# USA issued new risers just days before Olympics



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Yeesh...
"Hey, Indy 500 is tomorrow - let's put on some new tires and suspension on our car that has never been tested on our car - the marketing guys say it'll sell a few extra sets of tires next week. What could possibly go wrong at 230mph?"


----------



## madkasel (Nov 12, 2009)

I find this almost impossible to believe. I hope you are wrong because what madness that would be.


----------



## Boomer2094 (Aug 12, 2016)

Do USAA provide the painted risers, or does the archer send in their riser to get painted?

Either way, they know when the Olympic was going to be. There are no excuses.

Okay, maybe COVID-19 could be used as an excuse, but is it that hard to provide painted risers for our 6 Olympians, when you had a 1 year delay?


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

The riser fiasco was quite the talk at Buckeye. The powers that be (starting with Rod Menzer and downward) are quite sensitive about it (which tells me they know it was a big screw up).

What coach or sober mentor in the world (literally) with any competitive experience at all would allow (much less encourage) athletes to do such a thing?


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Larry - 

I don't know who's bone head mistake that would have been, but I gotta tell ya, I've make the same one (actually a few times) myself. Didn't end well. It's the new and improved thing, right?

Viper1 out.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Viper1 said:


> Larry -
> 
> I don't know who's bone head mistake that would have been, but I gotta tell ya, I've make the same one (actually a few times) myself. Didn't end well. It's the new and improved thing, right?
> 
> Viper1 out.


 
No doubt. 

Nothing hurts my confidence more than the notion that I'll get the points I deserve <shudder>. So seductive to give in to the tactic that "let me stick some new stuff on my bow, so I'll have something to blame later! "


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

I can't believe any archer would change so close to the Olympics and have to retune. 


Chris


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

lksseven said:


> Has anyone else been privy to discussions about USA Olympic archers being encouraged to switch to new untested red/white/blue risers just days before Olympic competition? Some did it, some didn't.
> 
> If true (and I believe it is) , what a bone-headed rookie-esque mistake. Is having "adults in charge" too much to ask?


Brady wasn't using one against Gazoz, but I do see Casey using one in her loss to Japan's Ren. Can't find a replay of Mackenzie...


----------



## ahw (Dec 4, 2019)

The "its the indian not the arrow" subscriber in me thinks this is a big nothing-burger.
However, that being said, if I was personally in this situation I would definitely tell the sponsor to go kick rocks.

Whether the claim that they were encouraged to change is true or not, we can compare what they shot at the Paris CQT against what they used at the Olympics to see if there was a change.

Just looking at Wukie, it looks like he shot a silver riser in Paris, and a RWB one at Tokyo. Maybe where there's smoke, there's fire?


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

MacKenzie shot silver riser, Jennifer white riser, Casey RWB riser
Jack RWB riser, Brady Copper riser, Jacob RWB riser.

So it looks like Jack, Jacob and Casey shot a red white and blue riser.


Chris


----------



## olympics84 (Nov 5, 2004)

IMHO there were 2 issues that set this team up for failure. The first was the trials schedule change from April to Memorial weekend because of the USOPC "covid" testing requirements. The team immediately went to Paris and didn't have time to decompress and actually train. That extra 6 weeks could have made a large difference. The 2nd issues is that half the team changed equipment days before the games. It was their individual choice but never should have happened. I believe there used to be a clause in the contracts that athletes sign after making a team that they would not switch equipment. This needs to be revisited if it is not the current standard.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

olympics84 said:


> IMHO there were 2 issues that set this team up for failure. The first was the trials schedule change from April to Memorial weekend because of the USOPC "covid" testing requirements. The team immediately went to Paris and didn't have time to decompress and actually train. That extra 6 weeks could have made a large difference. The 2nd issues is that half the team changed equipment days before the games. It was their individual choice but never should have happened. I believe there used to be a clause in the contracts that athletes sign after making a team that they would not switch equipment. This needs to be revisited if it is not the current standard.


We hadn't even pulled the last arrow in my final match vs. Butch in the '04 Trials and he turned to me and said "congratulations on making the team, now don't change ANYTHING." I always listened (and watched) carefully to anything Butch said and that memory sticks with me to this day. He must have seen equipment switches wreck plenty of archers before. Sure enough, I wasn't home for a week when Hoyt asked me if I wanted a newer riser and set of limbs. I politely told them what Butch said (their own shooter) and declined their offer.

I agree Glenn it needs to be revisited. As does the whole "put a .... in their hands" the minute an archer gets to the OTC. If what they are using works and they like it, let them use it. I will never forget one of my personal students calling me from the OTC, very upset because they were getting a lot of pressure to switch bows from both the coaches and some of the other RA's. I had the chance to straighten that out in person not long after during a visit, when I told at least one of the RA's who was pressuring my student that had Miranda Leek taken that advice, she might never have set the women's US record or qualified first at the 2012 trials, and that they all had some work to do to catch up to the level of shooting Miranda and Jenny had established using their "inferior" PSE gear. That put an end to that.

To your first point, that six weeks could have been available to them had they secured a full team at the WC's. This is a big advantage for teams like Korea, IMO - that they qualify full teams so early that all the archers get to train together for weeks prior to the games.


----------



## cerelestecerele (Aug 5, 2019)

Are they nominally the exact same riser models as what they used before, just in a different paint job, or more different than that? 

Looking at Casey's bow from Paris to Tokyo, she also changed:

plain string to striped one with a different serving
solid to fluo red pin nocks?
removed some weight from the side rods
new sight and button (same models, but a different colour and sight mount location)
nose button lower and more central on her nose

Jennifer Mucino-Fernandez changed:

sight from Shibuya to Axcel
stabilisers from HMC to Shrewd, different dampers and weights
riser colour, maybe model?
different colour button but still Beiter
 Except for the riser which was a different colour in 2019, everything she used in Paris was the same as in 2019 so I'd expect all the changes in the last month to still feel "new". No idea why she would've switched out most of the bow that got her a ticket to Tokyo with less than a month to spare.

Mackenzie Brown: no changes


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

cerelestecerele said:


> Are they nominally the exact same riser models as what they used before, just in a different paint job, or more different than that?
> 
> Looking at Casey's bow from Paris to Tokyo, she also changed:
> 
> ...


I find all this to be more than just a little unsettling. 

I'll go back to my earlier comments about female archers typically not knowing as much/enough about their equipment as the men. So to see them making those kinds of changes right before the games is just disappointing. I think everyone can imagine why a pair of 17 year old girls would want to make all those changes, but to Glenn's point, they should not have been allowed or approved.


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

Who was looking out for the best interest of the team members? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Okay, I was thinking about this more when I woke up this morning (for some strange reason) and it occurred to me that these ladies had no problem qualifying in a good position with a score nearly as high as any American women's Olympic team in history. So unless it was some "unfamiliar with my equipment in the heat of the moment" condition during matchplay, maybe it's not as much an issue as we first thought.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

We spend a lot of time here arguing about non-issues. 😄. Hey, it's what we do.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> We spend a lot of time here arguing about non-issues. 😄. Hey, it's what we do.


It is a discussion forum after all. LOL

All that said, I'd still like to see an archer keep the same gear through the last few months into the games unless they have a valid reason to change something. 

I'd also like to see a limit on sponsors giving athletes equipment once they have qualified for the Olympic team.


----------



## mscott327 (Nov 21, 2019)

Personally, I find this hard to believe. These archers have practiced and trained for years to get to the Olympics. I don't see any of them just changing bows a day or two before the biggest event of their lives.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> It is a discussion forum after all. LOL
> 
> All that said, I'd still like to see an archer keep the same gear through the last few months into the games unless they have a valid reason to change something.
> 
> I'd also like to see a limit on sponsors giving athletes equipment once they have qualified for the Olympic team.


As an Olympic archery rule, or as a USA Archery policy?

If the former, do you feel it should apply to ALL sports?

If the latter, what are your criteria for a “valid reason”. How about “I tried this new thing and it’s better”?

And the sponsors thing - that’s the best time for them to give equipment to athletes. Doesn’t do the sponsor or the athlete any good to get equipment AFTER the event, and how do the sponsors know who’s going to be on the team before it has been chosen?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

mscott327 said:


> Personally, I find this hard to believe. These archers have practiced and trained for years to get to the Olympics. I don't see any of them just changing bows a day or two before the biggest event of their lives.


Oh, it happens alright. Hoyt wanted me to completely switch bows between the trials and the Olympic games. I stuck with my trusty old Axis riser and SKY limbs, however not everyone stayed with the gear that got them there. One of the ladies, maybe two (I don't recall) switched to PSE X-Factors before the games - bows that shot a LOT different than what they had been shooting. 

I also believe the younger an archer is and whether they are male or female makes a difference. Our ladies are much more likely to listen to someone who is telling them they "need" this or that, or to switch to a fancier color, etc. than the men are. It just is what it is. 

I think it's the coach's job to tell their archer "NO" and remind them that the equipment they have been using is what got them to the dance in the first place.

Most archers don't realize how long it really takes to settle in with a new bow, even if it's the same model. And the better you shoot, the more important it is to stick with what you know you shoot well.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> As an Olympic archery rule, or as a USA Archery policy?
> 
> If the former, do you feel it should apply to ALL sports?
> 
> ...


I understand exactly why the sponsors do it and when. I just think our coaches should be giving our athletes the same advice that Butch felt compelled to give me - don't change a thing.

Yea, there are some situations where making a few small changes might not matter. For instance, Steve Gibbs switched out my old Sure-Loc sight that I used at the trials for a new "Athens" edition - but it functioned the same way so that was no big deal. Butch did the same with his Sure-locs. I had an offer to replace my tabs, since I was using cheap Cartel knock-offs of the Cavalier tab at the time, but I didn't. I shot the games with my cheap Cartel tab (and cheap K&K rest that just made Butch shake his head every time he saw it... LOL)

I think new limbs, risers, arrows, plungers, tabs and sights (if they don't function the same way as your old sight) should be off limits. If someone wants a new USA quiver, then go for it. But the coaches and sponsors should have an understanding ahead of time, and the athlete should know this.

I wouldn't institute any kind of official "ban" (although Glenn mentioned that at one time maybe they did?) but I think it should be clearly understood among the coaches and athletes and most importantly the sponsors, how things are going to go in those weeks between the team members being selected and the games.

The athletes will get plenty of opportunities to change or upgrade their gear in the years following their participation in the Olympic games, believe me. No need to take the chance ahead of time.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Well, I completely disagree.

Why eliminate the possibility that a new or different piece of equipment might just marginally improve a team member’s performance? What would some archers have given to have scored a single point more in a crucial competition?

I think if you’re mature enough to put the work in to earn an Olympic team place, you’re mature enough to know what piece of new equipment to test out, and when, and make an informed, logical decision on whether to use it or not. You don’t need some bureaucrat at the head office of your national association, who knows nothing about you or your shooting and training, telling you what you can or can’t do.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> *Well, I completely disagree.*
> 
> Why eliminate the possibility that a new or different piece of equipment might just marginally improve a team member’s performance? What would some archers have given to have scored a single point more in a crucial competition?
> 
> I think if you’re mature enough to put the work in to earn an Olympic team place, you’re mature enough to know what piece of new equipment to test out, and when, and make an informed, logical decision on whether to use it or not. You don’t need some bureaucrat at the head office of your national association, who knows nothing about you or your shooting and training, telling you what you can or can’t do.


Okay. That's your right.

I have a few questions though.

How much experience do you have coaching 17 year old girls? 

Also, do you feel a last minute equipment change has better odds to improve, or impair performance?

And if they were mature enough to know they needed better gear, why didn't they get it before the Olympic trials?


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

None at the Olympic level. But just because they’re girls, doesn’t mean they’re incapable of making a sound decision about something that’s the most important thing in their lives at the time. They’ve shown years of maturity and discipline to get where they’re at. I’d trust them to make good decisions, especially in situations like this where it’s none of my damned business to tell them what to do. Leave it to them and their coaches to decide.

If it’s properly tested and shows reasonable evidence of improving performance, the odds are better. If it’s properly tested and shows reasonable evidence of reducing performance, the odds are worse. The key is “properly tested”. And 6 weeks or more of training isn’t what I’d call “last minute”. It’s not like you’re slipping a new tab or riser into their luggage as they’re boarding the plane to Tokyo.

Maybe they didn't know about it, or more likely couldn’t afford to buy it just to be able to test it? I imagine Brady or Casey would have had access to anything on the market, but I don’t know the financial situation of the others on your team.


----------



## MIKEY CUSTOM-G (Oct 5, 2002)

Seattlepop said:


> Brady wasn't using one against Gazoz, but I do see Casey using one in her loss to Japan's Ren. Can't find a replay of Mackenzie...



Good for Ellison !!!


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Maybe he would have won that match if he had a nice, shiny RWB riser? 😄


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

mscott327 said:


> Personally, I find this hard to believe. These archers have practiced and trained for years to get to the Olympics. I don't see any of them just changing bows a day or two before the biggest event of their lives.


Except half of them did. 

It's just a dumb thing to do. Even if it caused zero negatives (which human experience would say ' it didn't change anything' is highly doubtful), like walking across a busy street with your eyes closed and not getting hit), it is still a dumb thing to do. Indy Car engineering teams and drivers spend a solid month trying to get Car B set up to handle/run exactly like Car A, and most years they fail at it. Ask them about the wisdom of changing out the chassis a couple days before the 500 (and almost no testing time).


Allowing significant ad hoc equipment changes on eve of the Olympics....
Seemingly No coaching to advise and/or follow that advice in reaction to consistently good groups but off the mark (CHANGE YOUR SIGHT SETTINGS - MOVE YOUR GROUP!)

Where's the coaching leadership there?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> None at the Olympic level. But just because they’re girls, doesn’t mean they’re incapable of making a sound decision about something that’s the most important thing in their lives at the time. They’ve shown years of maturity and discipline to get where they’re at. I’d trust them to make good decisions, especially in situations like this where it’s none of my damned business to tell them what to do. Leave it to them and their coaches to decide.
> 
> If it’s properly tested and shows reasonable evidence of improving performance, the odds are better. If it’s properly tested and shows reasonable evidence of reducing performance, the odds are worse. *The key is “properly tested”.* And 6 weeks or more of training isn’t what I’d call “last minute”. It’s not like you’re slipping a new tab or riser into their luggage as they’re boarding the plane to Tokyo.
> 
> Maybe they didn't know about it, or more likely couldn’t afford to buy it just to be able to test it? I imagine Brady or Casey would have had access to anything on the market, but I don’t know the financial situation of the others on your team.


The 17 year old girl or boy that is capable of making a professional coach-level decision about equipment might be a unicorn.

Glad you mention properly tested. I consider properly tested something that was used successfully IN COMPETITION. The kit they used in Paris was properly tested. Anything they used between Paris and Tokyo, was - in my opinion - not. We can agree to disagree on this.

I think it's not a matter of what they could afford as much as it was a matter of their sponsors wanting them to be seen with a certain product. Obviously what they were using to make the team and be successful in Paris wasn't holding them back.

Anyway, I spent almost 15 years working with teenage archers, the majority of which toward the end of those years were young women who were shooting at the national championship / Jr. USAT / Jr. WC level. My first Jr. WC archer was in 2007 and my last in 2016. Maybe I just never had a unicorn, but I can tell you that if I hadn't managed their equipment for them very carefully, all hell would have broken loose. LOL I can recall constantly fielding questions from well-meaning parents who wanted to change things all the time. That went for the boys too. The reasons some of them would come up with for why they wanted to change or "try" something... Oh my.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Just putting this out there for consideration...seems that “last minute” changes can sometimes work perfectly well.

*Last-minute equipment changes don’t faze McIlroy in strong Farmers start*
“That driver went in my bag at about 4 p.m. (Wednesday afternoon),” McIlroy said after shooting a 5-under-par 67 on the Torrey Pines North Course, one stroke off the first-round lead at the Farmers Insurance Open.

“I didn’t drive the ball particularly well in the pro-am, so I worked with the TaylorMade guys yesterday on the range and we figured a couple things out. It’s funny, you go through the testing process at the start of the year with new equipment. There’s things that seem really good on the range, but once you actually play some rounds with them competitively and try to hit certain shots, things sort of, I guess, appear.

“A couple things appeared that I didn’t like (Wednesday) in the pro-am.”

Of course, they’d disappeared by Thursday.

Thanks to some “golf geeky” adjustments with TaylorMade staff, McIlroy hit 11 of 14 fairways and averaged 309.5 yards off the tee, tied for 12th in the field. He also bagged seven birdies against two bogeys on the North.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> Just putting this out there for consideration...seems that “last minute changes can sometimes work perfectly well.
> 
> *Last-minute equipment changes don’t faze McIlroy in strong Farmers start*
> “That driver went in my bag at about 4 p.m. (Wednesday afternoon),” McIlroy said after shooting a 5-under-par 67 on the Torrey Pines North Course, one stroke off the first-round lead at the Farmers Insurance Open.
> ...


I would trust elite world class experienced athletes who have already won a major championship to be a fair judge of what can/should be changed and what should not. We don't have very many elite world class experienced archers. One should note that Mac changed nothing. I consider her elite world class, so my comment stands.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> but once you actually play some rounds with them competitively...


I agree Rory.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

I get the idea that you want to see a “no equipment changes” rule, but only apply it to 17 year old girls, not to men or older women. 

Going to say it again - they’ve put in a lot of work to earn a place on the team. Trust them and their personal coaches. 

You may not have come across any unicorns in your coaching career, but my way of thinking is, a 17 year kid who can make an Olympic team, especially the team of a major country, IS a unicorn.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> I get the idea that you want to see a “no equipment changes” rule, but only apply it to 17 year old girls, not to men or older women.
> 
> Going to say it again - they’ve put in a lot of work to earn a place on the team. Trust them and their personal coaches.
> 
> You may not have come across any unicorns in your coaching career, but my way of thinking is, a 17 year kid who can make an Olympic team, especially the team of a major country, IS a unicorn.


I think you're making some assumptions there. I'm just sharing my experience working with teens as I think it's relevant.

As I said, I trust some world class archers (like Butch or Brady or Mac or Jake) to make their own equipment decisions, even last minute. But that's a very small club. Everyone else needs - and even they - need to be listening to their coaches.

From where I sit, changing anything major and not testing it in competition before you take it to the Olympic games is a rookie mistake. The coaches should know better. However I've also seen coaches who were biased for/against certain equipment or who werer easily influenced by a sponsor...

To your point - I'd also expect a young man who can make the Olympic track team to know better than to slow down and almost not qualify for the finals too.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

I can see where you’re coming from, and I hope you can see my point as well.

I’m just not fond of any mandatory requirement to not change equipment, which is the impression I got that you were in favor of. There are always many, many circumstances where it can be beneficial, and putting any such authority in the hands of faceless bureaucrats is never a good idea.

Imagine the opposite situation. What if someone after Sydney had decided that equipment for future Olympic archery team members was to be decided by USA Archery? How would you have liked it if they had come up and told you you had to shoot a new Hoyt or change your tab? Yeah, yeah, not exactly the same thing. But I think you understand my point.

In individual sports such as ours, the archer and their personal coach have all the responsibility for their training and subsequent performance. We need to leave them alone to follow what they think is the best course of action. Give them whatever available support they need, but don’t mandate what they can or cannot do with their training.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> I can see where you’re coming from, and I hope you can see my point as well.
> 
> I’m just not fond of any mandatory requirement to not change equipment, which is the impression I got that you were in favor of. There are always many, many circumstances where it can be beneficial, and putting any such authority in the hands of faceless bureaucrats is never a good idea.
> 
> ...


It would be a difficult rule to write and I don't think it's actually necessary. That said, if there were a deadline or "blackout" period prior to the games, it would force archers, coaches and sponsors to work things out prior to that deadline. There might be some value in that.

I do think in the past there was more objectivity and latitude about what equipment the top tier athletes used. I've seen this coaching program and the NAA/USArchery take steps in the direction of a few sponsors that is unlike what we saw before 2006. As I said, I fielded more than one phone call from personal students who were pressured to change equipment upon their arrival at the OTC. Actually, all of them had to deal with that now that I think about it. 

Archers should feel free to shoot what they have the most confidence in without being pressured to change. They should also be encouraged to keep using something that is clearly working for them. Sponsors, administrators and even coaches need to respect the archer's wishes and place their performance first and above all else.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

the simple solution is to give the final 8 a riser if sponsors want them to shoot it ( and if the archer wants to shoot it. 

The cut to 8 was in May. Plenty of time to get it dialed in and even use at the last trials cut to 3. 

They can even get the riser back if you dont make top 3 if they cant afford to give that many. Use the 5 left as presentation risers for the Olympics etc. 

Chris


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

In 1996 Hoyt's Avalon riser had a serious problem. Those that worked in the Equipment repair booth replaced nearly 70 risers at the Olympics from some of the best archers in the world. I lost a lot of respect that moment when I found out that they knew they had the problem but said it wasn't a big deal, they could just replace the broken risers. A sad day for archers who had spent years grooming their form and attitude just to have to change a major piece of equipment at the games. Did it affect the archer? Absolutely! 

I recall Vic Wunderle telling me that he spent the early part of the year testing equipment and when it was time to stop he would not try anything else during the competitive season because he wanted total confidence in his equipment. I respect that and admire his approach, but most archers love sparkly and new things and in particular, they love the attention from a potential sponsor. Archers like Jennifer are rare, similar to you, John. They probably did not have much of a sponsor unless they were on the USAT team. Thus, anything given to them was an amazing gift that would be very hard to refuse. 

I seriously don't think Jennifer had an issue with the new equipment unless she was changing her sight (remember, she shot low in 85% of her shots against Kumari Deepika and barely lost. If the new sight had a finer worm screw adjustment, it cost her dearly. I don't know the difference between the two sights (from the old to the new) but if that is the case, then the fault lies on her and the new sight company. If the sights were identical in movement, then I still blame the coach who should have encouraged her to move the sight. Most archers, when in the heat of the battle, may forget simple things to do and that is why the coach is there...to remind them. If they are not there for that purpose, then why are coaches even allowed on the field?

Changing equipment is risky and I fully agree that an expert can check something new out rather quickly and determine if it will benefit the performance or not. Newer "elites" just need guidance to make sure they do not make a mistake in thinking it will help and then find out too late that it just might have hurt their performance. 

Now, one more story....When I made my first international tournament, Championship of the Americas, Earl Hoyt sent me a new bow. At the time, i was using the TD1 and loved it. I received the TD2 and literally fumed that I received it just before the biggest tournament of my life. I called him up and asked him why he would do such a thing. Doesn't he know that if I used the new bow I could shoot poorly due to how new it was? He laughed and told me to put the new bow under my bed and wait until I came home from the tournament to try it. I was satisfied with his comment but felt compelled to at least try it (I think it was calling me at night while I slept). I shot it, tested it, and liked it and won with it at the Championship of the Americas. So, you can find something new that works but you must be very careful in doing so. Again, the big problem is all the glam that goes with the Olympics. You get caught up with all the new toys and forget that you are there to do a job until it is too late.


----------



## tassie_devil (Aug 15, 2018)

Stash said:


> Well, I completely disagree.
> 
> Why eliminate the possibility that a new or different piece of equipment might just marginally improve a team member’s performance? What would some archers have given to have scored a single point more in a crucial competition?
> 
> I think if you’re mature enough to put the work in to earn an Olympic team place, you’re mature enough to know what piece of new equipment to test out, and when, and make an informed, logical decision on whether to use it or not. You don’t need some bureaucrat at the head office of your national association, who knows nothing about you or your shooting and training, telling you what you can or can’t do.


I guess consider two questions, as an elite athlete athlete has worked for years training/tuning etc. Becomine ‘one’ with your gear.

1. Is any RANDOM change more likely to cause benefit or harm. I would argue, you’ve already optimised your gear once, so a random change is more likely to be harmful.

2. Do you have sufficient time to test that the change is beneficial, not harmful.

If you are looking to statistically detect a 1-2 point swing on a 720 round then you will need to shoot a LOT of arrows (too lazy to work it out, but this can be done also). Not feasible in a week. 

That said I think there are some parts of the rig you could change, but you guys are far better archers than me and would have a better idea what’s what.


----------



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

> I recall Vic Wunderle telling me that he spent the early part of the year testing equipment and when it was time to stop he would not try anything else during the competitive season because he wanted total confidence in his equipment.


Presumably, this was AFTER the times when Vic would arrive in Vegas, pick up the contingency sheet off the red tables, spend two hours scrounging buttons, rests, sights and stabilizers from the booths according to who was paying the most contingency, and proceed to win checks.

(Life’s a bitch when you’re a starving archer.)


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick McKinney said:


> In 1996 Hoyt's Avalon riser had a serious problem. Those that worked in the Equipment repair booth replaced nearly 70 risers at the Olympics from some of the best archers in the world. I lost a lot of respect that moment when I found out that they knew they had the problem but said it wasn't a big deal, they could just replace the broken risers. A sad day for archers who had spent years grooming their form and attitude just to have to change a major piece of equipment at the games. Did it affect the archer? Absolutely!
> 
> I recall Vic Wunderle telling me that he spent the early part of the year testing equipment and when it was time to stop he would not try anything else during the competitive season because he wanted total confidence in his equipment. I respect that and admire his approach, but most archers love sparkly and new things and in particular, they love the attention from a potential sponsor. Archers like Jennifer are rare, similar to you, John. They probably did not have much of a sponsor unless they were on the USAT team. Thus, anything given to them was an amazing gift that would be very hard to refuse.
> 
> ...


Great post Rick and let me be the first to point out that your photo has "chick magnet" written all over it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

>--gt--> said:


> Presumably, this was AFTER the times when Vic would arrive in Vegas, pick up the contingency sheet off the red tables, spend two hours scrounging buttons, rests, sights and stabilizers from the booths according to who was paying the most contingency, and proceed to win checks.
> 
> (Life’s a bitch when you’re a starving archer.)


Yea, he should have sold out instead. 

(and comments like that are why George has me blocked. LOL)


----------



## cerelestecerele (Aug 5, 2019)

Rick McKinney said:


> In 1996 Hoyt's Avalon riser had a serious problem. Those that worked in the Equipment repair booth replaced nearly 70 risers at the Olympics from some of the best archers in the world. I lost a lot of respect that moment when I found out that they knew they had the problem but said it wasn't a big deal, they could just replace the broken risers. A sad day for archers who had spent years grooming their form and attitude just to have to change a major piece of equipment at the games. Did it affect the archer? Absolutely!
> 
> I recall Vic Wunderle telling me that he spent the early part of the year testing equipment and when it was time to stop he would not try anything else during the competitive season because he wanted total confidence in his equipment. I respect that and admire his approach, but most archers love sparkly and new things and in particular, they love the attention from a potential sponsor. Archers like Jennifer are rare, similar to you, John. They probably did not have much of a sponsor unless they were on the USAT team. Thus, anything given to them was an amazing gift that would be very hard to refuse.
> 
> ...


The new sight has a vertical 1/32" worm screw instead of the 1/24" on her old sight. Both have 20 clicks per turn and 1/32" for windage. 
So if she was expecting shooting low and expecting the new sight to behave the same, she'd end continue hitting low, though only slightly.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

cerelestecerele said:


> The new sight has a vertical 1/32" worm screw instead of the 1/24" on her old sight. Both have 20 clicks per turn and 1/32" for windage.
> So if she was expecting shooting low and expecting the new sight to behave the same, she'd end continue hitting low, though only slightly.


I'm sorry, Rick was too kind. Changing sights to a completely different brand right before the games is just stupid. And I'm a huge fan of hers. But that was a rookie mistake.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

>--gt--> said:


> Presumably, this was AFTER the times when Vic would arrive in Vegas, pick up the contingency sheet off the red tables, spend two hours scrounging buttons, rests, sights and stabilizers from the booths according to who was paying the most contingency, and proceed to win checks.
> 
> (Life’s a bitch when you’re a starving archer.)


I am sure you know Vic's history. At the age of 16 he was told that he had to fund his own way to tournaments. Many times Sheri and I helped Vic coincidentally by the way. One time he was laying on the bench stands at the AZ Cup (Sheri and I went by inspecting the area before the start of the event the night before) and when I asked him what he was doing, he said he was planning on sleeping there to save money. We took him home. Another time he was sitting at the airport at the baggage claim area at Houston and I asked him who he was waiting for and he said whoever might take him to the event. We were more than happy to take him. Vegas was northing more than a money maker for most of us recurve archers. Vic needed the funds in order to cover some of the travel costs to some of the events for the year. Anyway, the point is that Vic was training for Olympic and World outdoor events, not indoor events. He usually stopped testing equipment around late March or early April if I recall right. If I believe there were many archers doing the same thing at Vegas in order to make a little extra money. Some only used an arm guard at that event because Saunders offered money if you won with it. It was silly but as you say "Life's a bitch when you're a starving archer"!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick McKinney said:


> I am sure you know Vic's history. At the age of 16 he was told that he had to fund his own way to tournaments. Many times Sheri and I helped Vic coincidentally by the way. One time he was laying on the bench stands at the AZ Cup (Sheri and I went by inspecting the area before the start of the event the night before) and when I asked him what he was doing, he said he was planning on sleeping there to save money. We took him home. Another time he was sitting at the airport at the baggage claim area at Houston and I asked him who he was waiting for and he said whoever might take him to the event. We were more than happy to take him. Vegas was northing more than a money maker for most of us recurve archers. Vic needed the funds in order to cover some of the travel costs to some of the events for the year. Anyway, the point is that Vic was training for Olympic and World outdoor events, not indoor events. He usually stopped testing equipment around late March or early April if I recall right. If I believe there were many archers doing the same thing at Vegas in order to make a little extra money. Some only used an arm guard at that event because Saunders offered money if you won with it. It was silly but as you say "Life's a bitch when you're a starving archer"!


Vic's an American hero and one of my dearest friends. He and his (then) coach Larry Skinner are literally the ONLY people that helped me in 2004 and I'll never forget that. Competing with him here in Texas from '10-`16 are some of my greatest archery memories. He is also one of the most humble people you would ever meet despite being one of the greatest American archery Olympians of all time. And I know you know that Rick and I also know that's why you respect him.


----------



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

Rick McKinney said:


> I am sure you know Vic's history. At the age of 16 he was told that he had to fund his own way to tournaments. Many times Sheri and I helped Vic coincidentally by the way. One time he was laying on the bench stands at the AZ Cup (Sheri and I went by inspecting the area before the start of the event the night before) and when I asked him what he was doing, he said he was planning on sleeping there to save money. We took him home. Another time he was sitting at the airport at the baggage claim area at Houston and I asked him who he was waiting for and he said whoever might take him to the event. We were more than happy to take him. Vegas was northing more than a money maker for most of us recurve archers. Vic needed the funds in order to cover some of the travel costs to some of the events for the year. Anyway, the point is that Vic was training for Olympic and World outdoor events, not indoor events. He usually stopped testing equipment around late March or early April if I recall right. If I believe there were many archers doing the same thing at Vegas in order to make a little extra money. Some only used an arm guard at that event because Saunders offered money if you won with it. It was silly but as you say "Life's a bitch when you're a starving archer"!


The guy pretty much lived in his car to make ends meet at tournaments.

Just one of many reasons I was really happy to see him looking great- and shooting well- at Olympic Trials earlier this year.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Best teammate you could ever ask for.


----------



## nopsled (May 3, 2013)

I noticed you, Vic and Rick use the finger sling on your middle finger. First time I saw this was in Rick's book. I was using it on my index finger then changed to middle and I noticed my grip improved. Would love to read your thoughts on it, thanks.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

nopsled said:


> I noticed you, Vic and Rick use the finger sling on your middle finger. First time I saw this was in Rick's book. I was using it on my index finger then changed to middle and I noticed my grip improved. Would love to read your thoughts on it, thanks.


Nothing really to share. I did the same thing you did. Started on first finger and then tried the middle finger and it jus worked better.


----------



## RMBX10 (Jun 20, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Nothing really to share. I did the same thing you did. Started on first finger and then tried the middle finger and it jus worked better.


I've always put it on my ring finger. That's what I've been doing wrong all these years! That must be why I didn't go farther in the sport.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Nothing really to share. I did the same thing you did. Started on first finger and then tried the middle finger and it jus worked better.


Did you make the switch from first to middle finger during the time between when you were named to the team and when the Games started? 😄


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I look at those photos with great joy, and with some level of shock at how thin I was back then. LOL

Lots of hours shooting and no beer for two months will do that I guess.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

I’m more amazed that Vic looks like he’s in the same shape he was then


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

FerrumVeritas said:


> I’m more amazed that Vic looks like he’s in the same shape he was then


Vic takes meticulous care with what goes in to his body. He's never had a drink that I know of, and is extremely careful about what he eats. A true Olympian through and through.


----------



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

FerrumVeritas said:


> I’m more amazed that Vic looks like he’s in the same shape he was then


Absolutely, same (stellar) shooting form as well.










Also note that he is using the sling on the index finger, not the middle finger as someone mentioned above.


----------



## ItsJim (Jul 29, 2016)

limbwalker said:


> Vic takes meticulous care with what goes in to his body. He's never had a drink that I know of, and is extremely careful about what he eats. A true Olympian through and through.


I almost had the pleasure of meeting Vic at Las Vegas last year. I kinda stumbled into him as we were both trying to get a look at the new Nishikawa risers. We exchanged "excuse me" as I stepped out of his way, and I got a look at his jersey..I thought - WOW, I know that name. He looks about 1/2 his age. Saw him a few minutes later chatting with Paul Jaeger about some grips. A couple of photos I took...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Couple of good dudes in that photo right there. I see Paul is still trying to get his finger tab idea going...


----------



## J-Shooter (Jul 12, 2007)

I love the stories on this forum, good to hear a little bit about an American great. Also, I didn't know that Nishizawa - N Products - Nishikawa was back making bows again. I wonder why they keep changing names. They seem to be as beautiful and expensive as ever.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

>--gt--> said:


> Absolutely, same (stellar) shooting form as well.
> 
> View attachment 7444598
> 
> ...


In the picture nopsled is referring to (post #49) Vic has the finger sling on his middle finger.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

TER said:


> In the picture nopsled is referring to (post #49) Vic has the finger sling on his middle finger.


I don't think he can see that image because he has me blocked.


----------



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

TER said:


> In the picture nopsled is referring to (post #49) Vic has the finger sling on his middle finger.


I don’t see a post 49, but at the Olympic Trials he was using it on the index finger, as you can see in both the photos I posted. (I took those photos.)


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Pic from post 49


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

>--gt--> said:


> I don’t see a post 49, but at the Olympic Trials he was using it on the index finger, as you can see in both the photos I posted. (I took those photos.)


I did not disagree that Vic was using the sling on his index finger in the photos you posted. I only posted that Vic was using it on his middle finger in the picture limbwalker posted in post #49.


----------



## ItsJim (Jul 29, 2016)

J-Shooter said:


> I love the stories on this forum, good to hear a little bit about an American great. Also, I didn't know that Nishizawa - N Products - Nishikawa was back making bows again. I wonder why they keep changing names. They seem to be as beautiful and expensive as ever.


They ARE really nice looking risers, and I kinda wanted one but when I found out the price I had to forget that idea.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

TER said:


> I did not disagree that Vic was using the sling on his index finger in the photos you posted. I only posted that Vic was using it on his middle finger in the picture limbwalker posted in post #49.


So much ado about nothing really.


----------



## "TheBlindArcher" (Jan 27, 2015)

RMBX10 said:


> I've always put it on my ring finger. That's what I've been doing wrong all these years! That must be why I didn't go farther in the sport.



I would love to blame my lack of progress in the sport on which finger I wear my sling, but truth is I can't nock an arrow and keep it on the rest wearing a finger sling and a tab; I have to make windage adjustments on my aiming stand with my left, and elevation adjustments with my right [or both hands sometimes], and I just suck as an archer... But "my finger sling is on the wrong finger" is going into my pouch of excuses.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

"TheBlindArcher" said:


> I would love to blame my lack of progress in the sport on which finger I wear my sling, but truth is I can't nock an arrow and keep it on the rest wearing a finger sling and a tab; I have to make windage adjustments on my aiming stand with my left, and elevation adjustments with my right [or both hands sometimes], and I just suck as an archer... But "my finger sling is on the wrong finger" is going into my pouch of excuses.


As it should!


----------



## "TheBlindArcher" (Jan 27, 2015)

First, agree equipment changes that last minute should have been recognized as a potential problem by all on the shooting field, coaches and athletes, but a couple questions... 

I get the title and story suggest a "before you practice today change out these parts" storyline, but do we really know this to be true? Any chance at least some of the equipment changes weren't done even before Paris and they just didn't appear at the time- sort of "still in the works" or perhaps with the importance of Paris and qualifying teams the equipment was too new at that time to trust? 

Second, and I don't know if this was actually said, but is it fair to say the new equipment was a correlation to outcomes between Paris and Tokyo? The team placed well in Paris, but remember who wasn't there... Then, IIRC conditions in Tokyo seem to have been more "difficult" than Paris... I get the story about the sight change being a possible issue, but isn't even that a coach/athlete issue? How many shots after "you're low, adjust your sight" does it take to say "not enough?" It seems like at that level the decision between "it's me" and "it's the equipment" would be almost instantaneous... what am I missing?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

"TheBlindArcher" said:


> First, agree equipment changes that last minute should have been recognized as a potential problem by all on the shooting field, coaches and athletes, but a couple questions...
> 
> I get the title and story suggest a "before you practice today change out these parts" storyline, but do we really know this to be true? Any chance at least some of the equipment changes weren't done even before Paris and they just didn't appear at the time- sort of "still in the works" or perhaps with the importance of Paris and qualifying teams the equipment was too new at that time to trust?
> 
> Second, and I don't know if this was actually said, but is it fair to say the new equipment was a correlation to outcomes between Paris and Tokyo? The team placed well in Paris, but remember who wasn't there... Then, IIRC conditions in Tokyo seem to have been more "difficult" than Paris... I get the story about the sight change being a possible issue, but isn't even that a coach/athlete issue? How many shots after "you're low, adjust your sight" does it take to say "not enough?" It seems like at that level the decision between "it's me" and "it's the equipment" would be almost instantaneous... what am I missing?


the women's team ranked very well i Tokyo - one of their best rankings ever and higher than the men.  So clearly the equipment wasn't an issue during ranking. But ranking and matches are two different beasts.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> So much ado about nothing really.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

TER said:


> View attachment 7446315


ha, ha. So damn true.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

So I noticed that Jack also switched a lot of gear for the Games. 

This is starting to look like the veteran archers stayed with what they had, and the young archers all switched. Not a good look really, although Jack shot very well.


----------



## Mr. Ken (Aug 6, 2019)

Guys: I have a simple question. With the young USA female archer losing her match because of the low shots. 
Does the individual archer have the freedom to make a sight adjustment as needed or does a coach have to tell them to move their sight? Thanks Ken


----------



## olympics84 (Nov 5, 2004)

I wonder who developed that finger sling...


limbwalker said:


> So much ado about nothing really.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Mr. Ken said:


> Guys: I have a simple question. With the young USA female archer losing her match because of the low shots.
> Does the individual archer have the freedom to make a sight adjustment as needed or does a coach have to tell them to move their sight? Thanks Ken


At the Olympic level, and even long before then, archers should be capable of making their own sight adjustments. However in the heat of a match - particularly a very important match - the coach does sometimes need to step in and make suggestions or at least be able to confirm to the archer what they think they are seeing. 

It's hard for an archer who doesn't go pull arrows to start seeing a pattern of high/low or L/R shots when they have so much else to think about. Not being able to see your holes on the face when you go pull arrows, and not having that time to "process" as you walk down and walk back makes it that much more valuable to get that information from your coach or spotter.

At that level it really should be team effort. The archer knows the quality of their shot and the spotter/coach knows where they landed and hopefully, a little about how they got there. Without knowing both, it's hard to say where/when to move the sight.


----------



## Mr. Ken (Aug 6, 2019)

Ok. Thanks for letting me know. I didn't even think about the archers not being able to actually look at the target during a match. I blame the coach for her loss because he has a spotting scope and can see where the arrows are hitting. The coach should have had her make a sight adjustment.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Mr. Ken said:


> Ok. Thanks for letting me know. I didn't even think about the archers not being able to actually look at the target during a match. I blame the coach for her loss because he has a spotting scope and can see where the arrows are hitting. The coach should have had her make a sight adjustment.


Meh, no need to assign blame. It takes two. At the Olympic level, you just have to be aware of what's going on and how to adjust. I know for myself, being able to see the arrow in flight always helps me but I've learned that not that many archers can track their arrows in flight (which surprised me). Also, don't underestimate the value of knowing whether you shot a strong or weak shot. Finally, as was mentioned above, switching out sights right before the Olympics probably wasn't helpful either. 

Regardless, it's a tough competition and she did well for someone of her age and experience level. No need to sling blame around. She will learn from it and be better in 2024, I'm pretty certain.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

The giant video screen showing each arrow impact might also offer the archer a clue if their spotter isn’t clear enough with feedback...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> The giant video screen showing each arrow impact might also offer the archer a clue if their spotter isn’t clear enough with feedback...


I would expect a veteran archery to take advantage of that. I wouldn't expect a rookie archer to be that aware though.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

I wouldn't expect a rookie archer to be shooting at the Olympics.

(Depending on what you mean by “rookie”, that is.😄)


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> I wouldn't expect a rookie archer to be shooting at the Olympics.
> 
> (Depending on what you mean by “rookie”, that is.😄)


With all due respect Stash, things have changed a bit since you competed. These days, with the moving cameras and big screens and horseshoe stadiums and head to head matchplay, there's a LOT to process at your first games. She'll do better next time.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

With all due respect back at you, every one of the archers there knew what they were getting into. And if being a first-time Olympian was an excuse for forgetting that you move your sight (or aim off) when you start to group off center, then how did so many other first-timers manage to win Gold medals?

The whole vibe of this thread seems to have been to make excuses for a couple of poor performances. Blame the coach for not telling the archer to move her sight. Blame the sponsor for offering equipment support (I mean, they’re already shooting that sponsor’s equipment - what financial benefit is it to the sponsor to have them shoot a new color riser?) Blame the wind. Blame the way they stadium was set UP, so you CAN blame the wind. 

Blame everyone except the person actually shooting the arrow into the blue ring.

I never did particularly well at international events. But when I screwed up, it was definitely my fault, nobody else’s. I fully understand the pressure. But if you can’t deal with the pressure, you lose. That’s the whole point.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> With all due respect back at you, every one of the archers there knew what they were getting into. And if being a first-time Olympian was an excuse for forgetting that you move your sight (or aim off) when you start to group off center, then how did so many other first-timers manage to win Gold medals?
> 
> The whole vibe of this thread seems to have been to make excuses for a couple of poor performances. Blame the coach for not telling the archer to move her sight. Blame the sponsor for offering equipment support (I mean, they’re already shooting that sponsor’s equipment - what financial benefit is it to the sponsor to have them shoot a new color riser?) Blame the wind. Blame the way they stadium was set UP, so you CAN blame the wind.
> 
> ...


There's a big difference between knowing and having experience. Few venues can match the Olympic venue for sheer distraction, and for a 17 year old, that's a lot to process.

How many 17 year old 1st timers were there even? 

It's nice to see you stand by your hard *** ways though.  (and I mean that in the best possible sense). Sometimes the hard *** in the room offers a good reality check.

Maybe if the best a country can do is send young archers without a lot of experience (in international archery or in life) then they do in fact deserve to lose. However in 2024, I doubt we'll be in that same position with our women's team.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Well, there was a 17 year old 1st timer archer who won two gold medals.....

Plus many younger medalists, even one as young as 12, in other sports.

I don’t think being only 17 is a legitimate excuse. If it is, why send them?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> Well, there was a 17 year old 1st timer archer who won two gold medals.....
> 
> Plus many younger medalists, even one as young as 12, in other sports.
> 
> I don’t think being only 17 is a legitimate excuse. If it is, why send them?


You might have missed my point above - being 17 as opposed to say, 30 - is typically a disadvantage, all other things being equal. And why send them is because they're the best we have.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Again, I don’t agree. All things AREN’T equal. Many 17 year old athletes have plenty of advantages over 30 year olds. Financial parental support while training and fewer personal responsibilities to cause distraction immediately come to mind.

And if they’re the “best we have”, kwitcherbitchin. 😄


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> Again, I don’t agree. All things AREN’T equal. Many 17 year old athletes have plenty of advantages over 30 year olds. Financial parental support while training and fewer personal responsibilities to cause distraction immediately come to mind.
> 
> And if they’re the “best we have”, kwitcherbitchin. 😄


where was I bitchin? 

Yes, there are ways many of our young athletes have advantages to prepare them HOW to shoot their bows. Not many ways (as we've proven time and again) to prepare them for the stage they were just placed on though. 

Again, I doubt you've ever been dropped in a venue like that before. I have. I know a little bit about what I'm saying here.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Well, my first international event was something like “Stand on the line right here. The guy on your right, his name is Darrell, and the guy on your left, his name is Rick. No pressure. Have fun.”


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> Well, my first international event was something like “Stand on the line right here. The guy on your right, his name is Darrell, and the guy on your left, his name is Rick. No pressure. Have fun.”


So. My first national event I was eyeball to eyeball with Jay Barrs. That event also included Butch Johnson, Rod White and Justin Huish among others.

Not even comparable to the Olympic stadium venue with moving cameras and a giant screen with your face on it, a time clock counting down from 20 and wind socks that are pointing at each other.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

I’ve forgotten why we’re arguing with each other...🤔

Yes, the Olympics are difficult and stressful. By the way, Jay’s a jerk. He insulted my ferret. Called him a “rat”.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> I’ve forgotten why we’re arguing with each other...🤔
> 
> Yes, the Olympics are difficult and stressful. By the way, Jay’s a jerk. He insulted my ferret. Called him a “rat”.


LOL for a minute I thought you were channeling Viper. 

LOL I love Jay. But I'll never forget staring an Olympic gold medalist right in the face before my very first arrow at a national comp. I was like seriously???

He was there again on my bale (I guess I was on "his" bale) on day 1 of the Oly. trials. I shot a 332 in that wind for the first pass and he was the first to congratulate and encourage me. I always remember that.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

I first met Darrell in 1978 at TWAC. He was at the bar and we got him to referee beer chugging contests.


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

The bottom line on this thread is that offers of me equipment should be made earlier and organizations sending the athletes should do everything they can to put them in a position of success. In several ways USAA could have done better. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

lcaillo said:


> The bottom line on this thread is that offers of me equipment should be made earlier and organizations sending the athletes should do everything they can to put them in a position of success. In several ways USAA could have done better.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thank you, Leonard!!!!!


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

But, how can offers of equipment be made to the Olympic team before the team is named? Are sponsors expected to supply all POTENTIAL team members?


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Stash said:


> But, how can offers of equipment be made to the Olympic team before the team is named? Are sponsors expected to supply all POTENTIAL team members?


You're asking the wrong question. 

Right Question: "What can USA Archery do (includes the option 'nothing') to best support our athletes and put them in the best position to perform at their highest level?"

Wrong Question: "What can USA Archery do to help equipment manufacturers sell some extra sh&t?"

Question for Stash: Your granddaughter makes the Canadian Olympic Archery Team. She has honed/finetuned her bow to mold to her as a perfect ballroom dance partner. With it, she's won national events, and her country's Olympic Trials. She comes to you just shortly before flying off to chase Olympic glory, and asks you "Grandpa, Hoyt and WinWin wants me to change out some of the stuff on my bow and shoot the new stuff at the Olympics. What is your advice to me?"

Down here in football country, we've got a saying about how best to prepare for a football bowl game (back when the world was sane and the four New Years Day bowl games decided the (ever mythical) National Championship) - "We're gunna dance with the girl that brung us." That would be my advice to your granddaughter.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

lksseven said:


> Question for Stash: Your granddaughter makes the Canadian Olympic Archery Team. She has honed/finetuned her bow to mold to her as a perfect ballroom dance partner. With it, she's won national events, and her country's Olympic Trials. She comes to you just shortly before flying off to chase Olympic glory, and asks you "Grandpa, Hoyt and WinWin wants me to change out some of the stuff on my bow and shoot the new stuff at the Olympics. What is your advice to me?"


Easy.

_Have you got time to try the new stuff out, give it a fair test, and decide if it’s better, worse or the same as what you have?

If you do and you think it’s better, use it. If worse, don’t use it. If no difference, ask the sponsor ‘what’s in it for me?’ If you like the answer, use it. If you don’t like the answer, say ‘No, thanks. Maybe later.’

If you don’t feel you have the time to test it adequately, stick with what you have._

The “dance with the girl that brung ya” saying is cute, but it refers to a human being with feelings, who you don’t just leave by the side of the road. We’re talking about a hunk of metal and fiberglass here.

And as for what USA Archery can do? I don’t know. Maybe hire qualified coaches, set up a system that identifies young talent, and fund some sort of place where these athletes can go and train without having to worry about money and stuff?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Larry, you're not gonna win this one with Stash. LOL


----------



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

Stash said:


> And as for what USA Archery can do? I don’t know. Maybe hire qualified coaches, set up a system that identifies young talent, and fund some sort of place where these athletes can go and train without having to worry about money and stuff?


Best. Post. Ever.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Nicest thing you’ve ever said to me, George. 😄


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> Nicest thing you’ve ever said to me, George. 😄


LOL 
Don't get a big head. He's known for his generous compliments.


----------



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

Stash said:


> Nicest thing you’ve ever said to me, George. 😄


Not true. I complimented you on your chip shot at Caledon, at least once. You’re the first (but not the last) archer who I saw combine golf and archery in the same event.


----------



## "TheBlindArcher" (Jan 27, 2015)

I accept that qualification and eliminations are different, I've never shot at that level and have no reason to contradict what was replied back to me, but... 

It seems the whole flavor of this thread has been to say in the same breath "they shouldn't have switched gear" and [especially in context of the ladies performance] they shot to their best qualification ever... and for the guy [was it Jack, can't keep the names straight], "he switched BUT he shot very well..." Are we as viewers making more out of this simply because we want it to mean something? What, 64 archers in the individual events... more than 95% of them aren't going to get a medal... 
We as "outsiders" [as in not standing on the line this time] are trying to apply external loci of controls for the athletes' performance, I'm really hoping the athletes are looking internally for the answers...


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

>--gt--> said:


> Not true. I complimented you on your chip shot at Caledon, at least once. You’re the first (but not the last) archer who I saw combine golf and archery in the same event.


Chip shot? Those were full pitching wedges at 90m.


----------



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

Stash said:


> Chip shot? Those were full pitching wedges at 90m.


Well, sometimes. As we would do the walk-forward you would adjust the distance, no?


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

I really don’t recall. I do remember hitting the blue ring at least twice at 90. The dimple pattern on the paper was distinctive.

Several years later a friend and I brought drivers, but apparently the people on the next property didn’t appreciate it, so the practise has been since discouraged by the club’s Executive.

Back then you used to write stuff with a Sharpie all over your arrows. I forget, what was all that about? 

But, we digress from the topic under discussion...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Blue ring at 90 with a wedge is impressive, regardless of whether it's on topic or not.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Well, it took most of the morning to get a hit or two...

(Just to clarify, I used to sometimes practise hitting golf balls at FITA rounds when the other line was up, well off the side away from anyone shooting. The DOS and other archers didn’t have an issue with it.)


----------



## Steve P (May 14, 2009)

Well, this gives a new meaning to archery golf.  


Steve


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

Interesting conversation. The idea of "small-town US girl goes to the big city and fails" sentiment is interesting. She obviously had to perform in other competitions before. And if she is distracted by big-screen TVs and other things, was she only competing in empty fields before? Note, all competitors are shooting in exactly the same environment. While 17 is young, it is not that young, especially since you should have had a record of competing. There are no age classes in the Olympics and athletes far younger have competed and performed well. (I wonder if we would have as much sympathy for archers on other teams?)

The point of athletic is that it measure the performance of a human being at a particular point in time. All of the factors in the game needed to be mitigated by that athlete. Whether that is fancy stadia or not feeling great that day is irrelevant. The result is your measure. The person with the highest result is the "best." You score is a reflection of your performance. Given the results, there seems to be nothing to suggest a riser (probably of the same model, but different color) had no effect on outcomes. I can imagine (having lived in Tokyo) that the heat and humidity were greater contributing factors. No matter how well you groom the grounds, the playing field will never be level for every competitor. (I don't think adopting a handicap system is going to work.)

I guess I side with the "hard*ss..."


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

BTW, it is not about "fault." This is not blaming the archer. It is simply recognizing the variability in the sport and the archer's requirements to mitigate those. If you don't win, it is simply a measure of the performance, not condemnation of the person.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

LOL very easy to say never having been in those conditions I guess. Yes, some handled it better than others but no, none of them knew how they would handle it until that moment, regardless of prior experience. A person can prepare all they want, and simulate all the want, but they still don't "know" until the moment arrives, the camera is rolling and the timer is ticking. In those cases, some life experience outside the arena is surely beneficial.


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

limbwalker said:


> LOL very easy to say never having been in those conditions I guess. Yes, some handled it better than others but no, none of them knew how they would handle it until that moment, regardless of prior experience. A person can prepare all they want, and simulate all the want, but they still don't "know" until the moment arrives, the camera is rolling and the timer is ticking. In those cases, some life experience outside the arena is surely beneficial.


And that kind of raises the question of what is being measure in competition? Obviously, there is the skill in precision. But we all recognize the mental game, which includes adapting to new conditions (as best we can). Having been in the Tokyo summer heat, I can say as someone born in New England, that is brutal--kind of like competing in New Orleans. Tokyo has the added bonus of unstable weather--wind and rain. 

(Naturally, luck is always a factor in any sport, but that is kind of hard (but not imposible) to measure or train for.)


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Hikari said:


> And that kind of raises the question of what is being measure in competition? Obviously, there is the skill in precision. But we all recognize the mental game, which includes adapting to new conditions (as best we can). Having been in the Tokyo summer heat, I can say as someone born in New England, that is brutal--kind of like competing in New Orleans. Tokyo has the added bonus of unstable weather--wind and rain.
> 
> (Naturally, luck is always a factor in any sport, but that is kind of hard (but not imposible) to measure or train for.)


I'd say that even more than the weather, the venue conditions specific to the Olympic games, and the Olympics themselves, are so unique that it would be very, very difficult to prepare for. That's where the mental game, and in particular - some genuine perspective in life - can really help an individual.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Hikari said:


> BTW, it is not about "fault." This is not blaming the archer. It is simply recognizing the variability in the sport and the archer's requirements to mitigate those. If you don't win, it is simply a measure of the performance, not condemnation of the person.


Well I suppose that comes down to who the person is, and whose doing the condemning. LOL


----------

