you know what? You might be proven right in time.

But the fact that we even finished 4th in the team round was a result of us overachieving and/or the Italians underachieving. However you want to look at it. We were ranked 11th, I think, which is about what the U.S. men's team has been ranked for quite some time now. We have only two men in the U.S. that can consistently shoot 1300's, and one of them is over 50 now.

Something needed to be done, because from what I could see, the future didn't look too bright for our international competitiveness. Not only that, but the RA program simply wasn't producing top scores at major events. 

If this system doesn't work in a few years, then I guess we can all join together and figure out how better to use the training center facilities.

But there is a lot of work and decisions yet to be made.



> I don't care about how Lee does he won't make the US any better than we were already


Funny, because I think he already has - in less than one year.

John.


----------



## inno300dude (Feb 21, 2007)

For what it's worth, I agree with Reo. It takes a special person to become a champion. That's why everybody wants to be one and only a few are! 

John, I think the reason we did so poorly at the 04 games was our preparation. The USOC wanted us to pick our team one month before the Olympics. You made that team but was totally unprepared to compete at the Games. If you were given 6 months to prepare after making the team I bet you as well as Butch and Vic would have brought home the Gold. You guys had it, but unfortunately, the people who give the money (USOC) told the board that was the best way to select a team. Now, guess what, they are telling the board how to manage our programs again (since we did poorly at the 04 Games) and we have a mess on our hands, again.


----------



## Guest (Feb 23, 2007)

Reo, you had a world class shooter to help you along....one of the best that has every been.

As a matter of fact your Dad blew my mind the first time I shot next to him at the Indoor Nationals....I completely lost focus just watching him shoot next to me....of course his making me laugh till I hurt didn't help either.
(At the end of 5 rounds he had 5 holes in is target...blew me away.)

So, you had some great help along the way. Unfortunately many many don't have that opportunity.

Art


----------



## Reo (May 23, 2002)

Yes I was lucky but that is not what made me. My brothers had the same and they didn't do what I have. I just want people to think it has a little to do with the help and more to do with the person.

Reo


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

Reo said:


> Yes I was lucky but that is not what made me. My brothers had the same and they didn't do what I have. I just want people to think it has a little to do with the help and more to do with the person.
> 
> Reo


Reo, at least you had a step up in coaching than most young archers I have seen. Sometimes that is all that is needed to kick-start talent. I got my son shooting but it was not for him. There is just no substitute for talent.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

a couple thoughts on this whole controversy

1) selection to the RA program is not purely based on merit. I have no problem with that and I do not distrust the coaches and their choicesHOWEVER

2) RA's should not have artificial advantages when it comes to the trials. In other words-the OTC training field SHOULD NOT be the place for ANY of the trials. YOu should get NO advantage for having a position that is not solely due to merit.

3) The coaches/HPP Director etc are in a difficult position. If too much pressure is placed on certain people for the RA's to succeed then it is only natural that those who have the power to do so will want to "tweak" the system to favor that happening. That cannot be allowed. On the other hand, we cannot blame the coaches and administrators-especially in the short term-if RA's don't have a good trials. If those in charge of the system know that they aren't going to get lambasted if one or more of the RA's have a bad trials and lose to say a Vic Wunderle or Dakota Sinclair or Butch Johnson, there is less pressure to try to slant things. 

The single most important thing is that once the trials start-every athlete is guaranteed equal treatment and that the trials do not favor any one group based on anything other than how well they can shoot. I have seen far too many sports rig things to create an outcome that the powers to be wanted and this ultimately not only is unfair to athletes, it cost the NGBs involved as well.

As I noted before, I see people on various sides of this entire controversy I consider good friends and who I trust.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

Jim C said:


> a couple thoughts on this whole controversy
> 
> 1) selection to the RA program is not purely based on merit. I have no problem with that and I do not distrust the coaches and their choicesHOWEVER
> 
> ...


Excellent post, Jim. I agree 100%


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

Jim, I could not agree more.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Mega ditto's Jim 

John.


----------



## JimK (Feb 8, 2005)

Recordkeeper said:


> Note: If anyone wishes to comment but remain anonymous, feel free to send me your comments via PM and I will post them.


Hi folks, 

With all due respect, this is really quite crazy. Why would (recordkeeper) want to speak for someone else? If a person has an opinion, they need to put it out there, otherwise how does anyone know it's not recordkeeper's opinion. Also, recordkeeper, do you just like to throw out contentious remarks just to get some traffic on your forum?

For you anonymous souls - if you want someone to seriously consider your opinion, then you need to share it publicly, thus giving it some value. Otherwise you are no better than some terrorist lurking in the bushes.

BTW: I think the topic here was RA Advantages - here are some other points to consider:

Yes it is true that 
RA's have a dream and are fortunately able to pursue it
RA's have faith in the coaching system and each other
RA's have faith in their coach and HPP Director and the NAA and the membership to support the program.

And it is also true that
RA's still have car insurance and car expenses
RA's still have student loans
RA's still have to pay the health insurance, etc
RA's still have plane tickets and phone bills, need shoes, clothes, etc
RA's work their butts off 6 days a week and don't have time for a real job
RA's miss their families and homes 
RA's put their careers and education on hold at least until 2008
RA's have to put personal relationships on hold
RA's can not just leave anytime they want, they are isolated
RA's bust their butts day in and day out unlearning the crap we taught them when they were learning.

The bills the RA's can't pay are paid by their families. So RA's and their families all end up having to sacrifice to pursue that dream.

As a parent, HPP coach and NAA member, I don't have a problem with MY NAA organization giving preference to RA members. 

Thanks you for allowing me to voice MY opinion.

Cheers!

Jim Krueger


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

JimK said:


> Hi folks,
> 
> With all due respect, this is really quite crazy. Why would (recordkeeper) want to speak for someone else? If a person has an opinion, they need to put it out there, otherwise how does anyone know it's not recordkeeper's opinion. Also, recordkeeper, do you just like to throw out contentious remarks just to get some traffic on your forum?
> 
> ...



Excellent post, Jim. Thank you for sharing it.

As for my personal opinion, I rarely...if ever....share it on AT....and I won't on this matter either.

AT is about the free flowing exchange of opinions. 

I don't have a horse in this race...but I really do appreciate you sharing your perspective.

Best of luck to you, and I look forward to watching your progress.

Chris


----------



## JimK (Feb 8, 2005)

As a matter of fact, I have just received about a bazillion responses that say " Way to go"!

They all wanted to be anonymous. It looks like I will be relaying anonomyous messages and post anonymous opinions in the future. Perhaps others may want to act as relayers as well. That ought to really open up the discussion board!

Good Discussion,

Thanks,
Jim


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

JimK said:


> As a matter of fact, I have just received about a bazillion responses that say " Way to go"!
> 
> They all wanted to be anonymous. It looks like I will be relaying anonomyous messages and post anonymous opinions in the future. Perhaps others may want to act as relayers as well. That ought to really open up the discussion board!
> 
> ...


How many is a bazillion?:wink:


----------



## Dana K (Feb 25, 2005)

*Well said Jim!*

The young men and women that have been selected through the application process to be RA's are putting their "real" lives on hold. By "real" I mean, families, personal relationships, PAYING careers, financial obligations etc. all in order to obtain the best training they can to have a better chance at achieving their dream. In my book any advantages they are given are earned by their willingness to commit themselves 100% fulltime to become the best archers they can to represent the USA.
Not that my opinion has much weight but it's my opinion.

just a JOAD mom
dana knowlton


----------



## JimK (Feb 8, 2005)

If you are an NAA adult member, your opinion counts as much as anyones.
Thank you for voicing it! 

Wouldn't it be wonderful if every one would speak up on this topic, rather than just the few. I am sure there are a lot of us who are really tired of the bashing, let's hear your voices and see how much you really support the NAA when it's needed. 

God Bless the USA, NAA and Texas in that order..

Jim


----------



## Guest (Feb 24, 2007)

*Anonymous*

Jim K, good post. Early on when I voiced my opinion that it was first, cowardly to post anonymous negetive opinions on the subject Recordkeeper pulled my post....and told me directly that he didn't want the conversation to go in the direction of who or why would an anonymous post be allowed.

Glade to see someone besides me has had the courage to ask the obvious.
Why would the moderator/administrator of a section of Archery Talk allow it?

I wonder if other posts voicing the same question have been pulled.

Anonymous posts should never be allowed, are at best unfair, and for a moderator to allow them is beyond good reason unless they are a reflection of their position. Very honestly, I think the adminstrator wrote it. But, no one will really know. If he did its truely unfortunate for the folks who participate here, because it simply means he can use this forum to plank his own beliefs without the repercussions of doing so. Especially if they are ment to undermine the new program. Weather he has a "fish" in the water or not....probably a few of his friends do.

I am glade to see some of the debate has been up front and intelligent with honest opinions and concerns being voiced. But, much of it hasn't. I think there are many who see their comfortable positions and old ways being swept under the door, but that is how new things can take place. I personally cheer for the new approach and program....

I said I was out of here, but find a breath of fresh air with your post Jim K.
I doubt because of who you are your post will not be pulled.
Thanks

Art


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Jim what sort of advantages and preferences do you think RA's deserve over say a Dakota Sinclair or a Vic Wunderle who are training full time and still have bills to pay? Funding? home field advantages for selection matches? Or merely that they get to train full time with Coach Kisek Lee?

advantages they gain from training full time with the BEST coach are to be expected and no one has a problem with that. With those advantages, one would think these RA's would be in a better position to win or post top scores at objective and neutral trials held on neutral or sterile fields like we had at Mason [a field no one had ever shot on until the trials]. What I have problems with is 

1) holding trials on their home field

2) rolling rank OR scores that are shot on their home field in their intramural sessions

My feelings are that we ought to fund those who are the top scoring archers and if they are RA's great-if it's Vic, Butch or Dakota-great as well. We shouldn't slant things to create an outcome based driven scenario. 

As an archer, a parent, a Judge-Candidate, an NAA member, a HPP Coach, a JOAD program leader and as someone who believes in due process and equal protection my only concern is that once team or USAT selection starts, everyone is treated the same and ability, talent, skill, and technique are the only things that determine the outcome-not status, personal relationships or agendas of administrators, bureaucrats or others.

I am out of town for a couple days playing squash so I am not ignoring responses


Jim


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

art v said:


> Jim K, good post. Early on when I voiced my opinion that it was first, cowardly to post anonymous negetive opinions on the subject Recordkeeper pulled my post....and told me directly that he didn't want the conversation to go in the direction of who or why would an anonymous post be allowed.
> 
> Glade to see someone besides me has had the courage to ask the obvious.
> Why would the moderator/administrator of a section of Archery Talk allow it?
> ...


Art.....

As I have explained to you, AT is about the free flowing exchange of ideas. Some who have dedicated their lives to training, in an effort to make the Olympic team but who do not train at the OTC feel that their chances of making the team are in jeopardy because the deck is being stacked in favor of the RAs. They have every right to post here without concern of retribution....and I will post their posts for them. Just as I will post on behalf of any RA, RA parent, coach, or Dr. Lee himself if any of them wish to respond and remain anonymous.

There is no need to go after me or my integrity. I pulled your post the first time you did it, which is my JOB. But I am going to leave it this time for all to see. I don't have an agenda here.


----------



## JimK (Feb 8, 2005)

Jim C said:


> Jim what sort of advantages and preferences do you think RA's deserve over say a Dakota Sinclair or a Vic Wunderle who are training full time and still have bills to pay? Funding? home field advantages for selection matches? Or merely that they get to train full time with Coach Kisek Lee?
> 
> advantages they gain from training full time with the BEST coach are to be expected and no one has a problem with that. With those advantages, one would think these RA's would be in a better position to win or post top scores at objective and neutral trials held on neutral or sterile fields like we had at Mason [a field no one had ever shot on until the trials]. What I have problems with is
> 
> ...


Well, I have been at quite a few Outdoor Nationals for @ 10 years running, I have been to all but 3 JOAD Nationals in the last 15 years or so and I have only missed one Texas Shootout not to mention all of the other World Trials etc.... 

Outdoor Nationals - I have never seen the locals outshoot Butch or Vic.
Texas Shootout - Locals Guy and Chris Schull and Staton Holmes did have some good events there; however, the venue never hurt Butch or Vic. Also, Chris, Guy and Staton were top rated archers also (top 10 at the time).

Arizona Cup - Don't see many or any Tuscon boys kicking up the sand every year.

JrWorld Trials - a few years ago was at Chula Vista - Jr USat had been at the camp all week, although some did make the team - some did not.

JOAD Nationals - when in Texas - 2 Texas boys got heat stroke - no one else did...

I can go on and on with this, but the venue does not make the difference. And any archer who says it does is pulling at straws. 

RA's may know that the windchanges everyday at a certain time or that the field slopes this way or that. But if an archer is as good as Butch or Vic or John Magera, they will do well regardless and have just as good a chance of winning as an RA.

The comparison of the RA advantages was to show that other than having Kisik Lee to work with, they also have human problems that we all have. It doesn't change just because of venue.


----------



## JimK (Feb 8, 2005)

JimK said:


> Originally Posted by Jim C
> Jim what sort of advantages and preferences do you think RA's deserve over say a Dakota Sinclair or a Vic Wunderle who are training full time and still have bills to pay? Funding? home field advantages for selection matches? Or merely that they get to train full time with Coach Kisek Lee?
> 
> advantages they gain from training full time with the BEST coach are to be expected and no one has a problem with that. With those advantages, one would think these RA's would be in a better position to win or post top scores at objective and neutral trials held on neutral or sterile fields like we had at Mason [a field no one had ever shot on until the trials]. What I have problems with is
> ...


JIm,

This is truly a rich topic!

Let's take a look at home advantage again. It did not hurt Justin, Darrel Pace, Rick McKinney one bit did it? Nor did it hurt the Koreans in the last several World Championships, Olympics, European Fitas, etc.... So, this argument has no validity whatsoever. I think this on can be closed.

Lets look at the DAS to discuss the Rolling Ranking question:
http://www.usarchery.org/files/07_direct_athlete_support_program.pdf

Qualifying National Competitions for 2007:
1. Arizona Cup April 11-15
2. World Target Team & Pan Am Team Trials April 20-22
3. Texas Shootout April 27-29
4. Gold Cup May 25-27
5. U.S Open August 7-11
6. 1st U.S. Olympic Selection Shoot September
7. Any sanctioned Regional or State Shoot where there are at least 8 people participating within the OR for the given category. For example, for a male recurve athlete to get credit, there must be at least 8 people shooting the OR in the Men’s Recurve category. The event must be open to all archers and each category must be open to all ages. Only match scores shot at 70M will count. The event must be registered in advance with USA Archery and posted on the USA Archery website at least 60 days in advance of the event. Results must be provided within 1 day after the event. Only one such event may be used for ranking purposes.

*What a godsend this is for everyone!!!!* Let me restate this in layman's terms. "If your state or club can spend the few measly dollars (I think it is $15.00) and get your event sanctioned(forms are on the naa website), you too can have a ranking round event. Now how hard is that to understand? 

As you can see, only *one* of these can be counted, BUT it does not say only the RA's can do it.... So where did that piece of bs come form? 


I think this issue is closed as well. 


Everyone needs to begin looking for the truth in some of these postings and start calling folks on it. If it affects someone's livelihood or reputation, the moderator needs to keep it off the air. THAT's the RIGHT THING TO DO!


Let's all SHOOT STRAIGHT! GOD BLESS and remember "Thou shalt not bear false witness" is a commandment.

Jim


----------



## JimK (Feb 8, 2005)

Recordkeeper said:


> Art.....
> 
> As I have explained to you, AT is about the free flowing exchange of ideas. Some who have dedicated their lives to training, in an effort to make the Olympic team but who do not train at the OTC feel that their chances of making the team are in jeopardy because the deck is being stacked in favor of the RAs. They have every right to post here without concern of retribution....and I will post their posts for them. Just as I will post on behalf of any RA, RA parent, coach, or Dr. Lee himself if any of them wish to respond and remain anonymous.
> 
> There is no need to go after me or my integrity. I pulled your post the first time you did it, which is my JOB. But I am going to leave it this time for all to see. I don't have an agenda here.


With all due respect sir, I do not understand why you would harass this man and threaten to delete his post. His post was reallly quite sane, truthful, well-articulated and stated compared to some of the others I have seen. 

My recommendation would be an apology to the gentleman. You might even consider the same to the whole group for posting the anonymous postings. You really need to reconsider your position on this topic. 

You become an accessory to slander by relaying untrue or twisted comments. I have noticed that most of the messages you do this for are negative, or meant to stir up controversy or they are veiled personal attacks on individuals or groups. 

Is this the type of reputation you want. 

Lets raise our heads and look in the mirror, can we?

Thanks for allowing m,e to voice my opinion,

Jim


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

JimK said:


> With all due respect sir, I do not understand why you would harass this man and threaten to delete his post. His post was reallly quite sane, truthful, well-articulated and stated compared to some of the others I have seen.
> 
> My recommendation would be an apology to the gentleman. You might even consider the same to the whole group for posting the anonymous postings. You really need to reconsider your position on this topic.
> 
> ...


I don't owe Art an apology.

I support Dr. Lee and his BEST method. I teach it to my JOAD students.

I support the NAA and the OTC, verbally and with my donations.

I have personally attacked nobody.

Everyone is welcome to post their opinion on these matters. Some feel theirs will subject them to retribution....that is why I posted on their behalf. I will afford that same courteousy to anyone who requests it. Why do you want me to silence their voices? Surely you aren't advocating censorship on these issues.

My personal opinion.....is that everyone who is qualified deserves a fair chance to make the Olympic team. I have great respect for those who train at the OTC. I have friends there.


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

The same old game. I have heard over and over again from the archery ranks the same old words, "Who do they think they are?", "They are aways trying to start problems.", " Who have they taugh/coach?", "Better watch out for -blank- because -blank- said this!", " Better watch what you say to them!" , And the last , " I bet I know where that started because they have done it before!". 
I know because I was outspoken. A few of the people I knew and trusted told me that I needed to do damage control over the reputation I had acquired. People had an opinion about me without even meeting me. Sometimes 'anonymous' is a good way to not be a target.


----------



## Guest (Feb 24, 2007)

Good
Thank you
Art


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I can go on and on with this, but the venue does not make the difference. And any archer who says it does is pulling at straws.
> 
> RA's may know that the windchanges everyday at a certain time or that the field slopes this way or that. But if an archer is as good as Butch or Vic or John Magera, they will do well regardless and have just as good a chance of winning as an RA.


I tend to agree with you a lot Jim K. You already know this. As an archer competing for a spot on a team, I really could care less who's field we shoot on. The only "home field" I have is the one lane 90M range in my yard. So every time I attend any kind of event, it is unfamiliar territory, and that's fine. Getting the chance to go somewhere and beat someone on their own field just sweetens the deal IMO... 



> People had an opinion about me without even meeting me. Sometimes 'anonymous' is a good way to not be a target.


Worked for me in '04, but that horse has already left the barn... ha, ha, ha.
I have to be so politically correct at work, that I refuse to do it on my personal time. Unless there is a risk of offending a student or their parents, I will speak my mind. Otherwise, I'll either choose my words or swallow them. But I prefer to leave the political correctness at the office whenever I can.

Look, anyone who posts their opinion here becomes a target. Even if nobody responds on the thread or the forum. When they least expect it, someone will walk up to them at a tournament and say "I read what you posted on AT..." and leave you trying to remember exactly what you posted. Then they will usually stick out their hand to thank you or stick out thier tongue and criticize you. It comes with the territory. If a person can't handle having anyone talk about them behind their back, then I strongly suggest they stay as far from this forum as they can. And if they can't handle controversy or lively debates (some folks don't know the difference either), then I suggest they never look in on the threads.

Just two days ago, I told one of my students who is an RA to stay completely away from this place, and to go read a book or open his bible every time he got the urge or was tempted by the other RA's to log on. Teenage archers haven't yet developed the coping skills to understand or tolerate a lot of the opinions they read here. And they can't often distinguish between what's serious and what isn't.

I would hope that everyone posting would consider that before they rattle off criticism of these young archers, the programs they are involved with, or their coaches.

John.


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Look, anyone who posts their opinion here becomes a target.
> John.


Spoken like a real archer:wink: 



limbwalker said:


> If a person can't handle having anyone talk about them behind their back, then I strongly suggest they stay as far from this forum as they can. And if they can't handle controversy or lively debates (some folks don't know the difference either), then I suggest they never look in on the threads.
> John.


I do not think it is the talk as much as the unknown damage it creates. Their level of comfort of voicing a concern that bothers them and not being labeled from it is realistic. It opens the discussion for all to read and make up their own minds who's opinion is in the right direction. There are many here who are very articulate and write a novel to get their point across. Then there are those who have gut feelings about possible issues and are avoiding several novels criticizing or assuming the reason they posted.


----------



## cparnate1200 (Feb 23, 2007)

Aren't the world team trials in Chula Vista because the President of the NAA put in the bid for the tournament, not the RA program? Who is running the competition?


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

*Pushing Opinions*

I belong to a few other discussion groups. I have hardy ever seen a moderator being as open and patience while he is being told he was not doing his job right. Specially when he is the one who started the thread with ground rules.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

cparnate1200 said:


> Aren't the world team trials in Chula Vista because the President of the NAA put in the bid for the tournament, not the RA program? Who is running the competition?


Yes, I assume you are correct. The RA's wouldn't put in for a tournament location I don't think. They are there to concentrate and train.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

There are a couple ways to look at it from where I sit. In '04, I watched archer after archer wilt in the heat and humidity of the Ohio summer. Now, being from a hotter and more humid location, the heat and humidity was an non-issue to me. I actually thought it was quite pleasant. However, I can see someone who trains in cooler, drier conditions having trouble over a week's period. 

So, does holding the trials at Chula Vista favor the locals, or the archers who train in even more severe conditions? Remember, the training center is there because of the near-perfect weather 

Kinda like runners training at altitude, then competing at sea level. I'd rather train in a hotter, more humid (and windy if possible) environment and be pleasantly surprised at how nice the conditions are when I arrive at the trials, rather than the other way around...

Having said that though, Brady did shoot a decent score on a very hot and humid field at JOAD nationals last summer. So maybe it's a not that big a factor.

Just food for thought.

John.


----------



## Dana K (Feb 25, 2005)

Quote from news release from USA archery:



COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - The 2006-2007 USA Archery Resident Athlete (RA) Program will begin at the Olympic Training Center (OTC) in Chula Vista, Calif. on September 1, 2006. The RA Program year runs from September 1 through August 31. USA Archery previously did not have an official RA Program in Chula Vista since June of 2004, following the 2004 Olympic Trials, until the program started up again March 1, 2006 following the hiring of new National Head Coach KiSik Lee.

Fourteen total RAs will be participating in the RA Program for the next year. There will be eight men and six women, with seven returning from the last group that has been at the OTC since March including: Tyler Domenech (Airville, Pa.), Brady Ellison (Glendale, Ariz.), Guy Krueger (Blessing, Texas), Tyler Martin (Montville, N.J.), Kate Anderson (Sacramento, Calif.), Joy Fahrenkrog (Denver, Colo.) and Tiffany Hirano (Irvine, Calif.).

Seven new RAs will join the program in Chula Vista in September including: Jake Kaminski (Edgewater, Fla.), Dan Schuller (Mercer, Pa.), Dakota Sinclair (Ridgecrest, Calif.), Lee Stewart (Dowell, Ill.), three-time Olympian for the Republic of Georgia Khatuna Lorig (Stanhope, N.J.) and Lindsay Pian (Scottsdale, Ariz.). Karen Scavotto (Enfield, Conn.), a 2000 Olympian, will join the RA Program in January.

The RA Program is under the instruction of Coach Lee and Assistant RA Coach Larry Skinner.

The RAs live at the OTC and train every day at The Easton Archery Complex, on the grounds of the OTC, which is one of the largest permanent archery ranges in North America. It consists of 50 lanes have moveable targets that can be set at 30, 50, 60, 70 and 90 meters. With this world-class facility at their disposal and the warm climate of Southern California, it makes outdoor year-round training possible for some of the best up and coming recurve archers in the country.

For more information on the RA Program, please visit www.usarchery.org.

Is or is not Dakota Sinclair a RA? Jim C keeps putting him with the non RA archers, but the above states he is an RA.




Jim C said:


> Jim what sort of advantages and preferences do you think RA's deserve over say a Dakota Sinclair or a Vic Wunderle who are training full time and still have bills to pay? Funding? home field advantages for selection matches? Or merely that they get to train full time with Coach Kisek Lee?
> 
> Jim


Jim C keeps mentioning Vic Wunderle, Dakota Sinclair, Butch Johnson as the examples of those who train around their jobs, families, schooling etc. 
I can add a few other names also. The Texas folks come to mind first since they are whom I'm most familiar. Folks like Staten Holmes, Tim Meyers, Kevin Barker, and others I'm leaving out due to not being necessary to make my point. There are a lot of guys and gals out there shooting that are top notch nationally ranked archers with lots of potential whom because of whatever reason cannot drop everything and put their lives on hold to become RA's. No one is stopping these archers from competing for a slot on the World Target Championships team. All that is being asked is that the archers that win spots on the target championship team do is also commit to go to compete in 2 other international tournaments that are both completely funded. In my opinion any archer that has his/her eyes on attempting to make the USA Olympic Team should jump at the oportunity to compete in as many international tournaments as they can and making the world target team allows them to shoot 3 fully funded.

As far as the 2007 Performance Measures go especially the one stating that at least 50% of the 2007 world target championship team will come from the RA program....... These are just measures or goals and if the program is given a chance to progess and succeed that is not an unreasonable goal. They are not saying that should the target trials end up with the following results:

1. joe bob
2. an RA
3. jimmy john
4. ray charles
5. an RA

That they are going to replace joe bob, jimmy john or ray charles as alternate with 3 RA's that placed lower. 

Folks it seems like we want our cake and want to eat it too.

In anything you want to become the best, you have to make sacrifices, it is not only sports, do you think the best business leader, or the best scientist or the best physician, didn't make sacrifices to reach the pinnacles they achieved. You bet they did! All have spent time away from their families, worked long hours, and put other pursuits they would have liked to do on the back burner to reach their goals.

US archery has felt it needed to regain a top spot in the international world of archery (olympics) and in order to do that they have hired Mr. Lee and have developed the High Performance plan to follow to achieve this. This plan needs to be given a chance to work. From what I've seen it isnt' cutting out anyone. The billy bobs and jimmy john's can still compete and make the world teams but it is putting in place a program to build US archers with the RA program, the dream team, and the Champs programs. 

Lets give this a chance before we say it is not good or not fair.


Sorry for the long post
dana knowlton


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

JimK said:


> JIm,
> 
> This is truly a rich topic!
> 
> ...




Darrell and Rick were 100 points better than the rest of the USA at the relevant times

what I am asking you is do you think your son should be able to have the olympic trials held on a field he shoots on every day. Right now things are pretty close between those who make the Olympic team and those who don't. a couple shots and one good spin wing might have meant Jason McKittrick being on the 04 team. any edge helps. 

that is all I am asking. I am not talking about USAT shoots which are held at certain locations over and over. I am talking about a trials used to pick a team.

I don't think ANYONE can argue against having a trials at a neutral field


----------



## Dana K (Feb 25, 2005)

I personally feel the "home field" issue is a non-issue for the following reasons.

1. Home field advantage for archery isn't the same as the home field advantage we traditionally think of. In a baseball, football, basketball, or soccer game, the home field advantage isn't given by the baseball field or football field or court itself, it is given by the support and fanbase you have vs the numbers of the opposing teams fans that attend the distant event. Archery doesn't have this fan/support base to influence 
the competitors.

2. No matter the field in an outdoor event there are natural elements that cannot be controlled no matter what field you are shooting. No one can predict that on July 5th there will or won't be rain or a drop or increase in temperature or whether the wind will be nil or blowing a gale. These forces or nature change constantly and sometimes quickly. It doesnt' matter if the field is in California, Texas, Maine or Ohio. You can come back with the argument that the wind usually blows this way on this field but with nature that isn't a set, concrete fact. It changes.

3. If we are going to push this issue, we might as well call foul for all the world event and the Olympics. Going by the reasons folks are presenting for the RA's to have unfair advantage, so do the host countries of these various events. Do we scream and yell FOUL then??


Again just my opinion
dana knowlton


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

So let me get this straight Dana-you think its ok to have the olympic or world trials held on the OTC field?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Dana, good posts. And Dakota has decided to leave the RA program and train at home.



> All that is being asked is that the archers that win spots on the target championship team do is also commit to go to compete in 2 other international tournaments that are both completely funded. In my opinion any archer that has his/her eyes on attempting to make the USA Olympic Team should jump at the oportunity to compete in as many international tournaments as they can and making the world target team allows them to shoot 3 fully funded.


Agreed. I think it is a great opportunity. Three funded international tournaments for only attending one trials event? Sounds great to me. Wish I had the vacation time, 'cause I'd be out there flinging arrows if I did. IMO this is an extraordinary perk for those who earn their spots on the team, and it's nice to see that the events are funded. I don't know of any archer who doesn't want/need more international experience. Here's a chance to get a bunch for just one entry fee and event.

Dana, I want to be Jimmy John again 

John.


----------



## mbu (Oct 22, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> ... Wish I had the vacation time, 'cause I'd be out there flinging arrows if I did.
> ... Dana, I want to be Jimmy John again
> John.


Many of the top non RA archers are in the same situation, John. This is one of the points that Pete and some other potential “Jimmy John” archers and their supporters are trying to make, I believe.


----------



## JimK (Feb 8, 2005)

Jim C said:


> Darrell and Rick were 100 points better than the rest of the USA at the relevant times
> 
> what I am asking you is do you think your son should be able to have the olympic trials held on a field he shoots on every day. Right now things are pretty close between those who make the Olympic team and those who don't. a couple shots and one good spin wing might have meant Jason McKittrick being on the 04 team. any edge helps.
> 
> ...


Hi Jim, 

Actually I do not think it matters one way or the other , but I think we are talking PanAm Trials and World Trials, not the Olympic trials. 

The only advantage they really have in my opinion is that they know where the restrooms are. I guess there is also an advantage if no one else comes. 

But it really does not matter on which field the event is shot on in my opinion. I have seen too too many locals get blown away by the travelers at most of the major venues in the US. 

From what I understand, the event was set up by Lloyd Brown as there were no other bids. The RA's were really hoping it would be somewhere else.
Although they live there, they also have to pay their own entry fees, so other than location, no big deal. 

For the NAA, it probably makes some economical sense as well. No field charges, LLoyd is nearby, and the USOC can handle some of the other duties of parking, water coolers, field striping, restrooms, target matts, etc... 

But it also looks as if the USOC and NAA will provide free room and board for the following folks as well:
from the registration form: http://www.usarchery.org/files/07_world_target_trials__recurve_registration.pdf

ACCOMODATIONS AT THE OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER
*Please read carefully. To qualify for free housing and/or meals, you must be one
of the following:
-Top 20 men and top 20 women on the rolling ranking list
-Top 10 junior boys and top 10 junior girls on the Junior USAT list
-Top 3 cadet boys and top 3 cadet girls on the Junior USAT list
-Olympic medalists for USA Archery attending short-term programs who
are still competitive, or are attending a development program as part of
the staff to motivate young archers.

That is 76 people not counting past Olympic medalists that they are offering free room and board to. Someone needs to put a pen and paper to that.

Did you miss that when you read the registration form?

Once again, I don't think there is an advantage to the venue. Perhaps all of this discussion is because someone wants to stir up enough controversy that the venue will be moved to their "neutral" field. Who knows!

Best Wishes,

Jim


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

JimK said:


> Hi Jim,
> 
> Actually I do not think it matters one way or the other , but I think we are talking PanAm Trials and World Trials, not the Olympic trials.
> 
> ...



I don't have any personal stake in the trials. In my profession we call it avoiding the appearance of impropriety. people i know and trust with unquestioned credentials in this sport tell me there is an advantage to competing on your own training field. that is enough for me to believe that there is at least an appearance of an advantage


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Whew! almost 3,000 views on this thread alone. I have a feeling we'll be hearing about this one for a while...



> This is one of the points that Pete and some other potential “Jimmy John” archers and their supporters are trying to make, I believe.


Oh, I understand their point completely Mike. Life is all about priorities though. I've had to move my family all over the country and my wife has put her career on hold so I could advance my career. Point being that if you want to excel at things, you must make sacrifices and prioritize. Just look at what Khatuna has sacrificed... 

I don't doubt for a minute that many of our talented non-RA archers could indeed have long internationally competitive careers if they put archery before their careers like Vic, Butch, Jenny and the RA's do. My hat is off to those guys, but I have other priorities. So I can't complain. I've been given several opportunities since '04 to make a career in archery, but I've made my decisions, and I am very happy with them.

John.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Whew! almost 3,000 views on this thread alone. I have a feeling we'll be hearing about this one for a while...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great post, John. I believe you could have been one of the greats....and still can be.......:wink:


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2007)

*Interesting*

I just went back and read through this.

I'm curious when this discussion will get down to string strand count? Unfair advantage because the RA's are using 16 strand strings instead of 20 strands.

Quite frankly I started off a little angry at the way this whole discussion started, but now I'm almost laying in the floor laughing.

Unfair advantage for the RA's because of home field...shhhheeet. The grass in Calif does grow to the left....err westerly direction for sure...I understand directional growth patterns of grass creates air flow differences. Shooters from Texas, Arizona,and points east will have a hard time with this. How about the Great Salt Flats just out side of Salt Lake. Sand is neutral.

The absolute fair play for shooting in America....have each archery shoot in their backyard or at their home club. The officials can run around scoring them.

Interesting.
Art


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

art v said:


> I just went back and read through this.
> 
> I'm curious when this discussion will get down to string strand count? Unfair advantage because the RA's are using 16 strand strings instead of 20 strands.
> 
> ...


Why not put it out for bid....If I recall correctly, this is what Tom Parrish said in Colorado Springs last August. Round one out for bid, round two at the OTC.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Recordkeeper said:


> Why not put it out for bid....If I recall correctly, this is what Tom Parrish said in Colorado Springs last August. Round one out for bid, round two at the OTC.


I believe they did, but it was during late Sep. or early Oct., so weather trends had to be taken into account.


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

In the past the RA's at ARCO had an advantage because of the Santa Anna winds. They trained in them and knew what to expect during times of the day. That gave their confidence a slight edge that others not familar to the field did not have. I have been there during trials and the JR World. I was happy that my daughter got to practice there during the USAT camps. Of course anyone that is world class should practice in the wind and be used to it. IMO anyone who practices there for a week or more will have a few point advantage over an equal skilled shooter who does not.


----------



## Shirt (Aug 31, 2002)

Just as an aside - I happen to know that where I practice (easily big enough for 20 targets), when the trees on the edge of the field start moving from wind you have 20 to 30 seconds before it reaches you if you're near the middle.

Not much of an advantage, but you never know - doing a one arrow shootoff and knowing how fast to get the shot gone to avoid the wind, it could be important. 

0.02 :darkbeer:


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2007)

Recordkeeper. Good idea about putting it out for bid. Not only would it add some funds to the NAA pool. It would cancel any arguement over location.

Weather is always with us. If the weather is bad it will be bad for everyone.

But, any arguement for a home field advantage is spitting hairs a little to closely.

The last Olympics had some dynamic wind issues and I didn't see any of the competitors complaining....may be John did.

Art


----------



## Reo (May 23, 2002)

shirt is right I lived there and there are ways if you watch to tell the wind that you wouldn't know. I could give a example of a few years back were a RA made the team after a the trials moved back to chula vista. This is a big advantage.

Reo Wilde


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Art, the winds in Athens were unbeliveable for sure. To shut down rowing and sailing but not archery was a head-scratcher for sure...

But I never complained. In fact, I can remember thinking that if I was going to beat that kid from Taipai, I would take all the wind I could get. I figured the only advantage I had over him was in the wind. I sure wasn't going to consistently beat him on a calm day... I was actually excited that the wind was howling going into that match...

Reo, we've had an RA make an olympic team? Was that Justin? Rod?

Regarding winds and world class archers, if you aren't consistenly training in the worst winds you can get, I don't know how you can expect to perform well when the wind blows. In the spring, I look forward to gusty, even extreme wind days for training.

John.


----------



## Guest (Feb 27, 2007)

Yes, John when I saw the video and the flapping pants and shirts I just went limp. 

I guess they figured there was no one behind the targets and the mats were large enough so you could still aim off the center and still be on the mat. 
Who knows.....the show must go on.

Unfortunately I think there was couple of teams that just lucked out and some top ranked teams that had no luck. It was tough for everyone.

Art


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Actually, now that we are totally off-topic...

It wasn't that windy during the team event. Dead calm in the a.m., and a slight, but sometimes tricky, breeze in the afternoon. Never had to aim off in team more than the 8 ring. 

It was the first round of the individual matches that was ridiculous. My sight was literally being blown from white to white across the target. I shot one of the best shots of the match and got a "1" out of it. And I promise you it was a good shot. Some of the women (and perhaps men too) completely missed the target butts. I heard one even shot the scoreboard. They should have shut it down for that day. After that, the conditions were very reasonable, but it was too late for some, like Butch, Simon, Natalia Valeeva, etc. The damage had already been done. Another thing that we archers noticed was that those on the outside of the stadium lanes were losing all the matches. The inside lanes had much less wind to contend with. Too much like a crap-shoot to me, but you deal the hand you're dealt...

With respect to the topic at hand, I think everything has been said that could be said. I'm out on this one...

John.


----------



## Reo (May 23, 2002)

Shane Parker shot his way on at the training center. How hw get there is another story.

Reo


----------



## iceman77_7 (May 5, 2005)

Looks like they've reduced the requirement for archers selected to the world target team to shoot in one other international tournament instead of two. http://www.usarchery.org/files/07_world_target_trials_agreement.pdf


----------



## pabowdad (Feb 22, 2007)

Hi Record Keeper, I am glad to see someone else is seeing that the US Archery program is being run wrong. I do disagree with your statement that the national head coach is a good move. This new form in my opinion is NOT a good way to shoot. All I have seen by people shooting this way is a negative result. I think you should be able to shoot with a style that works for the individual that is shooting. The thought that one system is good for everybody is totally rediculous. I will not teach this method or support it or the head coach in any way. I can't believe that the people in this country would let themselves be brainwashed into thinking this is going to be helpful. If this new head coach wants to have sole power over the archers in a program maybe he should go back where he came from and I would be glad to personally pay for the plane ticket to get him there. The members of the dream team were told that they weren't allowed to shoot the trials for the indoor world team because he doesn't want them to shoot inside. I don't think it really matters what distance you are shooting. You still have to perform well enough to beat the compitition. The pressure to shoot well is the same. This was really dumb. Then the funding was dropped for the trip to turkey. Kind of makes it hard on the people who made the team. Seems kind of convienent to me. We need to make some changes soon before this gets any more out of control. This is the UNITED STATES of AMERICA and the last I knew we had freedom to chose. Some of that is being taken away with this new system by someone who is in it for themselves and not the good of the US Archery Team.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yet another anonymous post.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Yet another anonymous post.


Better yet an anonymous xenophobe.


----------



## david & sons (Apr 18, 2003)

An old saying comes to mind "Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and confirm suspicions".


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

TomB said:


> Better yet an anonymous xenophobe.


Man do I despise faceless sockpuppetsukey: 

If you believe in what you say-step up to the plate and fill out a profile to the extent that people in this sport can easily figure out who you are


----------



## RMBX10 (Jun 20, 2002)

Not that my opinion will count for much, but I'll weigh-in on this topic anyway. 
I've known Butch and Rod since 92' and I remember when they went out to Chula Vista in the winter of 95-96'. It wasn't for the coaching (Tim Strickland lived in Indiana at the time), it was simply for a warm place to shoot 70meters every day with nothing to do but shoot arrows. The way I see it, the only advantage RA's have over non-RA's is the facilities. IIRC, The FITA scores Butch, Rod, and Justin (who was also living there) put up in that time have only been matched once since then. (By Butch at the NAA when he averaged over 1350). Vic has put up some impressive scores, but not as consistently or as high as the scores put up in 95-96.
I'm not knocking our current coaching system, in fact I know very little about it. The point I'm making is, talented, well coached archers with nothing to do but shoot (the RA program) will consistently out perform those archers who have other obligations. That is the only clear "advantage" the RA's have moving forward. Don't forget the talent pool in 95-96 was very deep (Barrs, McKinney, Eliason, Wunderle were all on USAT) yet, the team was composed of archers living in Chula Vista doing nothing but shooting everyday. Further proof of how tough the 96 team was to make, Pace, Hall, Strickland did not make USAT that year and all three of those men are very accomplished archers to say the least (Pace's record needs no explaining, but many people forget that Strickland and Hall have both recorded mutliple 1300+ scores).

If the US is going to return to it's past archery greatness we need an RA program that will allow our archers to make shooting number one in their lives. Without it we'll be back to riding on the backs of one or two very good archers. And as John pointed out, one of them can now get the AARP discount. Is the new RA program perfect, probably not, but we shouldn't reject good intentions for fear of excluding someone. 

Mike Byrne

p.s. Reo, do we really need to relive the Shane Parker saga


----------



## Reo (May 23, 2002)

I don't want to bring that up again. I just used him as a RA example. He shoot great in Chula vista on home turf but strugled in New jersey.

Reo


----------



## RMBX10 (Jun 20, 2002)

Reo,
I didn't think you were trying to relive the Parker saga. You're right he did shoot much better in Chula Vista, not that he shot all that badly in New Jersey. If I recall correctly, I think he would have moved on anyway. But you probably remember it better than I do because I was too busy packing up my bow and going home. :sad: 
Mike


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2007)

*Interesting*

It seems none of the RA's are doing any indoor tournaments.

The word is, concentrate only on outdoors.

I also find it interesting that none of them are waisting time on this forum...:wink: They must be practicing.

Art


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

art v said:


> It seems none of the RA's are doing any indoor tournaments.
> 
> The word is, concentrate only on outdoors.
> 
> ...




Ya know, that's something I don't understand I guess. My experience is that it's not the same, but inside will definately get your form in shape. Maybe it's just me. :noidea:


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

art v said:


> It seems none of the RA's are doing any indoor tournaments.
> 
> The word is, concentrate only on outdoors.
> 
> ...


Really? Who were those two I shot with in Vegas?


----------



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

Your right that indoor shooting can help. But, if you are shooting 300 to 500 arrows a day 6 days a week outdoors, and you can shoot up close if you need to, I don't think there is a lot to be gained by shooting indoors under those conditions. Sure you get a bit of pressure added to score well but there are things you can do outdoors that can give you a lot of pressure also. 

Terry


----------



## mbu (Oct 22, 2003)

art v said:


> It seems none of the RA's are doing any indoor tournaments.
> 
> The word is, concentrate only on outdoors.
> 
> Art


Actually, many of the RA archers already shot the Indoor Nationals. You can find some of the results which were already posted at the US Archery website (under the "results" for 2007 for New York and New Mexico). I hope that California results will be posted soon as well.


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2007)

I stand corrected. I heard from a couple that said they are not going to do any indoor, just concentrating on outdoor.

I personally think indoor is a definite plus to dialing in your form, but outdoors shows all the flaws.

I wonder which is best...indoor to get going...outdoor to polish it off?

Art


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2007)

I stand corrected. I heard from a couple that said they are not going to do any indoor, just concentrating on outdoor. obviously its a matter of choice.

I personally think indoor is a definite plus to dialing in your form, but outdoors shows all the flaws.

I wonder which is best...indoor to get going...outdoor to polish it off?

Art


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

Just for the record......

I did NOT say that I disagree with how the US Archery program is being run. But thanks for posting your opinions.

RK



pabowdad said:


> Hi Record Keeper, I am glad to see someone else is seeing that the US Archery program is being run wrong. I do disagree with your statement that the national head coach is a good move. This new form in my opinion is NOT a good way to shoot. All I have seen by people shooting this way is a negative result. I think you should be able to shoot with a style that works for the individual that is shooting. The thought that one system is good for everybody is totally rediculous. I will not teach this method or support it or the head coach in any way. I can't believe that the people in this country would let themselves be brainwashed into thinking this is going to be helpful. If this new head coach wants to have sole power over the archers in a program maybe he should go back where he came from and I would be glad to personally pay for the plane ticket to get him there. The members of the dream team were told that they weren't allowed to shoot the trials for the indoor world team because he doesn't want them to shoot inside. I don't think it really matters what distance you are shooting. You still have to perform well enough to beat the compitition. The pressure to shoot well is the same. This was really dumb. Then the funding was dropped for the trip to turkey. Kind of makes it hard on the people who made the team. Seems kind of convienent to me. We need to make some changes soon before this gets any more out of control. This is the UNITED STATES of AMERICA and the last I knew we had freedom to chose. Some of that is being taken away with this new system by someone who is in it for themselves and not the good of the US Archery Team.


----------



## pabowdad (Feb 22, 2007)

When I get the time I will fill out the profile. Right now I have better things to do than sit in front of a computer.


----------



## JLorenti (Mar 17, 2004)

*MY opinion....*

short and sweet.
The trials should be held at a nuetral location. Being held at the training center is an obvious one sided advantage for RA's.
Just my Opinion.

Joe lorenti


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

JLorenti said:


> short and sweet.
> The trials should be held at a nuetral location. Being held at the training center is an obvious one sided advantage for RA's.
> Just my Opinion.
> 
> Joe lorenti


I don't think anyone can honestly argue that shooting on the field you have shot every day for 6 months or so won't give you at least a SLIGHT edge over an equally skilled competitior who has not. 

given how close the difference is between making a team and not, even small advantages could be huge. 

There is no way to defend the choice other than its been set and we can't change it arguments


----------



## Tropicalfruitmo (Mar 17, 2005)

After reading this very interesting debate, I think I'm glad I shoot a compound and have no chance of making "The Team". I had a chance to have a long chat with Janet Dykeman a few months ago and got a little insight into some of the politics involved. It's a wonder some people ever get on the team!



BTW - I'm not trying to start anything. I shoot a compound because I am physically incapable of pulling the weight needed to shoot the distance with a recurve. I love shooting my recurve and would love to be able to compete with it, but reality is reality.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

WOW, as a former olympic wannabe, quit then returned years later as a confused compounder, I find this discussion very interested.

One thought. The USA has the talent, not the interest. The "talent" is chasing the money, the sponsorships and the endorsements. Look at WAF Vegas, 17 shooters at 900. Alot of talent. They have $$$$ in their eyes, not olympic gold. too bad.


----------



## Archerycat (Mar 1, 2007)

*In Response To The HPP & HPT Letter Campaign*

I have been asked to post this for Don Rabska.

Dear All:

I have had the opportunity to read many of the letters being sent around the country concerning the High Performance Program and High Performance Team. As someone who likes to know all the facts, and after a good bit of investigation it was possible to determine the validity of each accusation and rumor. 

It is a pleasure to report that those accusations, rumors, etc. are simply that, a great deal of false information and inaccurate statements. Within some of the letters sent, if everyone were aware of the fine details that have somehow been left out, I believe they would have a very different opinion of the situation. For those who wrote about the trials requirement of attending the two Grand Prix events, that is the only comment which was accurate. (Note: Now reduced to only one required Grand Prix) 

To make it absolutely clear about my personal position, I am in full and complete support of what our National Head Coach is doing along with the USA Archery High Performance Team. I have had the good fortune to work with this team on various projects and the direction they are taking is a very positive one for USA Archery. It may be difficult for some to accept, as few individuals like or readily accept change. However, it is often said, to excel we must be ready and willing to leave comfort zones. 

The anger channeled by some wanting the very best for their family members is quite understandable, as most parents want the very best for their children and family. Unfortunately, in the attempt to gain that best possible position for family members, that desire sometimes leads down a less than equitable path, creating an unfair perception of the individuals maligned by such a letter campaign. 

Of all the rumors going around, the only one where archers are upset over an actual fact is the requirement for any members making the World Target Team to attend the Grand Prix events prior to the World Target Championship. Regardless if those who are actually being affected have family, (meaning spouse and or children) or have careers that would be jeopardized due to the amount of time required to attend those events, I am pleased to address here. 

What I can say about that requirement is, for any archer who is truly interested in making a World Championship Team with the intent of winning a medal, it would certainly be in their very best interest to want to participate in those events in order to compete on the same shooting line with the athletes they will be fighting against for Olympic places and later for Olympic Medals. The two (one mandatory, two highly recommended) Grand Prix events are an important opportunity in many respects. It provides the best possible testing ground to determine what equipment is working under the pressure of competition, (stabilization, grips, bow tune, arrows, point weight, strings, fletch etc.) and what is not working. It is also an important opportunity to work on mental preparation and for testing any small form changes that have been implemented before the main event. This cannot be matched on the practice field, but must be determined on the field of battle. Additionally, what if we have a scenario where a newcomer makes the team, are we going to toss that internationally inexperienced athlete into a World Championships and expect them to earn an Olympic Spot? What might their chances of success be under the heavy pressure of a head to head match if they even make the cut? All of the archers on this World Team will be facing some of the toughest competition they have ever faced. Even highly seasoned athletes need regular competition at a high level to achieve their best performance when it really counts. Each competition is a learning experience and a chance to discover our own strengths and weaknesses so improvements can be made before the next event. 

Athens was a very good example of how much the rest of the world has advanced and we need to be ready to meet and exceed that challenge. Being the very best archer in the US is no longer good enough. Times have changed and so must our thinking toward international competition. What Coach Lee is doing is highly commendable and should be completely supported by all of us. Mr. Lee is very likely the best coach in the world and he certainly is in my eyes. I have known many top international coaches in my time and I can say from experience that the US has by far, the best coach they could have ever possibly recruited. He is doing work that I consider beyond outstanding and the entire archery community should embrace his efforts.

It is a shame that the leaders of our association have not yet stepped forward to dispel the rumors and conjecture running rampant, but I do have faith that they will eventually step to the plate and do the right thing. 

I know all of you are good people. I have had the pleasure of knowing most of you for a long time and am honored by that association. My intent here was in no way meant to upset anyone. However, we all know that these types of rumors only create hurt feelings and harm productivity. 

Please join me in supporting Coach Lee in his efforts to again make the USA a formidable power in the world of Olympic archery and not allow anyone or anything to undermine the most important program that USA Archery has ever embarked upon. 

Sincerely,


Don Rabska


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Thanks for posting the letter from one of the best people I have ever met through archery (or life in general)

that is the tragedy of all this mess: several positions, all held by people I respect and trust. I think there is merit on several sides of this issue.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Wow. I wish I could say I know Don, but that letter speaks volumes about him in my eyes. Don, if you are reading this, thank you for your input and experience. They are truly valuable, especially at a time like this.

It is unfortunate that rumor and criticism is allowed to go unchecked on these message boards. It does a lot of damage at times, and I know firsthand that it has in this case. We can only hope that we will all put this behind us and move forward from here.

Thanks again Don. If you'll oblige, the first one's on me. :darkbeer: 

John.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Wow. I wish I could say I know Don, but that letter speaks volumes about him in my eyes. Don, if you are reading this, thank you for your input and experience. They are truly valuable, especially at a time like this.
> 
> It is unfortunate that rumor and criticism is allowed to go unchecked on these message boards. It does a lot of damage at times, and I know firsthand that it has in this case. We can only hope that we will all put this behind us and move forward from here.
> 
> ...


John, Don is a first class gentleman. I have spoken with him several times, and he has given advice to Lynn Riggs, our JOAD coach, unselfishly by phone on several occasions. He is a diehard supporter of Coach Lee and the BEST method, and there is no doubt in my mind that US Olympic performance is foremost on his priority list.


----------



## Guest (Mar 3, 2007)

Most of the harsness that has transpired was directly due to anonymous postings. The espeically ugly rumors where from this source also.

Is it beyond this forums capability to not allow it. Most would never had been made if they had to sign them.

I'm really just curious. Most everyone in here has a love, appreciation, and dedication to our sport. They all want to see a winning American Team. Many have worked extremely hard for archery in one way or another. I find it interesting that only a couple of people questioned why rumor driven anonymous post were allowed to stay the course of the discussion.

An open forum is important, but it isn't very open when you can fling mud and not be required to show your face. It's ugly and cowardly.

Thanks Don for stepping in and putting the right handle on this. 

My two cents.

Art


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

art v said:


> Most of the harsness that has transpired was directly due to anonymous postings. The espeically ugly rumors where from this source also.
> 
> Is it beyond this forums capability to not allow it. Most would never had been made if they had to sign them.
> 
> ...


I'm stunned. You want an open forum, and in the very same breath you want to silence those who wish to remain anonymous.


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

Archerycat said:


> I have been asked to post this for Don Rabska.
> 
> Dear All:
> 
> ...


Don, being one part of it was accurate it does touch on RA Advantages. 



Archerycat said:


> The anger channeled by some wanting the very best for their family members is quite understandable, as most parents want the very best for their children and family. Unfortunately, in the attempt to gain that best possible position for family members, that desire sometimes leads down a less than equitable path, creating an unfair perception of the individuals maligned by such a letter campaign.
> 
> Don Rabska


Don, you left out the financial burden that families must cope with. With an Olympic goal that only comes once every four years it is quite an investment to let go of over a new requirement just put on them. Again a RA advantage.



Archerycat said:


> Of all the rumors going around, the only one where archers are upset over an actual fact is the requirement for any members making the World Target Team to attend the Grand Prix events prior to the World Target Championship. Regardless if those who are actually being affected have family, (meaning spouse and or children) or have careers that would be jeopardized due to the amount of time required to attend those events, I am pleased to address here.
> 
> What I can say about that requirement is, for any archer who is truly interested in making a World Championship Team with the intent of winning a medal, it would certainly be in their very best interest to want to participate in those events in order to compete on the same shooting line with the athletes they will be fighting against for Olympic places and later for Olympic Medals. The two (one mandatory, two highly recommended) Grand Prix events are an important opportunity in many respects. It provides the best possible testing ground to determine what equipment is working under the pressure of competition, (stabilization, grips, bow tune, arrows, point weight, strings, fletch etc.) and what is not working. It is also an important opportunity to work on mental preparation and for testing any small form changes that have been implemented before the main event. This cannot be matched on the practice field, but must be determined on the field of battle. Additionally, what if we have a scenario where a newcomer makes the team, are we going to toss that internationally inexperienced athlete into a World Championships and expect them to earn an Olympic Spot? What might their chances of success be under the heavy pressure of a head to head match if they even make the cut? All of the archers on this World Team will be facing some of the toughest competition they have ever faced. Even highly seasoned athletes need regular competition at a high level to achieve their best performance when it really counts. Each competition is a learning experience and a chance to discover our own strengths and weaknesses so improvements can be made before the next event.
> 
> Don Rabska


Don, even the best International archers in the world choke at times. We have seen it over and over again. That statement about an International inexperienced archer being tossed in and even making the cut is just playing the percentages that they just MIGHT choke. This(choke) is what they did not do to get on the team.




Archerycat said:


> Athens was a very good example of how much the rest of the world has advanced and we need to be ready to meet and exceed that challenge. Being the very best archer in the US is no longer good enough. Times have changed and so must our thinking toward international competition. What Coach Lee is doing is highly commendable and should be completely supported by all of us. Mr. Lee is very likely the best coach in the world and he certainly is in my eyes. I have known many top international coaches in my time and I can say from experience that the US has by far, the best coach they could have ever possibly recruited. He is doing work that I consider beyond outstanding and the entire archery community should embrace his efforts.
> 
> Don Rabska


I also support Coach Lee and his program as much as I know it.



Archerycat said:


> It is a shame that the leaders of our association have not yet stepped forward to dispel the rumors and conjecture running rampant, but I do have faith that they will eventually step to the plate and do the right thing.
> 
> Don Rabska


Don, It has been a long time since I have been active in archery and it seems nothing has changed about the leaders dispelling the suspicions of the membership through clear and fair communications regarding their actions. Of course we are all second guessing the leadership because of past unpopular decisions and the unclear motives behind them. This Association is suppose to represent USA Archery through it's membership and not around it. 

Anthony Moscarelli


----------



## Dana K (Feb 25, 2005)

Recordkeeper said:


> I'm stunned. You want an open forum, and in the very same breath you want to silence those who wish to remain anonymous.


Sir I beg to differ here. An open forum is a place where all can voice their opinions whatever they may be. Where as a closed forum is one in which only limited or select individuals can speak. 
in fact if you look at the defination of forum from the American Heritage Dictionary 

fo·rum (fôr'əm, fōr'-) Pronunciation Key 
n. pl. fo·rums also fo·ra (fôr'ə, fōr'ə)

1.
1. The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was the assembly place for judicial activity and public business.
2. A public meeting place for open discussion.
3. A medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper, a radio or television program, or a website.
2. A public meeting or presentation involving a discussion usually among experts and often including audience participation.
3. A court of law; a tribunal.

The word public keeps coming up and public doesn't' mean anonymous. The defination of public implies just the opposite. Again from the American Heritage Dictionary 

# Participated in or attended by the people or community: "Opinions are formed in a process of open discussion and public debate" (Hannah Arendt).
Open to the knowledge or judgment of all: a public scandal.

In fact hiding behind a false name or identity goes against what an open forum is defined as.


again just my opinion.
dana knowlton


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

Dana K said:


> Sir I beg to differ here. An open forum is a place where all can voice their opinions whatever they may be. Where as a closed forum is one in which only limited or select individuals can speak.
> in fact if you look at the defination of forum from the American Heritage Dictionary
> 
> fo·rum (fôr'əm, fōr'-) Pronunciation Key
> ...


And I respect your opinion, Dana. But when there are folks that have a reasonable expectation of retribution....I do think that anonymity is a reasonable thing. That is what an open forum is about.


----------



## cparnate1200 (Feb 23, 2007)

Archerone said:


> Don, you left out the financial burden that families must cope with. With an Olympic goal that only comes once every four years it is quite an investment to let go of over a new requirement just put on them. Again a RA advantage.


It is known for a fact that a number of RAs have prestigious college degrees from very accredited universities, whom turned down $100,000 a year jobs to train full-time for the RA program. (By the way, the earning potential of such an amount of money, after 38% taxes are taken out, starting at the age of 25 and retiring at 65 is 2.74 million dollars if one is able to make 10% interest in a decent mutual fund). Are YOU turning down your job to train full time for a zero salary position at the OTC? What do you have YOUR degree in?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

cparnate1200 said:


> It is known for a fact that a number of RAs have prestigious college degrees from very accredited universities, whom turned down $100,000 a year jobs to train full-time for the RA program. (By the way, the earning potential of such an amount of money, after 38% taxes are taken out, starting at the age of 25 and retiring at 65 is 2.74 million dollars if one is able to make 10% interest in a decent mutual fund). Are YOU turning down your job to train full time for a zero salary position at the OTC? What do you have YOUR degree in?



very accreditied universities?  

Guy-Texas AM
Joy-Tufts
Kate-UCLA

all prestigious universities for sure

most of the rest? high school grads. Not knocking them-just trying to bring some reality here

I am not aware of may recent college grads getting 100K a year jobs-maybe Harvard Law School grads or Stanford MBAs working at say Goldman-Sachs or an equally prestigious wall street investment firm which expects 75 hour weeks

BTW this above post was one of the things I believe Dana was commenting on Chris-a newly minted poster with no profile attacking Anthony


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Boy, I sure don't want to be a moderator on one of these boards... :zip: 

Jim and Dana are correct however.

We put our "money where our mouth is" so to speak. Or, at least our reputations, by signing our statements so folks can hold us accountable for what we post. Don Rabska and Anthony did the same. To have unregistered, anonymous posters come along and snipe from behind cover simply isn't fair play. If they are that afraid of reprocussions, them maybe they should re-evaluate their position, or simply send a PM to those they would like to debate with.

Allowing anonymous posts gives undue credibility to folks who more often than not, have none to begin with.

John.


----------



## Nick1959 (Apr 30, 2003)

NO TROLLS ALLOWED!!


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

cparnate1200 said:


> It is known for a fact that a number of RAs have prestigious college degrees from very accredited universities, whom turned down $100,000 a year jobs to train full-time for the RA program.


LOL! You are definitely a dreamer! My position before I retired was to work with Under and Post Graduates at a National Laboratory. These students were the Director of the Laboratory's group and the other group of students were working under an up and coming Nobel Prize winner. The students worked day and night dedicated to their Professors. They made $9,000 back in 1987 and knew the rewards would pay off for their hard work. The rewards meant they would make $55,000 to $80,000 with their PHD's in the private sector to start. Of course their ages were about 28 years old by then. BA's paid hardly anything.



cparnate1200 said:


> What do you have YOUR degree in?


This is the typical lower degree or MBA question. I will answer this way. I was recruited from college in 1971 by a National Laboratory to work on Particle Accelerators and the experiments involved. I worked directly with a Nobel prize winner and I am mentioned for my work for him before and after the prize. I have been involved in experiments used on the Space Shuttle. I am proud of my work at the National Laboratory

Anthony Moscarelli


----------



## Guest (Mar 3, 2007)

Recordkeeper....that's unfortunate. But, as you said, it's your job.

Jim...there is another that you missed on the college grad list....

But, I really think we don't need to sink into individualizing the RA's...please lets not go there. These kids have been banged around and their minds played with enough by some of you. I can see a whole nest just praying that the program is unsuccessful.

It's like the liberals saying....We support the troops and at the same time trying to cut their funding.

Art


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

art v said:


> Recordkeeper....that's unfortunate. But, as you said, it's your job.
> 
> Jim...there is another that you missed on the college grad list....
> 
> ...



I agree but I don't think anyone is bad mouthing the RA's. The ones I know are all good people for the most part. As to the colleges it was 
NOT BAD GOING from memory Art. I was just laughing over a nameless newbie poster suggesting that these people were giving up 100K jobs. That is more than all but the top firms in Cincinnati are paying law school graduates.


----------



## Guest (Mar 3, 2007)

Hey man....then let me complement you....I only knew one, just happened to be the one you missed. :wink: 

Ya, I agree...100K fresh out on the market is maybe Sin city or Brain Wave Valley in northern Calif. starting wages, but most would miss that by a bunch of green backs. I think here at Vandy a Law Grad might hit 60 the first year. 

I'm gonna go shoot.....Nationals are around the corner...Got a guy that bet me a cup of coffee if I win my division...better practice...there's no money on my end of the sport either. Other than the soup bowl, the coffee will be the only thing I can win.:shade: 

Art


----------



## sundevilarchery (May 27, 2005)

art v said:


> But, I really think we don't need to sink into individualizing the RA's...please lets not go there. These kids have been banged around and their minds played with enough by some of you. I can see a whole nest just praying that the program is unsuccessful.


Art (and others who may not be getting the distinction), 

One of the things that has impressed me so far, for the most part on this forum, is people's ability to express opinions without making it a personal attack on the RA's. I for one, have the upmost respect for what they are doing and the committment they have shown. They're working hard towards their dreams and goals.

Not only do I support these folks in their efforts, I support the concept of an RA program. It's a great avenue to create an environment which in theory should produce results, thus raising the bar for everyone in the country. In fact, I am a bit envious. I would love to be in a position to drop all other aspects of my life to shoot full-time under my coach's direction and plan.

None of this changes my frustrations.


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2007)

Just like Hollywood protecting their spouse... art, of course you woudn't want to 'sink to figuring out RA's', makesk perfect sense. You and this surreal 100k college "grad" (you need to decide on that one) need to think about how you look when fronting anonymously. It's funny that all these people gripe about anonymous poster yet you read the profiles of people and it says nothin'... but I have my name in the profile and JimC accused me of being a troll. Art signs his name--- and golly gee even if he was freddie Krueger it wouldn't matter.... Dana K... whos that? I don't know... so it must be another troll. This whole anonymous thing, if you want to delete it means not only being willing to sign a name, but prove who you are, just to satisfy people who don't like what you have to say. 

And besides, this is actrually all off-topic. The topic was and still remains that the High Performance Committee without authority is attempting to take away the responsibility of the archery board and the rights of athletes. Anonymous posts, posts from high level easton employees, posts from people who care, posts from people who are affected (LOL because the dont dare say a word)-- it shouldn't matter who posts, it should matter the content. 



art v said:


> Recordkeeper....that's unfortunate. But, as you said, it's your job.
> 
> Jim...there is another that you missed on the college grad list....
> 
> ...


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2007)

Just like Hollywood protecting their spouse... art, of course you woudn't want to 'sink to figuring out RA's', makesk perfect sense. You and this surreal 100k college "grad" (you need to decide on that one) need to think about how you look when fronting anonymously. It's funny that all these people gripe about anonymous poster yet you read the profiles of people and it says nothin'... but I have my name in the profile and JimC accused me of being a troll. Art signs his name--- and golly gee even if he was freddie Krueger it wouldn't matter.... Dana K... whos that? I don't know... so it must be another troll. This whole anonymous thing, if you want to delete it means not only being willing to sign a name, but prove who you are, just to satisfy people who don't like what you have to say. 

And besides, this is actrually all off-topic. The topic was and still remains that the High Performance Committee without authority is attempting to take away the responsibility of the archery board and the rights of athletes. Anonymous posts, posts from high level easton employees, posts from people who care, posts from people who are affected (LOL because the dont dare say a word)-- it shouldn't matter who posts, it should matter the content. 



art v said:


> Recordkeeper....that's unfortunate. But, as you said, it's your job.
> 
> Jim...there is another that you missed on the college grad list....
> 
> ...






art v said:


> Recordkeeper....that's unfortunate. But, as you said, it's your job.
> 
> Jim...there is another that you missed on the college grad list....
> 
> ...


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Here is my problem "ChulaVistaGold"

Your search - Joanna Mittingly archery - did not match any documents. 

Now maybe that is your name but you see-we have a troll on this board named PSE XFACTOR and he has a "name" too which I know for a fact is a facade. If someone claims to be a tournament archer or active in an archery club I would expect googling their name would find some connection to target archery. 

If you do it for Dana Knowlton you get a ton of hits

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Dana+KNowlton+archery&btnG=Google+Search

Just my 02 cents


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

Jim C said:


> Here is my problem "ChulaVistaGold"
> 
> Your search - Joanna Mittingly archery - did not match any documents.
> 
> ...


Jim, You are right...not only no archery hits but, only a couple hits on the name Mittingly. (LOL) Even my name comes up with me along with drug dealers and organized crime.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Archerone said:


> Jim, You are right...not only no archery hits but, only a couple hits on the name Mittingly. (LOL) Even my name comes up with me along with drug dealers and organized crime.


Yes the subpoenas should be arriving shortly:wink:


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

*Just a thought*

As glorious as all the new programs and requirements sound, the one thing archery is lacking and I'm sure you're tire of me beating a dead horse, :deadhorse but it helps when there is money involved. Now more than ever, especially since I grew up in the era of the 70's and 80's and people truly did it because they loved archery. 

Trying to run a grassroots archery organization, it's hard to get real excited about too many things outside of that because if you don't have tournaments, will people just practice 45+ weeks a year and hopefully if they are elite enough, shoot big, big tournaments the rest of the 7 weeks ONLY?

Being from the Indy area, football has gathered most of the limelight this winter and I was a bit amused by what my Treasurer, Pat Fleming, commented about. When Dwight Freeney, Defense for the Colts, signs for $8.5 Million/year, not only do kids see that but parents. There are probably more kids in Pee Wee Football in Kokomo, Indiana as there are in ALL the combined JOAD programs in the U.S.

Now don't ask me for an answer or expect me to think there is a magic pill, but I have to think that a lot of this "stuff" going on, is merely to perpetuate peoples jobs that they otherwise don't want to lose. That's just the retired-manager in me talking.:icon_king: 

I'd like to commend Recordkeeper and John for the impressive threads, they contributed some great thoughts and it makes everyone think about all that is going on. It has been interesting reads and I'm sorry I don't have the answer but as I run tournaments where there was a pretty descent JOAD turnout, it is increasingly declining to the point where we have to make the adults happy, otherwise our shoots would die. Then NO ONE would have a place to shoot, test their skills against others, create fellowship, and most important, learn and have fun. I just hope they, US Archery, don't run everybody off in the process. 

Good Luck to anybody and everybody who goes for it all, I wish you the best of luck!!

Jason Lewis

President 
FITA Archers of Indiana


----------



## inno300dude (Feb 21, 2007)

*Mr. Rabska's Letter*

In repsonse to Don Rabka’s letter

Dear Mr. Rabska,

There are several areas of concern here that bothers many people. The two most important letters that were distributed did not voice any “rumors” as your letter states. Several letters, faxes and E-mails followed after that, from concerned coaches, parents and athletes. As a matter of fact, the first two letters were extremely professional and listed point by point of problems and ways to fix the problems. These letters also did not make any accusation that cannot be proven by all of the correspondence between the people involved. There have been many promises made and many promises broken by the High Performance Director. All that these letters are voicing is that the accused has abused his power and is going unchecked by the US Archery Board of Directors. The High Performance Director has stated several times to several people that he does not work for the US Archery Board of Directors, he works for the USOC. Although most of us know that this director was terminated by US Archery some time ago (with the blessing of the USOC) for moving to the state of Washington and leaving the USOC training center (which was one of the requirements for the position when hired). However, it appears that with your and Mr. Easton’s “encouragement” the USOC had to rescind this action and force US Archery to bring him back. He is partially funded by your program (Easton Foundation?) is that not right? Most of these concerned archers and parents that have fired off letters have given their accounts of what has transpired between either, the program director, head coach or assistant coach and the archer and/or parents. You alluding to them as misplaced intentions is very, very sad and disappointing. 

You have mentioned that false accusations and rumors, etc. are just that. You should have looked a little closer. There were even security reports filed which show that many of these so called rumors are in reality truths that have been covered up “for the good of the program”. Although the USOC Training Centers have security cameras throughout the complex, they always seem to be “not working” or the “tape cannot be located”. It is funny how that happens when it is important to discover the truth. Your casting of aspersions of family members who only focus on their children seethes with misguided direction and again “for the good of the program”. When the actions of the Director affects negatively on nearly 75% of our best archers we have today, that is a disgrace and downright disconcerting. Many of us wonder what is the true motive behind your letter!

How can I make such a comment? Let’s look at how this program affects our top archers (this does not include many of the young archers and others who are just ready to move up the ladder). In the top 10 “Rolling” Rankings which appear to be the most important ranking system US Archery is requiring the leaders are:

1.	Vic Wunderle Jenny Nichols
2.	Pete Carney RA – Khatuna Lorig
3.	Butch Johnson Amanda Nichols
4.	Joe McGlynn RA – Lindsay Pian
5.	RA – Brady Ellison Kendra Harvey
6.	Dakota Sinclair Maggie Huff
7.	Tim Meyers Stephanie Miller
8.	Jason McKittrick Ashley Kamuf
9	Jacob Wukie Stephanie Rowland
10.	RA – Tyler Benner RA – Kate Anderson

As you can see, there are two RA’s on the men’s side, and three RA’s on the women’s side. The others have chosen to not be an RA for various reasons that may range from not wanting to change their form, family/job commitments, etc. These top archers who have chosen to keep their jobs, get an education, stay married and/or raise their family while still training at home instead of going to the USOC Training Center are being severely affected, which appears to be a motive or intentions to get these archers out of archery so that the RA program can succeed is just plain wrong. It should not be the way we do things. Using the excuse that if you want it bad enough then you will sacrifice everything for it is nice but not reality. As a matter of fact, we should take pride in these people’s efforts. They mix their normal lives with shooting archery and still are one of the best archers. If this RA program were to succeed, it should take it’s natural course and become a truly successful program without forcing our current top archers out. These top archers have put in an extreme amount of time, effort, sacrifice, money and commitment to achieve their goals and it can be assumed that most of their families have paid a dear price as well. Why should they suffer just to make sure this (your) program succeeds?

Now, do these people want to do away with the RA program? NO!!! That is not their intent. They just want a fair chance, an equal chance of making teams. They want to be treated equally without bias. They don’t care if the RA’s get free housing, free coaching, free equipment, free food, free clothing, free training, free health insurance and incredible inspiration. These top archers have chosen what they feel is best for their well being and who they chose to help them is their right! If an archer feels that Coach Lee is not the best for them to train individually, then they should have that right. Some of these elite archers have been on top for years and now you are asking, no, telling them to make radical changes in their form and thought pattern to train and maybe get to the top again? This individual method has worked for years and with the help of the RA program run properly, both methods will make the US stronger than ever before. 

Using the excuse as to why the US did not medal in Athens is misguided. US Archery had team trials that worked well in 1996 and in 2000. We brought home our share of medals (2 golds in 1996, 1 silver and 1 bronze in 2000). This was using a long process of several tournaments and narrowing down the field during a period of perhaps 4 to 6 months. Both teams were chosen well in advance in order to train as a team and shoot international events together before they went to the Olympics. For the 2004 team trials the USOC “encouraged” US Archery to have a trials system that was just short of two months before the Games and only one tournament was used to select this team. This method of choosing the team was the most ludicrous and hair brained idea that this association has ever had to deal with. Why did US Archery agree to it? Because the USOC “encouraged” the system by dangling the amount of money US Archery would get if they had the trials the way the USOC recommended versus how much money US Archery would get if they did not listen to the USOC. These trials proved to be a disaster as John Magara has repeatedly stated time and again on several archery sites. Using this method appears to now be the fault of US Archery. The USOC is making every effort to force US Archery to make many changes if they want funding. Part of this is the fault of US Archery and part of it is USOC sticking their nose in places they do not belong. 

You have voiced your opinion in supporting Coach Lee. There is nothing wrong with that support and many people support him as well, as they should. However, this is not a dictatorship. Coach Lee should understand that setting up his program is fine as long as others have the right to practice and train their way. The trials should be fair and open to all and not manipulated to make sure Coach Lee’s program is a success by default. He should be successful by his coaching methodology and not by political maneuvering by the few powerful elite such as yourself, the High Performance Program Director, the USOC and maybe a few others that have remained anonymous due to the whiplash that would occur if the name or names were mentioned. 

Sincerely,

A very concerned lover of archery


----------



## SPECTRE (Aug 20, 2003)

All I can say is............... wow. 


And I thought COMPOUND archery had issues..............




I have to agree with JimC on much of this (if you're willing to accept the point of view from an "outsider").


Mastering a recurve MUST be a lot more difficult than mastering a compound.......... Therefore, to be totally successful in this form of archery you need several things............

1. Proper introduction to the sport. Not many JOAD clubs out there vs. availability to shoot a compound.

2. The time needed to practice to be great at it. That leaves financial assistance or personal / family wealth. Most people have neither.

3. Emphasis on representing our country vs. increased personal wealth thru winning with a comound (where money is awarded........... not medals.). Personally, I'd rather have a gold medal than a check. Money spends and is gone. Not to mention the opportunity to represent your country in world competition.

4. The field needs to be level. IMO we need to field a bunch of competitors that gives us the best chance to win. Also IMO this needs to be the highest cumulative scores shot in qualifying events or tournaments......... no playing of favorites for what MIGHT happen if enough time is devoted.

I don't have all the answers, but I have to believe that it begins with our youth. I know our competition hand picks youngsters and makes them do this stuff all day every day. Perhaps that's why the US can't win all the time............. I dunno.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Inno300,

I don't mean to be rude, but...

Calling Don's comments into question, and even insinuating that he is lying? I simply do not agree with that approach.

This really rubbed me wrong too:



> This method of choosing the team was the most ludicrous and hair brained idea that this association has ever had to deal with. Why did US Archery agree to it? Because the USOC “encouraged” the system by dangling the amount of money US Archery would get if they had the trials the way the USOC recommended versus how much money US Archery would get if they did not listen to the USOC. These trials proved to be a disaster as John Magara has repeatedly stated time and again on several archery sites.


Have you (or anyone else for that matter) looked at the rolling rankings from the end of '04? I ranked 4th in the U.S., and would most likely have had just as good a chance at making the team if the trials were a "long process" as before. The only advantage of the previous trials over '04 was that the archers had more time to prepare for the Olympics. I don't find any fault with the selection method however. 

And please show me where I stated the "trials proved to be a disaster..."

I would strongly suggest you speak for yourself in the future. 

I have been intrigued and astonished over the past three years by how just one arrow 2 rings away from the gold has given license to all the armchair quarterbacks in U.S. archery to dream up 1) reasons why no medals came home from Athens, and 2) what's wrong with Olympic archery in the U.S. Makes me really shake my head. Well, that and the fact that all of us shot like crap in the bronze medal match is always conveniently overlooked. 

Look, the trials were not the problem in '04. The "problem" - if you want to characterize it as such - began well before then, and even before 2000 IMO when we began relying on a tiny handful of talented, dedicated male archers to remain internationally competitive and earn Olympic medals. Meanwhile, our world ranking was falling every year, and our women's individual and team rankings were slipping even further. 

The cause of this is so much deeper than a simple selection event or even an OTC resident program. It lies in the culture of Olympic archery in the U.S., and there is no silver bullet for that one... Otherwise, someone would have already found it.

Recurve archery in the U.S. simply is not that popular. Therefore, most of our talented archers are shooting compounds. Solve that problem, (if you want to call it a problem), and BAM. We're back at the top of the world rankings, just like before. Until then, we can only hope to do the best with whoever we have shooting recurves...

John.


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Inno300,
> 
> I don't mean to be rude, but...
> 
> ...


John, in the 1990's Don, through his studies, probably was the best person in the USA to explain his beliefs in detail on the superiority of the Korean method and it's upside compared to our program. At that time his discussion based upon his studies on the Koreans was quite interesting and convincing. He was then quite an advocate for using their methods. Such as 'someone has already found it.' This discussion with Don took place just before winning the 1996 Olympics. At that time and now I just did not know how to justify trying to fit the strict Nationalized system that the Koreans used and try to combine our talented independent individuals too.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yes, it is a complicated issue. And I think once again, the task at hand...

I refuse to believe that we cannot find a reasonable solution that restores respectability to our world status while respecting the rights of individual archers.

Surely a thorough review of other successful olympic training programs would reveal some appropriate course of action? 

John.


----------



## PSE X-Factor (Apr 20, 2005)

Jim C said:


> Here is my problem "ChulaVistaGold"
> 
> Your search - Joanna Mittingly archery - did not match any documents.
> 
> ...



JimC,

Do you suppose the reason for being anonymous might be the fear of retribution? There are several prominant archers who have been told that they MUST adhere to the teaching of the new coach, or lose their funding (upwards of $30K / year). If these archers posted under their real name, there would be obvious retribution.

This concerns not only me, but a vast number of archers, as well as their families.:angry: I'm not sure that we should force anyone to adhere to one particular coach, especially if their current coaching staff is lending to their success on the field of competition. That would be an incredible risk, and could set our current OA program back several years, because once you figure out that it's not working, it may be too late.

Just my opinion though.:smile:


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

PSE X-Factor said:


> JimC,
> 
> Do you suppose the reason for being anonymous might be the fear of retribution? There are several prominant archers who have been told that they MUST adhere to the teaching of the new coach, or lose their funding (upwards of $30K / year). If these archers posted under their real name, there would be obvious retribution.
> 
> ...



SORRY I am calling BS on that. If the NAA were to retaliate against a real archer for expressing their opinion any lawer 3 years out of law school could take the NAA apart without much trouble. 

I note the top recurve archers on AT-John Magera, Doug Pritchett, Pete Carney, Joe McGlynn call em like they see em and they don't feel a need to hide. Since you hide behind a facade I don't have any belief anything you say is truthful.


----------



## inno300dude (Feb 21, 2007)

*Mr. Limbwalker*

Hello Mr. Limbwalker. First of all, you are not rude in the least. You are one of the rarest of gentlemen I have had the pleasure to read on this board. Although you may be a bit misguided your intentions appear to be pure and you have always shown courtesy that is of the highest regard for your fellow archer. Secondly, I must apologize for my long winded notes. I try to condense them as best I can, but there is so much to explain and I am doing my best to convince people to open their eyes and to keep an open mind. 

My comments were not meant to allude that Mr. Rabska is a liar. However, he does manipulate the comments to make the parents sort of the “liars” and that is unfair. His stature is extremely high in the archery circles and yet I sincerely believe he has stepped over the line on this issue. Easton is heavily financing many of these controversial issues and right there Mr. Rabska should not even participate in the discussions or at least state in the beginning what Easton has at stake here. He is very biased. He almost comes off as Judge and Jury since he stated that he has read most of the letters, E-mails, etc. and then comes up with a conclusion that this information he has acquired are just not true or misleading? Don’t you question the motive? I sincerely do and felt compelled to defend those who cannot defend themselves since Easton is such a powerful entity. When they make certain comments many people will believe them, whether or not the statements are true. History has proven this time and again. Easton is an extremely powerful corporation and therefore must be very careful how they portray themselves. Do you really want the “fox guarding the chicken house”? This is what is happening and it is very sad. Think about what is happening here. Why is it that when someone questions the program, there is a barrage of attacks against that poor individual? Why is it that several people attack those who are anonymous and yet if you look at the personal profiles hardly anyone puts their real name or complete name on it (sort of anonymous to me)? The point is that if anyone questions the High Performance Program, the RA program, the international selection system that person gets attacked as being a “rumor monger, troll, selfish, etc” It just goes to prove that those who scream to protect their programs so vociferously do have something to hide or it would appear to be the case here. 

As far as you being rubbed the wrong way concerning my statements about the 2004 Olympic Trials. I am sorry to disagree, but I must. Years ago, the archery association had one event trials and we were very successful. We also tried to pick the archers when they were “hot” so to speak. This allowed us to win most world and Olympic titles until the rest of the world “caught up”. Fifteen years ago, US Archery started planning on making changes in order to make sure we chose the most consistent and most likely capable archers to win medals for us. As I have stated in the past post, we did achieve those objectives winning two Gold’s in 1996 and a Silver and Bronze in 2000. Why is this so bad? We can’t always win everything! The trials procedure used in 2004 was WRONG! This is not meant to reflect negatively on you. You were given the trials process and you made it according to the rules given to all. Therefore you did nothing wrong nor did any of the other archers do anything wrong. HOWEVER, you should not have been able to make the team due to your lack of experience! This proved that the trial process was wrong! You have stated time and again that you had no international experience and should not have made the team or maybe I misinterpreted your comments over the past couple of years. However, if you were given an extra two months shooting a couple of more international events I sincerely believe you and the other team members would have come home with a medal. Having said that, if the trials process would have been longer, you may not have made the team and this would have been a moot point. Limbwalker, you are an extremely good archer who made the team on purely raw talent. Even Darrell Pace did not make the Olympic team on his first attempt (he came very close!). Please take that as a compliment for it was meant as one. Unfortunately you have chosen to not compete on that high of a level since and so we will not know your true potential. As coach Lee has said over and over, in order to prove your capabilities, “do it again”! 

You feel that the trials were not the problem, but it was due to fewer archers in the US capable of shooting better scores or that the US is getting further behind from the rest of the world. Well, this rings true. But why is that? Did you know that US Archery was the premiere R&D program of all US Olympic Sports in the early 1980’s? Did you know that we boasted a new generation of Junior archers who could shoot 1300’s with ease during this time? Did you know that the research and development on the US team was not fully utilized by US Archery but was “FULLY UTILIZED BY KOREA”?!!!! Where do you think they got the information in order to improve their program? The USAT program was way ahead of the rest of the world and with good reason. The USAT program was funded by USOC Grants, archery manufacturers (to the tune of over $100,000 per year) Where do you think Jay Barrs (Gold -1988), Justin Huish (2 Gold – 1996), Denise Parker (Bronze – 1988) and Rod White (Gold – 1996) acquired their knowledge and direction? The amount of information acquired during this period has been lost in the US Archery office. That is a very sad thing. However, the Koreans and even most of the rest of the world was able to use the information and improve their programs. Can this be substantiated? Of course. Even the US Archer or US International Archer wrote several articles on the findings back in the 1980’s. 

The “Korean” method is similar to the “old” US method with a slight cultural change. Look at when the Korean program took off. You will see that they just started to do some good things in the mid 1980’s. I hardly doubt that this was coincidence. If you get a chance read Lee Kisik’s book “Total Archery” and then read Rick McKinney’s book, “The Simple Art of Winning”. You just might notice how similar they really are and Rick’s book was written over 10 years ago! 

Research this and you will find that we were way ahead of our time. Unfortunately we lost the momentum when the US Archery organization decided to take a different direction. You will see an amazing connection if you keep your eyes and mind open. 

These comments are not meant to cause anger. I fully understand our need to continue to improve the programs and help our archers. However, choosing just the RA program and doing whatever it takes to make them succeed by making better archers quit is not a good way to go about it. Help them both in a fair and equitable way. We will all benefit by encouraging them all.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

I take issue with anyone calling Don Rabska "biased". I have a hard time thinking of anyone I have ever met in this sport or life in general who is as honest with me as Don. Yes, Don is a strong supporter of the BEST system but I don't consider that Bias. Bias to me suggests a preconceived, emotional, or fact-avoidance position. When, after years of objective analysis, one reaches a conclusion, I don't call that bias


----------



## JoeM (Mar 31, 2003)

WOW, this thread has had a lot attention.

Change is tough some times; having to adjust your personal life to meet the demands of your sport can be difficult and sometimes impossible. 

When the WTC requirements were published I was shocked. If I earned a spot on the team, work commitments would prevent my attendance at the required training events. Of course I thought this was unfair, a few choice words were thrown at my BOG reps and with everyone else’s comments the BOG altered the program slightly. Even with the changes I have decided not to try out.

In retrospect I think certain requirements are needed but these might have been too sudden for all us to digest. 

Home field?
I personally do not care were any of the trials will be held. If you believe in home field advantage your already in the wrong state of mind. All I want is the opportunity to compete toe to toe. 

Let’s support the RA’s

As a former RA, I commend their commitment to become the best archers they can be. This is a hard road they have chosen, the current program is the toughest it’s been. I hope they do not read the error net.

The “BEST” method or what ever is being taught currently is not for everyone. The coaching style at the training center may not be for everyone. Hence the turnover we see in the program from time to time. But I think everyone should be supportive of the efforts these athletes. 

The RA’s are under a microscope of scrutiny everyday from their coach and the general membership. They are expected to be the next great crop of archers dominating tournaments raising the international rankings of the US. Can you imagine the pressure you might feel at a tournament? 

Remember, all of these archers have put their most of their lives on hold. The ones who have graduated college will behind their peers in many ways when they enter the work force. They will be starting a career when others will have 4+ years in experience, retirement savings and years into building a family. Some might be delaying their schooling just for a shot at making the Olympic team. 

Archery is my hobby not my job. I picked up a bow at eleven years because a friend said it was fun. It still is and I have met my wife and my closest friends on the archery range. Once my hobby becomes a job, I’ll quit.

Hobby: an activity or interest pursued for pleasure or relaxation and not as a main occupation:

Inno300dude: Nice post, you have some insight on the 1980’s and 1990’s archery scene. People will always fight special interest with a special interest of their own. It will never end especially when they dangle a carrot$$$$ in front of starving rabbit


----------



## inno300dude (Feb 21, 2007)

Jim,
I can fully appreciate your loyalty to a very dear friend, but I doubt that you have had to deal with Mr. Rabska in any form of business or political arena (archery) where you might be antagonistic towards him. Your naivete is understandable. Mr. Rabska is human. As you state about “… preconceived, emotional, or fact-avoidance…” is exactly what I am saying about his comments. There are several top archers who adore the man and there are several top archers who abhor him. I do not mean for this to get into a character profile nor am I trying to do anything other than explain a side that appears to be ignored. There is no question that in these circumstances there is a conflict of interest and he is biased.


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

inno300dude said:


> Jim,
> I can fully appreciate your loyalty to a very dear friend, but I doubt that you have had to deal with Mr. Rabska in any form of business or political arena (archery) where you might be antagonistic towards him. Your naivete is understandable. Mr. Rabska is human. As you state about “… preconceived, emotional, or fact-avoidance…” is exactly what I am saying about his comments. There are several top archers who adore the man and there are several top archers who abhor him. I do not mean for this to get into a character profile nor am I trying to do anything other than explain a side that appears to be ignored. There is no question that in these circumstances there is a conflict of interest and he is biased.


I also know Don and I would have to say that the word to use is not biased. I would have to say the right word would be convinced. He has spent years researching his beliefs. From what I know he has tried to look at both sides of each issue. He has built a steady foundation to support them and can defend them. Now his beliefs are not everyone's beliefs because he has followed his own path getting his information. Because he worked for Easton the conspiracy theories will always fly. It angers me when Easton is set as the bad guy. Jim Easton has always been a champion for our sport and from my contact with him he has earned my respect. It is not like our sport has had so much money that we could pay for a large committee to spend years compiling what Don has done Internationally with his long time in FITA and Easton. People see different things in each thing they observe. That is why respected committees are needed to sort and compile the information into a broader spectrum. Until that happens it is still one mans opinion and that will lead to controversy. For the record, I do not agree with everything Don advocates but I respect him and like him as a person.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

inno300dude said:


> Jim,
> I can fully appreciate your loyalty to a very dear friend, but I doubt that you have had to deal with Mr. Rabska in any form of business or political arena (archery) where you might be antagonistic towards him. Your naivete is understandable. Mr. Rabska is human. As you state about “… preconceived, emotional, or fact-avoidance…” is exactly what I am saying about his comments. There are several top archers who adore the man and there are several top archers who abhor him. I do not mean for this to get into a character profile nor am I trying to do anything other than explain a side that appears to be ignored. There is no question that in these circumstances there is a conflict of interest and he is biased.




Since I have no idea who you are I have no use for your comments. If you don't have the guts to stop hiding behind a facade, I consider you a coward. If you wish me to respect you feel free to PM me and if you desire I will not reveal your real name. Until then, I am afraid I cannot accept anything you say


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2007)

*Another*

Ah........another anonymous posting....hmmmmmmmmm seems the flood gate has been accessed....wonder how it got open...

Interesting how the wall paper seems to come alive.

I wonder how many of the negitive posters have actually done any work for the archery world....put the NAA aside. I mean actually done something to help things with archery in general?? Many seem that their main bent in life is to tear thing down, find the negitives, and generally just complain or point fingers. 

I was able to do a phone soliciting of folks here in TN to get some membership applications for the State NAA Indoor Shoot. They had to join the NAA first in order to shoot.....I'm starting to feel like a jerk for doing it. I've notified the state rep to cancel any furture activity concerning me regarding the NAA. I feel embarrassed.

Art


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2007)

*Jim c*

Jim C. Thanks for standing up. You at least are a man. Unlike the slinking worms who have snuck in under the eyes of the admin folks.

Someone on the other side of current events needs to point out that this has been left to the vagrents long enough. 

I personally thank you for standing up for what is right.

Art


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2007)

*A thought*

I personally think this thread has been allowed to go on to long. It is at the point now that it is just hurting people, archery, and our national organization.

Perhaps it's time to drop it.



Art


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

art v said:


> Ah........another anonymous posting....hmmmmmmmmm seems the flood gate has been accessed....wonder how it got open...
> 
> Art


Art, Besides your name you use on this forum you are one of them We brought it up earlier about anonymous posters and your reasons have given you a pass so far. I would suggest limiting statements about anonymous posters until you feel comfortable putting your full name in:zip:


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2007)

*No Problem*

It's not a problem....Most of the folks I am interested in that come in this forum know me very well including the work I do.

It's Art Vincent.....you can google me.

Archerone....It's not about someone posting anonymously. It's about them being allowed to post anonymously. Here's a comparison. I think I am going to tarnish your good name, of course, I'll do it anonymously.....How's that feel? Then others see an opportunity so they jump in to get a little piece of your butt....anonymously...How's that feel? Then the nut cases start in on you.....get the idea. The point is there aren't many that get it. Or is there? Only a few have tried to get it to stop or made note of it.....however 

The bottom line is....none of this will change anything....It will only make enemies, create hard feelings and generally breed discontent...perhaps that has been the point and motive.....

Art


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

art v said:


> It's not a problem....Most of the folks I am interested in that come in this forum know me very well including the work I do.
> 
> It's Art Vincent.....you can google me.
> 
> Now, who's next, you?


Nice to meet you!


----------



## inno300dude (Feb 21, 2007)

Hi Jim,
I am sorry you feel that way about anonymous posts. As I have mentioned before, most people in AT have stayed anonymous for many reasons. In their profiles there might be a first name, a fictitious name or nothing at all. I guess it is all right to be anonymous as long as you do not conflict with someone. 

Now, having said all of that, I have done a little research on you and find you to be a man with great integrity. You have helped archers of all types whether they be beginners, intermediate or even the elites. Compound and recurve is not an issue with you. You will help both. You have bought equipment for some people who cannot afford it or just wanted to help them any way you can. You rank among some of the finest people who I have read about. If a person can read between the lines on this particular thread, you can see that it is a struggle with you since you have stated that you have good friends on both sides of the argument. Archery needs more people like you. 

Now, I know I will not convince you nor will you convince me about certain issues but we agree more than we disagree on many issues. All the best.

JoeM,
I am humbled by your responses. A man who is willing to tell people that they truly enjoy the sport but realizes that they will only keep it as an enjoyment tool is quite remarkable especially with your talent. You, sir, deserve a medal of honor! You support the RA program although it will not help you in the end. That is good. However, I hope you understand that I nor many of the people who are complaining are not against the RA program unless efforts are made to give the RA’s an advantage over others. The only way you should be forced off a team is by getting out performed. If the HPD wants to change the rules for the better, then it should have been done properly with board approval. I know it takes a bit longer to do this, but normally using the correct channels helps all to prepare for the change. Also, when it is brought out in the open, many people can discuss it and we can find the strengths and weakness of the system and modify it to work the best way possible. For instance, it was not easy for many elite archers to have to pay their way to Indoor and Field World Championship events in the beginning, but they saw it coming and have accepted it. It wasn’t easy for them I am sure, but they also understood why it had to be done, because it was explained to them ahead of time.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

I must say that some people are a bit hard on alts on this particular topic. There are consequences to what you say and sometimes they far outweigh the statement. I have some guy that is still bent out of shape about some disagreement on AT over two years ago. I didn't even remember it happened and yet he demands that "You know exactly what this is about". Makes you not want to post at all. 

Sometimes the consequences are sutle and not illegal. The punishment could be that people stop laughing and talking when you come around. Maybe you don't get invited to dinner. Maybe when they are decided who they have time to help they feel that something else is more important. It is human nature. I had a student that said something that pushed my button and I found it Extremely difficult to not have it affect my work. Is that illegal? No. But the student was affected. (and we did get it worked out about 15 minutes later). 

The written word can be dangerous. When I speak I get across most of my meaning through Tone,. Verbally I feel I can communicate well. But if I try and write it out, it is not as clear. (As you can tell) This is an important topic and for many of us, this directly affects us. Some people have alot of power to help and if anyone angers them, those same people can not help. I could say something, that another could read and intrepret differently and respond. I have seen it happen frequently, next thing you know, you are accused of saying things you never intended. 

This is always a possiblity but when your statements could affect getting into the OTC, even if the fear is unwarranted, it makes sense that people might want to share their opinion and still stay anonymous. 

As for being allowed to post anonymously, no one is required to share information unless they choice to. As always, I believe that alts are held to the same standards as all posters. But what I have read (atleast the most recent posts) seem to be respectful and fall under the acceptable rules of posting. But just because you don't know their name doesn't mean their opinion doesn't count. To assume that they do nothing for the archery community seems unwarrented. We don't really know what anyone does for the community unless we see it ourself. Sure these people could be loafers or they could be top athletes, we don't know. But I don't personally know half of the posters here but they still get their opinion. 

I am sure that people will be mad at me for this, but in the end I am just sharing some thoughts. Just throwing it out there cause it is hot, I am tired and my brain got to thinking. Maybe I will feel different tomorrow, maybe another point of view will open my eyes but I just ask you atleast consider what I say respectfully and I will do the same for you.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

Oh, and please do not assume that I agree or disagree with anyone. I need to read and think before I decide that.


----------



## azarcher300 (May 1, 2006)

This is the first time I have made a post on this or any other site. However, after reading all the information and misinformation on this topic, I thought it would be appropriate to say a few words. One poster had it correct when he said that the Koreans starting getting it together in the mid 1980's. That is because they sent their junior teams over here to work with two of our coaches every year for about five years. Some of those junior team members are now very respected Korean coaches. The information that was given to the Koreans was offered to the NAA and they declined. I have spent the last 56 years of my life involved in archery and we seem to have the same discussions about relatively the same subjects every year. It is possible that coach Lee will have success with his program here in the U.S. If he does not, I am sure the powers to be will find someone else, or not. Since I am no totally familiar with all of his Best ideas I cannot comment on what will and will not work. 

There is one thing that I do know. Anyone with enough talent that receives the right coaching and motivation, will find success at archery and life. I have coached archery since the early 60's and my success with the athletes that have won state, national, and international competitions has as much to do with the drive of the archer as it does with the method of coaching. I have had many many people diagree with my methods of coaching, yet none of them has been able to get the results that I have. I am sure that in some ways Coach Lee feels the same.


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

G33k said:


> Oh, and please do not assume that I agree or disagree with anyone. I need to read and think before I decide that.


I think that the point is that it is all right to disagree or agree with other persons without repercussions. In the 90's I was afraid of saying something wrong to certain persons in power in fear of losing support for my daughter. After she was out of my influence I was not so concerned of repercussions. I am now today not afraid, but understand more the strain of pressure on others coming up in the sport. To not acknowledge the powers in archery and what they can do to help or not is to be an ostrich with it's head buried in the sand.


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

azarcher300 said:


> This is the first time I have made a post on this or any other site. However, after reading all the information and misinformation on this topic, I thought it would be appropriate to say a few words. One poster had it correct when he said that the Koreans starting getting it together in the mid 1980's. That is because they sent their junior teams over here to work with two of our coaches every year for about five years. Some of those junior team members are now very respected Korean coaches. The information that was given to the Koreans was offered to the NAA and they declined. I have spent the last 56 years of my life involved in archery and we seem to have the same discussions about relatively the same subjects every year. It is possible that coach Lee will have success with his program here in the U.S. If he does not, I am sure the powers to be will find someone else, or not. Since I am no totally familiar with all of his Best ideas I cannot comment on what will and will not work.
> 
> There is one thing that I do know. Anyone with enough talent that receives the right coaching and motivation, will find success at archery and life. I have coached archery since the early 60's and my success with the athletes that have won state, national, and international competitions has as much to do with the drive of the archer as it does with the method of coaching. I have had many many people diagree with my methods of coaching, yet none of them has been able to get the results that I have. I am sure that in some ways Coach Lee feels the same.


Very good post! Thanks for your to the point input!


----------



## azarcher300 (May 1, 2006)

You are welcome!


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

*The Old Book*

The last post reminds me of the old school of archery. Coaches like Dick Tone and others that never blew their own horn. They were always there helping and not looking for position. It found them through dedication to the sport and helping the youth/others.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

When you are busy working in the trenches you don't have alot of time for politics.


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

G33k said:


> When you are busy working in the trenches you don't have alot of time for politics.


You are right! I just have too much time on my hands.:user:


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

Archerone said:


> You are right! I just have too much time on my hands.:user:


Bet we could find you some kids to coach *hint hint* :wink:


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

art v said:


> Ah........another anonymous posting....hmmmmmmmmm seems the flood gate has been accessed....wonder how it got open...
> 
> Interesting how the wall paper seems to come alive.
> 
> ...


The irony is really interesting.

Posts like this are going to validate the fears of retribution harboured by the anonymous posters.

Opinions are the written or verbal expression of a person's deeply held convictions and beliefs. As such, they may be different than ours, but they are no less valid. They shouldn't be silenced just because they are concerned about retribution.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Recordkeeper said:


> The irony is really interesting.
> 
> Posts like this are going to validate the fears of retribution harboured by the anonymous posters.
> 
> Opinions are the written or verbal expression of a person's deeply held convictions and beliefs. As such, they may be different than ours, but they are no less valid. They shouldn't be silenced just because they are concerned about retribution.


Chris I really have problems with that-what sort of retribution. Now if GT were to come here and say WW rules or HOYT sucks I could see it:wink: Furthermore, most of the stuff here is OPINION not actual fact. You know why experts are allowed to give juries OPINIONS while lay witnesses are confined to the facts? when someone is posting an opnion-especially one that takes issue with an expert on coaching like Don Rabska it is only fair that we know the person's credentials 

after all, if I am defending a malpractice case (and this entire discussion of the NAA really suggests claims of "malpractice" ) and my expert with his medical degree says X the other side better come up with someone who not only contradicts him but has the credentials to do so.

facts are fact are facts, but opinions are based upon the reputation and credentials of the person who makes them


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

G33k said:


> Bet we could find you some kids to coach *hint hint* :wink:


I kept archery equipment for years that I collected to do just that. The system did not recognize my work. I did not charge and the local archery powers did not promote beyond theirselves. I worked with N.A.Y.S. when they had a contract and N.A.D.A. I did keep in touch with one good national coach who was not even a coach when I was. He is now a well respected level IV coach. I am not recognized by the NAA. I started a year ago selling all my youth FITA equipment. I just donated 15 bows to my old archery club.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

If you ever need a home for stuff, feel free to talk to me. (I got a college team and we are looking as starting an outreach/JOAD program) If you ever want to pass on some knowledge, feel free to talk to me


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

i have always believed that everyone is entitled to an opinion.....when that opinion, however, is going to going to start affecting another person's reputation or credibility i also believe the opiniongiver must also have the same or better credibility as the person he is giving an opinion on...or his opinion is going to be worth ****!......JMHO( just my humble OPINION)..


----------

