# Does the US Target Archery System Need Changing



## TexARC (Mar 5, 2003)

There isn't a special singular forum just for US target archers at this point, but a lot of them frequent this board so I thought I would ask them all this to find some thoughts about it. All yew furrin archers can jump in, of course... 

If the goals of an organization about target archery are: 
to increase the number of participating members to insure continued existence, 
to disseminate related information, 
to improve the level of performance, 
to establish standards for the membership and insure adherence to those, 
to organize local and national competitions, and 
to ultimately foster excellence compatible with world-wide competition, 
should it evolve and change when at least some of those goals begin to fall demonstrably short, and if so then how long should it wait before trying to make those changes? I think that the changes have already begun, by the way, and am happy for those changes, although I have heard other archers proclaim their intent to fight and subvert those changes. 

Since we already know and agree that archery in general is a fantastic sport, is US target archery growing in a robust and healthy manner? Does the public even know we exist?

Are our top Yew Ess archers routinely winning when they compete with European and Far East countries, or are they even remaining "in the race"? 

What are your thoughts about these questions? What does the US target archery community need to do? What do WE, as archers, need to do? Do we need a "take a friend to archery practice" day? 

As some wise guy said: 
"If you keep doing what you have always done, you will keep getting what you have always gotten" unless everyone else changes to doing something better, in which case you will keep getting bupkus.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

I agree completely that most of the public regards us as a "fringe sport." Heck, even paintball gets more attention.  And that sport isn't even in the Olympics.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Does the US Target Archery System Need Changing


Ron, IMO yes it does.

Here's why I say that, and I hope I don't upset anyone...

Basically, my opinion since June is that if some "nobody" from "nowhere" can walk into the trials and make the Olympic team, then something is wrong with the system. Not because it shouldn't be an open process (which I obviously support) but because the level of competition should have been well beyond what an uncoached, inexperienced bowhunter pushing middle age could hope to achieve.

There, I said it. That's how I feel now, and how I felt then. I was as shocked as anybody else. Part of the reason I never got nervous was that I completely expected to be overtaken by a wave of talent and experience toward the end of the week. But it never happened.

I've also said all along that there really are just two, and lately a third, archer in the U.S. that is capable of being competitive internationally. That's a shame. That's why something needs to change.

Fire away if you want, but I've held this opinion all year. I don't expect the level of competition in the U.S. to change unless something major happens. However, I do have hope that the NAA is headed in the right direction, and I will be watching with interest and hope in the future.

And Leighton, Shush up about the paintball. We don't want to give the IOC any ideas!  ha, ha, ha.

John.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Do we need a "take a friend to archery practice" day?


And Ron, I call that "JOAD night"...  

John.


----------



## hoyt_for_life (Dec 10, 2004)

hows about the usa sends talent scouts out to get good archers (i.e. me) and get them to win world compertitions and boost the profile of archery. 
im not saying that american archers cant win tournaments. but the overseas archers could coment on the way they were taught to shoot and archery programs in their countrys.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

hoyt_for_life said:


> hows about the usa sends talent scouts out to get good archers (i.e. me) and get them to win world compertitions and boost the profile of archery.
> im not saying that american archers cant win tournaments. but the overseas archers could coment on the way they were taught to shoot and archery programs in their countrys.


Then we'd have to pay them (you) and the US's track record with paying their athletes is pretty piss poor.


----------



## GONZO (Sep 9, 2003)

*interesting*

but i cant comment, i am nobody, from nowhere, middle aged ,inexperienced,and not coached enough .


----------



## Welshman (Oct 5, 2002)

Well, being a nobody from nowhere, I'm going to comment.
The trick to finding our very best talent is looking where that un-tapped talent really is.....In our schools. "That's where the Koreans find theirs".
JOADS do not have all the best raw talent out there for the U.S. to draw from. Face it, there's not THAT many JOADS out there.
But there sure are a lot of schools.

One big problem for us Americans though. Thanks to those Columbine psyhcos and their kind, most schools don't teach target archery in school anymore. No weapons in school anywhere at all. I guess we're screwed.

I'm not saying JOAD doesn't have any talent (most can probably out shoot me) but it just isn't a big enough pool to draw from right now. At least not when compared to the U.S. school system. The JOAD talent pool would grow by leaps and bounds if our school systems could still handle the initial introduction to target archery.

BTW, my city-slicker friends and I became interested and hooked on target archery and bowhunting after taking archery in gym class (8th grade junior high). But that was 1978. Things were different then. Non of our parents were interested in the outdoors at all. Except tennis and golf.

JOAD is introduced to kids mostly through parents and there are not that many parents out there that are into target archery.

OK, time to start throwing rocks at me. But thanks to using a clicker, I have reflexes that can dodge most of them.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

I agree with what you say. we get our JOAD kids through parents and in some cases-due to kids seeing the major events we have hosted-US JOAD NATIONALS -02, US Olympic Trials 04 and before that, the people who started our Joad club-George Helwig and Charlie and Mildred Pierson-were very active in the many US Nationals held nearby at Oxford (Miami University).

several of our kids have got their parents to take up archery too


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> there really are just two, and lately a third, archer in the U.S. that is capable of being competitive internationally.


A clarification if I may. In the above statement, I was referring to recurve archers. Obviously, we have many more talented, internationally competitive compound archers here in the U.S. My apologies for forgetting them  

John.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

JimC and Limbwalker,
Not meaning to hijack this, but it is related to the issue of JOAD and the talent pool. For your JOAD programs do you allow the parents to just drop off the kids and come back in a couple of hours? The reason I ask is I don't. I feel the parents are such an integral part of the learning process that they need to be there to reinforce the positives. I also spend a lot of time teaching the parents what to reinforce (good form rather than good score). Another reason I insist on a parent being there is medical emergencies. After my son Kevin sustained a spontaneous pneumothorax (no he was not shot, the collaped lung just happened) at archery practice, it make me keenly aware of treating medical emergencies. Had it been someone elses kid I would have had a difficulat time getting them treated in a timely manner.

tom


----------



## palmer (Sep 23, 2003)

Yes, I think the NAA has to be in a constant state of flux; adapting to changes and the needs of our archers in order for them to excel. John, make no mistake, you made the team because of your talent and your mental toughness. As a sport draws from a decreasing pool of athletes, it increases the chances of someone like you with ability and desire to be able to show up and excel. In other words, I don't feel there was anything wrong with the Olympic Team process; I just think we need more people.  

I still feel that the biggest obstacle for the NAA is exposure. Kids and adults both are inundated with football, baseball, basketball, etc. They see the stars from those sports gaining all the glory, money, fame, etc. It's hard to compete with that. There are two areas currently that I think the NAA needs to push some advertising: schools and the internet. I see banner advertisements constantly on Yahoo, Accuweather, etc. What about some flashy advertisements there with links to the NAA and information about the JOAD program. It's gonna take some advertisement experience though to cater the format to kids in order to spark their interest enough to ask mom and dad about it. Then, hopefully there is a JOAD program nearby. Fliers in schools would be another good approach. I think we're actually going to do that here in my area. I'm curious to see if it sparks any interest.


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2005)

This is from an outside perspective,I may not know all the inside goings on buthere is what I feel. Right now you have way to many archery asscotiations clamouring for to few archers all saying the same thing. A reallistic organised group governing all of archery not this splintering you have now. If you had a group that held a single National target/Field/3-D championships I think you would raise the level of competition for all. Now if you don't shoot well at the IBO you can go to the ASA if you don't do well at the NAA indoor/Field you can shoot the NFAA indoor/ Field. With only one championship for each style you will have time/dates to setup qualifiing tournaments.

I don't seeing it happening soon with to many personalities inplace now


----------



## GONZO (Sep 9, 2003)

*weeeeellllllllllllllllll*



palmer said:


> I still feel that the biggest obstacle for the NAA is exposure. Kids and adults both are inundated with football, baseball, basketball, etc. They see the stars from those sports gaining all the glory, money, fame, etc. It's hard to compete with that. There are two areas currently that I think the NAA needs to push some advertising: schools and the internet. I see banner advertisements constantly on Yahoo, Accuweather, etc. What about some flashy advertisements there with links to the NAA and information about the JOAD program. It's gonna take some advertisement experience though to cater the format to kids in order to spark their interest enough to ask mom and dad about it. Then, hopefully there is a JOAD program nearby. Fliers in schools would be another good approach.


 LOL I have changed my mind I will post. I think palmer is right on the above statement. We have a new shop here, and we have been talking alot about getting a JOAD started , a few of us are going to have to get certified first which we are working on . I think we have to let people know ARCHERY IS OUT THERE!!!! 
There is a lot of competition out there with the (bigger sports), also you have the home sports lotsa kids are into such as, x boxes and the like ,not that is a sport,but kids have to be drawn away from them.By the way we do not have those things at my house , I encurage my kids to do other things.
But parents have to get involved . I think here in texas the JOAD programs are growing , thanks to a lot of hard work by a lotta good folks.I hope it continues. But as times , attitudes, and interests change so must the way we do things . my 2 cents worth.  

As far as my above post LOL I was just having fun ,  . I am nobody from nowhere , I am middle aged, I have experience , and I have a good coach. so things are great !!!!!!  

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL !!!!!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Tom,

I agree the pool is a pretty shallow one. Target archery (in the U.S.) just can't compete with all the other things out there for young kids. 

Sometimes I wonder if the Olympics hold the same "mystique" that they used to, with professional athletes signing 100 million dollar contracts every day now.  

I know one former Olympic archer who has said they are often recognized for other events they have competed in, but not for their Olympic achievements. As long as people have to stay up until 1:00 a.m. to catch 6 arrows of an Olympic match on a channel that almost nobody has in their home, nothing will change. It really is an image problem, I think. Every JOAD kid in the U.S. should have been able to tune into the Olympic archery coverage at a reasonable hour, or at least tape it from one of the major networks. It's a shame that a lot of the JOAD kids still haven't seen any of the Olympic archery coverage!

And Tom I agree that the parents are critical to the archer's success, but I have also seen just as many that have ruined a promising young archer. In a program as big as the one here (50+ kids enrolled), you get all kinds.

Getting back to some of Ron's original questions, 

1) Yes, the public knows that Olympic archery exists, but couldn't tell you the name of one single Olympic archer except they remember seeing "that kid from California" on the evening news shooting through his garage door into his back yard. (I hear this a lot, and I'm glad that Justin got at least that much coverage).

2) Already answered that. A handful of U.S. archers are able to compete. The rest are just there. But I don't think this is all that unusual. Many other countries (including some of the best European countries and a few Asian countries) are in the same boat, I think.

3) I think the NAA is on the right track. I think JOAD, 4-H and the growing Archery In Schools program are steps in the right direction. But we need to be more shameless about promoting our sport. JOAD programs should be very proud of the fact that they are associated with Olympic archery. That should be a major selling point of the program (in some cases, it's downplayed so that it won't feel so "competitive" or so that kids who shoot compounds don't feel left out.) I think that being associated with an Olympic sport should give those kids a sense of awe, hope and inspiration. And the local media should be well aware that there is a Junior Olympic program in their community.


John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

TomB said:


> JimC and Limbwalker,
> Not meaning to hijack this, but it is related to the issue of JOAD and the talent pool. For your JOAD programs do you allow the parents to just drop off the kids and come back in a couple of hours? The reason I ask is I don't. I feel the parents are such an integral part of the learning process that they need to be there to reinforce the positives. I also spend a lot of time teaching the parents what to reinforce (good form rather than good score). Another reason I insist on a parent being there is medical emergencies. After my son Kevin sustained a spontaneous pneumothorax (no he was not shot, the collaped lung just happened) at archery practice, it make me keenly aware of treating medical emergencies. Had it been someone elses kid I would have had a difficulat time getting them treated in a timely manner.
> 
> tom


we realize that some parents have other children doing other things so we don't make that a rule-some stay, some never do. a few years ago, we had a kid who had some experience in compound whose father was a "know it all". After several months, this boy started losing to kids who were pure novices at the start of the season. The father approached Darrell and asked why his kid was losing to boys who had never ever held a bow 4 months before. Look around Darrell said-do you see their parents? No said the father-

there is your answer Darrell said.

there is no hard and fast rule as to whether a parent's presence is a good thing or a bad thing at JOAD. our older kids often drive themselves


----------



## TexARC (Mar 5, 2003)

ON JOADs - we do need more of them, I think. For example there are places in Texas where I cannot refer cold-calling parents to a JOAD inside of a several hour drive, even in DFW and Houston despite their huge populations. Why every single archery shop in the Yew Ess that has an inside range doesn't sponsor a JOAD is confusing to me. 

It's a natural way to promote business - the kids have to get their shooting gear somewhere, and if they draw their parents in that's good too. Pretty soon you have league shooting every night of the week and the range fills up. The only drawback is that the shop might have to put up with some recurve purchases in ADDITION TO compound  And some of the compounders will undoubtedly get interested in recurve as well. 

I think there are less than 500 JOADs in the US at this point, many are not active, and that means no more than 10 per state. More would be good for sure.

Also, I don't see it as an "either-or" proposition when it comes to whether you train your JOAD kids with a more precise and standard technique. Some have said that you can't teach kids "too hard" or they will quit, and that you can't teach with Olympic gold as the goal because somehow that cheats the kids that won't become that good. Bull. Kids that plateau, that fail to continue to achieve new personal bests, will get bored and drop out because we cheated them of a good foundation and education. Teaching them in a smarter, more uniform, and better way will keep more of them in, yield more legitmate and honest success in their lives, and ultimately feed more into an elite level that can represent the US well internationally. 

The Level II coaches in the JOADs can, for the most part, start kids in the safe ways of shooting and perhaps in the basic good forms, even now, but they are not standardised enough, I fear.

I think we really need a more organized and systematic way of stepping the more promising and willing shooters into another level, or hierarchy, of coaching that emphasizes uniformity of style (perhaps the "Korean" style), technique, attitude about shooting, whatever, so that ultimately any archer could go to any next-level coach in this system and be able to receive the SAME instructions and the same emphasis. 

Right now we lose them because there is no "go to" next level of coaching. For example, ( and if I get it wrong Tom just set me straight  ) the kids in Tom's 4-H program get done with the 4H indoor season (which is fantastic - 8 weekends of competition during the fall followed by a championship tourney), and say "where do I go now"? He leads them into JOAD. But once they are at the top of that game, where do they turn next for more specific training? There's a couple of NAA-sponsored camps each year, which only a few will get to attend, that historically have not been uniform in coaching methods, goals, techniques, etc.. We just don't have coaching resource continuity after JOAD. 

It is not rocket science. I've personally seen how this method works, and it can be very simple and striaghtforward to teach, I think. For example, one can even envision a way to set up a series of "if the archer does this then do that" criteria that insures the coaches follow the same patterns. 

Oddly, I am hoping it would start with the precepts of the Korean methodology, which were by their own admission adapted from the best of the western methods. Methods we knew and still know but were unable to create a nationwide standard of. The Koreans, the Australians, and others simply have had a willingness to subjugate personal egos for the promulgation of a goal of widespread uniformity of excellence - a trait we typically ascribe to oriental sensibilities but which we also can do if we truly decide to.

The "Korean" methods are actually coming full circle, hopefully to be adapted BACK with attention to the US sensibilities and atttitudes. We CAN do this, and I frankly am glad that Tom Parrish is at the NAA, at the USOC's behest, to try to establish a program of excellence based on sound principles. Just read his words in the USA Archery Magazine, and on the NAA website (http://www.usarchery.org) 

I do worry at how many of the old guard school, of whatever age, will not only refuse to admit or agree that there is a need to change to a newer system of coach certification and training, but will decide to actively work to prevent anyone else from attempting to improve the lot of archers in the US. Actively working AGAINST evolution out of stubborness, insecurity, personal enmity or spite, or whatever. I hope that is not a significant negative factor but time will tell. I do know that when dealing with a large organization of indepent yahoos, change takes a lot of effort and time. This has to be a long-term commitment of years of work, not an overnight miracle cure.

PS - if you have a JOAD or a 4-H shooter cadre of kids, please post your information to the TSAA searchable database. A week does not go by that I do not get an email from someone who used it and succeeded (or failed) in finding a JOAD for their little Johnnie or Susie to get started in. 
http://texasarchery.org/JOAD/clubdata/Default.asp


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

TexARC
Right now we lose them because there is no "go to" next level of coaching. For example said:


> Yep, Ron got it right. In my part of Texas the 4H program is designed to introduce kids to archery. There are 6 groups of customers:
> 1) What is archery all about
> 2) Minimum amount to complete record book (sort of like a scout merit badge)
> 3) Want to be a better bowhunter
> ...


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

It isnt about having 400 kids in every school flinging arrows. It isnt about having 1 or 2 camps a year. It doesnt take a huge number of archers. It doesnt take millions of dollars. It is about getting the right archers, training with the right coaches, on a full time basis, with a specific goal. This is what has happened in Australia. It isnt like they have a 1300+ shooter on every corner. They simply focused their resources on a program that allowed what they have to truly excell. If the NAA wants to build a better program for internationally succeful archers, start small. Find a great coach, one with a track record of success. Ackowledge the fact that their focus is developing high perfomance archers, and build a program specifically for that purpose. RIght now, they are so busy dealing with the businsess of being everythign for everyone...
In almost any other sport, if you wish to "take it to the next level"...you must travel and stay at their National training center. I dont see that same level of athlete coming out of the present NAA system.
It is unfortunate, but in North America(we have the same problem in Canada) our talent pool in archery is spread so thinly across our various diciplines. Archers can choose from 3-D, field, compound, recurve, etc etc etc...it is any wonder with our talents spread out that we are in this situation? What choices in archery does an aspiring Korean archer have...FITA...


----------



## TexARC (Mar 5, 2003)

Xs24-7 said:


> It isnt about having 400 kids in every school flinging arrows. ....If the NAA wants to build a better program for internationally succeful archers, start small. ....RIght now, they are so busy dealing with the businsess of being everythign for everyone...


You make some good points, but, no offense, I must disagree profoundly with a few of them, since I do not see this as an either-or-proposition. Your last sentence above has been repeated by many so often one might think it is true just because it is said so much, but it definitely IS NOT acceptable:!: 
I think "being everything for everyone"? is JUST what the NAA can be, by being bold and positive. 

Who says the NAA can't minister to the JOAD kids, the High School Teams to come, the collegiate Teams to come, AND the natural next step, the world champs and olympic hopefuls? These are not mutually exclusive programs, they are a natural synergistic combination, a solid pyramid of archers, if you will. And the foundation is good, just not as wide as it can be, and there are a few blocks not yet in place up near the top.  We don't need to make huge drastic changes, just a few sharp and fundamental ones.


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

I'm another middle aged nobody, but I do have a point I'd like to make that may be of some use.

I only recently "discovered" target archery as field archery has always been my first love. The only thing that has spurred my interest is that there have been several shoots I could attend, mostly Senior Olympics events shooting the American 900.

If you want to get people interested in target archery, there needs to be more target archery going on. For the 28 years I was away from this sport I was involved in practical pistol competition. What made that sport grow, and it is wide spread and heavily attended, is that there were monthly matches in most cities and towns around the country. Just six, or eight or maybe 12 people getting together and shooting - on a regular basis.

I've noticed in archery, events are few and far between. Yea, people who love the sport keep practicing for the big events, but others loose interest without a shoot/tourney to go to on a regular basis. I said earlier I loved field archery. Despite that love, I don't get to do it much because no one is putting on field archery matches. It will never grow or come back if no one is doing it. The same fundamental truth applies to target archery. If there isn't any of it going on (or only a limited amount), how on earth will it grow or attract more people.

Thanks for hearing me out, Dave


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Dave T,
Excellent point. I was thinking along those lines a while back. Couldn't agree with you more.


----------



## Jbird (May 21, 2002)

*I Don't Get It*

I think we have the people who can win, they just don't go to the international competitions. DC makes them all and is certainly a threat to win any of the events he attends. Mary Zorn is maybe the best female shooter in the world and she doesn't even go (except NYC). What's up with that? When you throw in Reo, Braden G., and bunch of others, we certainly have the talent to hang with anyone in compound. I guess the Female Recurve arena is a lost ball in high weeds as the Koreans seem to have a lock on it. Our great male recurvers are either getting old, have quit, or lost interest.


----------



## atyau (Oct 11, 2004)

I would have to say that the NAA definitely needs to be reorganized. For example I have no first hand experience with mainland JOAD or even NAA programs. But, out here in Hawaii we don't have ANY NAA Support. The city wants to close down our only 2 ranges (which aren't very good either, but a whole other story...), and from what I understand the clubs/groups that represent the ranges have repeatedly contacted the NAA for help/support with either no response or the good ole "nothing we can do". So, without any public (or private...) ranges here in Hawaii archery will most definitely die out. You will always have your hardcore hunters & shooters that will shoot in their back yards or even out in our forest etc. But, for anyone that wanted to get started they would have no were to learn (safely), no club support, or even a place to go and get the advice we all take for advantage at our local fields. So, I definitely think that the NAA needs to reorganize in every aspects...Protect the share holds that we already have (I know that our fields aren’t the only ones being threatened to be closed…), start new programs where there currently are none (for example a strong JOAD program in EVERY state, and a school program is a must!), and support our athlete's & coaches better.

As to why our shooters don't win internationally; its not that we don't win because we do from time to time. I think something that Mr. Shull in his AF article says it best, we don't have the same number of athletes to select from like the Koreans. What does that mean? Think about another thing he said in his "one year later" article, he says he lost the World University trials because he didn't take his opponents seriously, and they beat him. Our top shooters know they are the best, and know they are good, so the only thing they have to worry about other is countries or having a "bad day"; while the Koreans are in a constant "struggle" to stay on the top. I think that is what makes them better than us, having to "fight" to stay on top.
If you want to flame me for what I just said, go ahead it’s honestly what I think. And, what makes this country great is the fact that we can speak our minds without fear of prejudice or retribution.
Happy New Year, and GL in 2k5!


----------



## GONZO (Sep 9, 2003)

Jbird said:


> I think we have the people who can win, they just don't go to the international competitions. DC makes them all and is certainly a threat to win any of the events he attends. Mary Zorn is maybe the best female shooter in the world and she doesn't even go (except NYC). What's up with that? When you throw in Reo, Braden G., and bunch of others, we certainly have the talent to hang with anyone in compound. I guess the Female Recurve arena is a lost ball in high weeds as the Koreans seem to have a lock on it. Our great male recurvers are either getting old, have quit, or lost interest.


 well i think it has alot to do with economics, i am sure it is a financial struggle to make all of these turnys , equipment, trainning time , coaching, air fair, i am sure unless one is financially independant ,they , like us wanna be`s have to pick where and what shoots they can attend , i am sure the pro`s have to attend shoots that pay to help keep there profession stable.

i know it is a struggle with me to get to attend all the turnys i want too . 
as far as olympics , i agree with leighton , the record for paying the olympic hopefuls is pretty poor so i am sure if there were more money availible to help them train ,etc... i am sure we would see more participants taking it too the level it needs to be. just something that came to mind


----------



## huggybear (Sep 30, 2004)

"I've also said all along that there really are just two, and lately a third, archer in the U.S. that is capable of being competitive internationally."

Thanks for the confidence booster! I guess shooting 339 and 338 @70m in major competitions in one year isn't competitive....

By the way, change is in progress, so there's no real need for a survey Ron The changes won't be over night, but beware, there are several "persons" out there resistant to that change. I have a feeling we'll learn about the new changes soon, it's just a matter of time.


----------



## utahhotshot (Nov 18, 2004)

I could get myself in trouble for this but here goes anyway. I know there is some resistance to the NAA plans - but I think the resistance is misunderstood by many. Most long time NAA coaches know that changes need to be made, and because they've worked within the programs (and seen success and failure) they have some good suggestions and good insight. But - no one asked for their ideas. Any one of them, given the budget and the freedoms that the new coach will be offered, could probably turn out top level archers.

Whether it is the case or not, the perception is that the NAA chose not to listen to these coaches, and not to consider them for the position. Most of these coaches have put in many years as volunteers; the opportunity to be a national coach and actually be paid a decent salary has been a dream. When the opportunity finally came about, they weren't even considered.

If nothing else, the new NAA plan has been a Public Relations failure - and it's probably not too late to fix it!


----------



## huggybear (Sep 30, 2004)

To be perfectly honest, I don't think there are but maybe 3 coaches in the US that I think could do the job that the NAA is wanting. And 2 of those coaches haven't really done much for the NAA. Yes, I'm sure there are some coaches that the national coaching position would be a dream job, but should the NAA hire someone at that position just because they've volunteered years of work? I don't think so. Anytime you are hiring someone for a position, it needs to be the BEST person for the job that you can get. Seniority really doesn't mean much when you look at the way we've performed over the last 8-12 years. We've got to be honest about our coaching system. It doesn't really work because there is no system.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Thanks for the confidence booster! I guess shooting 339 and 338 @70m in major competitions in one year isn't competitive....


Guy, your confidence is up to you. I wasn't singling out anyone, but let's call a spade a spade. When it comes to our international competition, there really are only two or three recurvers here in the U.S. that put that little seed of doubt (fear?) in the mind of their competitors as to whether or not they can be beat. That's what I call being internationally competitive...showing up at a tournament and having everyone take notice. Or, having a legitimate chance to actually win any tournament they show up at, anywhere in the world.

IMO, one would need to be capable of shooting a 339 followed by a 338, then go on to average 112's in the O.R. to consistently be in a position to win an international tourney. At least, that's what the numbers tell me.



> To be perfectly honest, I don't think there are but maybe 3 coaches in the US that I think could do the job that the NAA is wanting. And 2 of those coaches haven't really done much for the NAA


And then you wrote that? Looks like you're calling a spade a spade too  

Sometimes the truth smarts a bit  

John.


----------



## huggybear (Sep 30, 2004)

John,

I know of more than 2 or 3 archers that have done well internationally(Vic, Butch, Joe, Jason, Jenny of course, Sagar, Shull, myself, and some others). About the only one that I can say has been completely dominant internationally has been Jenny. 

Anyway, enough said about that topic. The real issue is:

Our coaching system, or lack there of, is the reason for our "2 or 3 internationally competitive archers". It is only through improvement there that we will gain depth, and I think we will be on a good track this year with the coming changes. Also, there are many great coaches in the US, but only a few that could handle the responsibility of the national coach position. There are many coaches that would be a great part of the program.

On a side note, I don't think you were some "nobody" at the trials. You're a good shooter, and with a 49lb draw weight with a 32 inch drawlength, you definitely had an advantage in the wind there.


----------



## onetimearc1440 (Jan 2, 2005)

*facts...*

facts...

* The U.S. has had one of the most successful archery programs as a whole and one bad tournament (2004 Olympics) has everyone picking at the system and crying "what went wrong?". At the Olympics anything can happen. The Korean men are definitely at the top of the heap and not one of them medaled individually. According to a lot of attitudes here, they must have a terrible system. Why are we going to emulate it? [sarcasm]

* 4th at the 2004 Olympics for the U.S. men is far from terrible and one arrow on either team could have changed that outcome and put them on the podium. The men were definitely competitive.

* Look at the past two Olympics (1996, 2000). The Men were Gold as a team AND Individually in 1996. The top archery nation in the world for Men at the Olympics. In 2000, the Men Team again reached the podium with a Bronze and had a silver individual. Again one of the world leaders in Men archery.

* The coach for both teams was Lloyd Brown who has to be one of the most decorated archery coaches internationally in the last 8 years. Lloyd was also the personal coach of Justin Huish since he was a kid and Justin's double gold performance says a lot for both his skill and Lloyd's coaching.

****

On the other hand we seem to have a few individuals with axes to grind against Lloyd and sadly these individuals are in power at the NAA. They also seem to be very active here. This skews the facts.

Has anyone at the NAA thanked Lloyd? Was he considered for this new full-time position? If he was a part of so many Olympic medals as a part-time coach what could he do if he had the resources to put together a full program?

***********

And John Magera... it was not luck that got you on to that team. It is not that there was no depth. You shot great at the trials and maintained good scores at the event regardless of the winds. You have been in archery a long time and did not just pick up a bow in the last year. Some of the best archers in the world shoot multiple bow styles and each style improves the overall ability of the archer. You were a great archer before you ever started shooting Olympic style. You should consider what you did a great indicator of ability and not belittle your achievement.


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

*The USOC must think so...*

Does the system need changing? Clearly, the USOC thinks it does. Just read Tom Parrish's papers for a good explanation of why the USOC thinks as it does. 

I believe that Tom's papers have indeed been quite accurate in diagnosing the problems faced by U S Archery. However, it is one thing to diagnose, quite another to prescribe a cure. I find his papers, as insightful as they are on how we got here, a bit short on prescription details. Yes, he has provided a reasonably accurate chronology and description of the current state of Olympic archery in the US. But, he has provided only surface outlines of how he thinks exisiting programs / policies can and should change and new programs / policies implemented.

It can be argued that that has to be the case: a large part of the improvement in U S Olympic archery will have to come from the programs/policies advocated and put in place by the National Coach. If the National Coach is not given appropriate input into the formulation of a national coaching rubric, a large part of his potential for improvement will be diminished or perhaps even be non-existent. A key assessment for any candidate for the national coach position is, "Will I have the authority appropriate to the responsibility?"

Nonetheless, I wish Tom had detailed more of his vision - I (hope and) believe that he has more in mind than he has commited to these papers. 

If the NAA is not successful in its search for a National Coach - that is, if the National Coach, whomever it turns out to be, is not given adequate resources and authority to accomplish the task set before him/her, then the NAA should no longer be the National Governing Body for Olympic Archery in the United States. In the larger context, for the NAA to continue as NGB for US Olympic archery: if the fortunes of U S Olympic archery do not improve, it must not be because the NAA did not give the sport an opportunity to flourish once again.

The bottom line: the USOC has mandated changes in the US Olympic archery program. If the NAA wishes to continue as NGB, it has no choice to comply as best it can. 

All NAA members who support the NAA's efforts in this regard should make their views and support known to their respective BOG members. Conversely, if you don't agree with the NAA's position on these issues, you should also make your views known!


----------



## Reo (May 23, 2002)

I love how we all think that a new coach will fix it all. The sadd part is that this will never work the way it does in another country. We live in a free country and the NAA is is a open org.. If you don't whant to do what a coach says are they going to kick you off the team I think not. I know of shooter that said the f word and bad mouthed another country on there national tv. Nothing was done to him not even a little suspention. 

The other thing is JOAD I think that it is good for kids but it will not give us any more shooters then we have right now. How many kids shoot that there parents don't? I would bet that it is less than 10% of all JOAD and that is not to many. I hope that the NAA sees this and doesn't waist the money they are talking about. 

The thing that they need to look at is a team that has done very well in the past few years with things all being the same. I think that the mens and the womans compounds have done very well at the worlds. The thing that I think we all need to know is that I live to win archery shoots not to just be a olympic shooter every four years. I have 10 to 12 shoots that every year that I have to work realy hard to win. How many does a top us recurve shooter have? This is what I think the NAA needs to do with some of this money is to hold a shoot or two and pay the money out that way. They will force the shooter to work hard for the money plus the exposure will be good. I think that this will help get more shooters not just hope that JOAD some day gives us more shooters. 

Reo Wilde


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Guy, 

I'm afraid that we define "competitive" differently, that's all. All the archers you mentioned are world class without question. However, we are far from the dominance we once had, and that we have earned in many other sports.



> Our coaching system, or lack there of, is the reason for our "2 or 3 internationally competitive archers". It is only through improvement there that we will gain depth


I couldn't agree more. The "coaching maze" and lack of access here in the U.S. has left me bewildered more than once. I am still very grateful for the opportunity to attend your seminar. It was the right thing at the right time for me. Affordable, Accessible, and a "no question is a stupid question" atmosphere which I appreciated. 

Arc1440,

I appreciate the kind words (and I don't belittle the achievement), but if you do the math, my match average from the trials was hardly what I would call "internationally competitive." After all the matches were shot, I averaged exactly 160.0 (18 arrow score) and that will rarely get you through the second elimination round of an international tourney, if even the first. 

I know personally dozens of guys who if they ever put down their hunting bows or 3-D target bows and took up FITA style, all of us would be in trouble. Why don't they? Too much travel and too much money required to compete at the national level is one reason.

I think a country with a rich and accomplished archery history like our own should be able to put forward at least 10 archers from each dicipline (men, women, compound and recurve) who can routinely place well and 
WIN internationally. As many folks as we have out there shooting bows every weekend, this should not be a problem. They just need more access and a better reason to shoot FITA than what currently exists.

How many USAT recurve members would be nervous if all of the compounders from ASA, IBO and NFAA chose to put down their compounds and seriously take up the recurve?  But they would need a reason first.

John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

when I first started coaching JOAd-now 9 or so years ago, I had a very very talented boy. He was the son of a divorced mom with not much money so I gave him some gear and took him to a few shoots. A year later-he was doing well in the 15 and under division he asked me whether he should continue in archery or put his efforts into singing-an area where he had lots of talent too and had been professionally trained. I asked him what he could get out of singing-a full ride scholarship to Julliard was his answer. I hated to lose this kid but in his case he made the right choice.

In some societies, this boy wouldn't have had this choice. In some societies, kids go to the sport most suited to them or they slave in the rice paddies or factories. In our society, kids gravitate towards the sports that are most popular-and hence will make them most popular or in some cases rich. as long as this is the case, we will have more good basketball players and quarterbacks than we "need" and not enough archers, badminton players or greco=roman wrestlers to be optimal for winning the most gold medals. I coach Darrell Pace's son-he has loads of talent but prefers baseball and football. a kid that starts on the Duke Basketball team or the Florida State Quarterback will get more press, more money and more fame that Doug's dad ever did.

that is what we are dealing with in the USA. how the NAA will make archery on the same status level in a FREE SOCIETY as tennis or ice skating or basketball is a question I doubt any of us can answer


----------



## huggybear (Sep 30, 2004)

"The U.S. has had one of the most successful archery programs as a whole and one bad tournament (2004 Olympics) has everyone picking at the system and crying "what went wrong?"."

Now when was the last time we placed individually at the world championships? How many world records have our recurve archers shot? How many world ranking events have we won? We have how many 1300 level shooters? Exactly. I'm sorry, as an American, I'm not content with our current track record. Also, it is interesting that the 96 Olympic Gold Medalist says he won because of luck(I know he's told me that!). Look at the world ranking of our teams, doesn't that look like a successful program?

"The coach for both teams was Lloyd Brown who has to be one of the most decorated archery coaches internationally in the last 8 years. Lloyd was also the personal coach of Justin Huish since he was a kid and Justin's double gold performance says a lot for both his skill and Lloyd's coaching."

Actually, the real coach of the 96 team was Mike King. Coaches aren't "decorated" either. They aren't there to steal the archer's glory. The coach's responsibility is to guide and develope an archer to their highest potential. Our team coaches have been "managerial" coaches. That is they are there to say "shoot strong shots..." and make sure the archer gets to the competition on time. Other than that, many of them have had little to do as far as developing a team. As for being part time, he wasn't the "part time" Olympic coach, he was the full time Olympic Coach in 2000. He has only been the part time Resident Athlete coach, and that program has had very little success. 

I'm sorry that you feel that Lloyd is being picked on by the NAA, but the truth of the matter is that the RA program has not been very successful under the guidance of Lloyd. The National Coach Position is open for ANYONE to apply. I'm sure that Lloyd applied. If he is chosen as the best candidate for the job then he will be it. If they decide there is someone better they will be the coach.

You must understand that we need the BEST person for the job. We need someone who has knowledge on technique, training, and the mental aspect as well. In the end, the NAA will choose the best person for the job, and I don't feel that they should choose someone based on past volunteer time alone! 

Reo, I don't think 1 coach will make the difference, the difference will be a SYSTEM! We need a system, we need info on training, technique, etc, and we need to have that info available for coaches. How many coaches that are level 3 or 4 actually teach what they "learn" in the courses? Very few I would guess. A system is what Tom is getting at.


----------



## TexARC (Mar 5, 2003)

First, the dialogue here is fantastic, and I am in total agreement that each NAA member should contact their BOG representative to express politely and clearly their opinions, and ASK for information at the same time. 


Reo said:


> I love how we all think that a new coach will fix it all. The sadd part is that this will never work the way it does in another country. We live in a free country and the NAA is is a open org.. Reo Wilde


You make some great points and some assumptions that may not be necessarily accurate. One point that's great is that compound shooters can compete for MONEY to MAKE A FREAKING LIVING, and there's not nealry that much money available for recurve archers. So they do it for love or something else - that is profoundly different motivator.

On the other hand, many do not think only "one" coach will fix it - unless you mean the TOP COACH, given the resources and authority to design a SYSTEM of many coaches that toe his line, might have better results.

A quick count of the Olympic Records and Outdoor Recurve World Records, on the FITA site, shows there is a total of FORTY-TWO RECORDS recognized. Guess how many of these records are held by Koreans? 
all but 5. And several of those 5 can be argued to be a product of Korean sensibilities - Ukraine, Taipe, and Australia. Oh yeah, the US? We have ....one team record from 1996. 
Now, records are not the sole means of evaluating success. More importantly, what scores are archers capable of routinely shootin? How many US recurve archers are capable of shooting a 1300 FITA? You want to play in Europe, you better bring your 1300+ game. 

Something really confused me, using the word waste in conjunction with JOAD: If you do NOT start with kids at 7 or 10 years of age, as JOAD does, where in the world will the cadre of excellence develop? You rightly point out that Americans are different that Koreans and we will NOT, for example, put up with taking our kids out of elementary school and immersing them in archery-only schools, or the like. 

So we cannot afford to NOT invest small amounts in JOAD support and development. I don't think it is that much money - most of JOAD operation, I suspect naively, comes out of the volunteerism, the shop sponsorship, the dedication of the JOAD coaches, and the parents of the kids. Waste of the money? hardly. Chris Glass, Braden Gellenthein, Erika Anschutz are excellent examples of JOAD. Want to throw that away? not me  

And yes, Olympic archers and Paralympic archers are different from the professional compound archer. You could say they are doing this for the medal, not the money. Granted, the para gold medal winner, if US, could have taken home a performance bonus of 2,500 dollars. The Olympic gold medal comes with, I think, $25,000 for the US athlete. (good indication of the relative value some place on disabled athletes, perhaps) They aren't doing this for the money, but for the honor and glory of competition. 
Makes me wonder what the other countries honor their gold medallists with - Korea, I think they get a house for life. I dunno about Australia, France, GB, Italy but it might be interesting in another thread. 

Going to leave some other thoughts unvoiced, before I write another book in this thread. But I will say that my daughter, the real archer in the family, has benefited greatly from the NAA's coaches in the past - Lloyd Brown in particular taught my daughter several years ago and enabled a great breakthrough in technique. I owe him a lot for her growth then and for his patience in teaching me how to coach her as well. But then we ran into the problem I addressed at the beginning of this thread - there was not a good path for her to grow in when she began to plateau, he was spread too thin(IMHO) and we also ran into some profound form problems (thanks to another "NAA-certified coach" that did us both real emotional harm). 

There is only so much that any one coach in our current "system" can do because there are only so many archers he can work with, whether it is Lloyd or Tom P (who helped her also) and frankly any system that would certify the other coach has a real QA problem. We need a better system of uniformity and continuity, based on a sound philosophy. We need coaching depth as well as archer depth.

BTW - I lacked the knowledge to help her get past that particular coach-induced hurdle/injury and was extremely fortunate in finding an independent coach that knows, understands, and teaches the Korean method, who also had enough time to work with us both, and could help us to continue growing in the right, succesful, KOREAN way. I'm sold. 

I just found out today that thanks fully to that coach and her own hard work, Lindsey is 14th in the ranking system for Senior (able-bodied) Female USAT 2005. Pretty damn good all things considered.


----------



## Lloyd (Aug 30, 2004)

I really didn't want to get into this thread, but there are a few items that might need clarification with FACTS.



> Actually, the real coach of the 96 team was Mike King. Coaches aren't "decorated" either. They aren't there to steal the archer's glory. The coach's responsibility is to guide and develope an archer to their highest potential. Our team coaches have been "managerial" coaches. That is they are there to say "shoot strong shots..." and make sure the archer gets to the competition on time. Other than that, many of them have had little to do as far as developing a team. As for being part time, he wasn't the "part time" Olympic coach, he was the full time Olympic Coach in 2000. He has only been the part time Resident Athlete coach, and that program has had very little success.


Mike King was not the real coach. While he was listed as the head coach, he was NEVER on the field during any part of the competition. I was with the Men's team on the field in the box for every match. Team coaching involves a lot more than what Guy suggests. Anyone who has been on teams that I coach knows I am a lot more than a "managerial" coach. I spent over 100 days away from home training with the 1996 Olympic Team. Justin was a Resident Athlete for 1 1/2 years prior to the games, and Butch and Rod trained at the OTC for 5 months. That was a successful program. Anyone from any other country would think so.

The NAA's lack of committment to an RA program has been the greatest detriment to it's success. We begin every year with a question over whether or not there will be a program - in 1997, 2001, and again in 2005. It's like nobody checked the calender to see if there was a day after the Olympic Games. Even in the Fall of 2003 they tried to kick everyone out except 2. This was the biggest Resident Program the NAA has ever had, yet they only arranged for 16 hours per week of coaching. There were a lot more issues that weighed heavlily on this program, but this is not the forum to air all that.


----------



## Welshman (Oct 5, 2002)

The best coach in the world can't take a piece of coal and polish it into a diamond.
But any decent coach, or better, can take a diamond in the rough and turn it into a gem.
Coaching is a minor problem in the BIG picture.
We have to find ways to find those diamonds in the rough. And they are everywhere. We just aren't able to look for them where they all can be found anymore.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> I know one former Olympic archer who has said they are often recognized for other events they have competed in, but not for their Olympic achievements. As long as people have to stay up until 1:00 a.m. to catch 6 arrows of an Olympic match on a channel that almost nobody has in their home, nothing will change. It really is an image problem, I think. Every JOAD kid in the U.S. should have been able to tune into the Olympic archery coverage at a reasonable hour, or at least tape it from one of the major networks. It's a shame that a lot of the JOAD kids still haven't seen any of the Olympic archery coverage!


John, I haven't even seen ANY Olympic archery footage.  The network said it'd be on at some time in the ridiculously early morning, so I taped it, and what did I tape? Well, I don't remember, but it wasn't archery.  

-Leighton


----------



## atyau (Oct 11, 2004)

Leighton said:


> John, I haven't even seen ANY Olympic archery footage.  The network said it'd be on at some time in the ridiculously early morning, so I taped it, and what did I tape? Well, I don't remember, but it wasn't archery.
> 
> -Leighton


Yes, I believe it was Beach Volleyball (  ), but its one thing to tape it...Another to stay up for nothing


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Ron, I couldn't agree more. If we actually made it possible for recurve shooters to earn a decent living, I am sure there would be a lot more of them. And I would put down money that at least a few of them would be competitive internationally.

-Leighton



TexARC said:


> First, the dialogue here is fantastic, and I am in total agreement that each NAA member should contact their BOG representative to express politely and clearly their opinions, and ASK for information at the same time.
> 
> You make some great points and some assumptions that may not be necessarily accurate. One point that's great is that compound shooters can compete for MONEY to MAKE A FREAKING LIVING, and there's not nealry that much money available for recurve archers. So they do it for love or something else - that is profoundly different motivator.
> 
> ...


----------



## huggybear (Sep 30, 2004)

Good post Ron, although, I think the thing we lack more than funding to pay for recurve archers is heart and dedication. Look at me for example, I have a degree in Mathematics and a minor in Business, and I am working part time and have rejected the idea of a career job to allow myself time to train. There have been many times that I just scraped by in order to pay for competitions, but hey, anyone can live off Ramen noodles for a while And once the resident program resumes, I will be training again.

Thanks for the clarification Lloyd. The thing I liked about the 96 Olympic Team is that those guys trained together at the training center for the whole summer or longer, they were a team. 

Many of our team coaches have been managerial coaches as far as the competitions I have been to are concerned. I've never seen a US coach say, "ok Guy, I want you to shoot this number of arrows at this distance and so on, and this is the reason why...etc..." It's been more of let the kids go play in the park. However, when you look at the other teams, they look so much more together and with it and more professional.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> and what did I tape? Well, I don't remember, but it wasn't archery.


Leighton, a couple folks 'round here told me they got "queer eye for the straight guy" instead...    BOY were they pissed. 

Still, the only footage I've seen was taped for me by Joy Fahrenkrog and sent out of her generosity. A few thousand folks in Illinois (and I'm sure everywhere else) were very dissapointed. It's really pathetic that a sport as popular as archery can't air some decent Olympic footage.

I see this as a MAJOR issue, since there were likely thousands of young archers throughout the U.S. that may have been inspired to pick up a recurve after seeing the Olympic coverage. (And now I see the Hamm brothers have their own "reality" show. I love those guys, they are fine young men, but where the heck is "reality" these days???)

I mean, what other REAL incentive is there for a young archer to shoot a recurve? Especially when they already hunt with a compound, and compound manufacturers are "sponsoring" kids these days!!!  That makes a BIG impression on other young kids. Trust me. I've seen more than one JOAD boy get caught up in the "HOYT vs. Mathews" crap and it's all because of the money these companies are dumping into advertising. (someone please explain to me why the JOAD girls never get caught up in this, and actually prefer to shoot recurves...  )

John.


----------



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

Guy,

I see a trend here and elsewhere regarding some people's spin on Lloyd's accomplishments and I don't think I like it.

Regardless...

What Lloyd was too modest to say is that the 96 team would not ALLOW the "official" head coach on the FOP during the event- they all wanted Lloyd and Lisa Franseen (the USOC shrink at the time) there. There was a reason for this, which is related to the fact that Lloyd earned the confidence of the team during the months leading up to the event.


----------



## hkim823 (Oct 6, 2004)

To me there are two glaring problems with US Target Archery right now.

1) There just aren't enough people in the sport. We don't attract enough people into shooting for shooting's sake. We're the largest sport hunting nation in the world, but other countries with stricter weapon laws have a larger percentage of people who participate in organized target archery. I think that's a real shame how we couldn't captialized on just the sheer number of people who own a bow and arrow to make them into target archers. There are plenty of archers in the United States, it's just that most of them don't care to hit anything smaller than a 3" target less than 20 yards away (to get that kill shot). There must be something that we can do as a community of archers to change that mentality though. 

I came from a non hunting background into the sport living in an urban area, and took it up because I was exposed to it at a summer camp. Most of my friends though have zero exposure to archery because they never met anyone who was shooting just for shooting's sake, and it never crossed their mind that you could persue such an activity in the city (archery is a country sport). I think the NAA maybe needs to push the idea that archery isn't just for wide open spaces, but can be done at a high level even in the most urban areas of the US. Reach out to people living in an area that may never get any exposure to archery. 

2) It's great that we have the JOAD and the Sr. Archery Training program in this country, but from what I've seen besides a few programs, JOAD is generally a place to hang out and to shoot for scores, but no one really trains all that hard because there's no consequence if you don't want to advance in levels. No one is really pushed to train hard, just shoot for fun and those who do want to be pushed aren't given as much attention and pushed as hard as they want (without it resorting to private coaching). I think maybe a standardized national "Elite JOAD" training regime could be started to isolate the truly gifted group and to bring these athletes into more than just the recreational club archer where the focus would be on training overall mentally and physically with and without a bow, not just shooting as many arrows as possible in a day. Maybe there should be camps just like the Level III and Level IV coaching "camps" at the OTCs, except for atheletes instead of coaches. One could qualify by being nominated by JOAD clubs around the country and be sent there by the clubs to train for a week with other top notch shooters, thus giving them exposure to other shooters they can compete against, and giving them access to our best coaching staff. 

Just a few ideas floating around in my head.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I think maybe a standardized national "Elite JOAD" training regime could be started to isolate the truly gifted group and to bring these athletes into more than just the recreational club archer where the focus would be on training overall mentally and physically with and without a bow, not just shooting as many arrows as possible in a day.


I think this is a fine idea. Amy Williams and I have been talking for a while about creating a "team elite" within her current JOAD program, for just the reasons you indicate. To give those with a real desire to excel and compete another reason to train, and reward them with better individual attention.

The limiting factor here is coaching. I think it would not take long for most "JOAD elite" team members to out-pace their JOAD director's ability to coach them. We have several in that category right now. If it were not for Mark and I donating our time, those kids would be out of luck. Already their parents are frustrated when they look at the "next level" (i.e. college) for thier kids. 

John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

John, I will meet with you at the ATA show to discuss our JOAD elite program that we have in the CJO


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

How is it that...despite only having 2 sons...Dee Wilde was able to produce 2 world class archers? How is it that Terry Wunderle is able to turn out great archers year after year? How is it that my club in Canada, has been able to sweep the medals at the Canadian Nationals each year since 2001, and win the gold every year since 1998? Ever notice that some clubs/regions/cities have a disproportionate number of "great archers"...I think, by examining this, you will find a that there are ways to run a "successful program"...it isnt something in the water. It isnt that we have a huge population(we have a club of 20 archer with 7 archers who have shot 1370+ compound) We also had our first recurve 1300 this year....With one recurve shooter in our club....why do you see success in pockets?....knowedgable coaching. A competitive shooting environment. I know I will get flamed for this, but I think, that there should be a level of coaching, within the system, that madates shooter performance. No, not the coaches shooting ability, but the ability of the coach to teach archers to shoot great scores.
If you have been a level 3 coach for 20 years and have never produced a 1300 Recurve shooter, you are doing things wrong, and there should be some way of recoginizing those coaches who have PROVEN their success on the field, not only in a book. Once you have identified those coaches who consitantly produce success, you will be better able to manage your coaching resources. Achieveing a high coaching level should be more than being able to write a test, papers, and a report.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jim, I look forward to it.



> A competitive shooting environment.


This does account for a lot of success, I think. There is nothing better than a friendly but competitive shooting environment for motivating archers to reach their potential. I have seen many JOAD kids lose interest because there was no reason to improve. They were tops in their class and age group, and kept beating the same kids every month, so eventually they lost interest.

Right here in my local area, we have a small group of traditional barebow shooters that regularly shoot together. We all got started through the encouragement of one fine man who has competed in the traditional division for years at the NFAA indoor nationals. We are great friends, but we are VERY competitive. Lots of ribbing and joking around, but when we get on the line, we are shooting for pride and bragging rights until we shoot again. Three of us are very evenly matched, and are able to break 270 and occasionally 280 on the NFAA indoor round. One in our group has only been shooting a bow (of any kind) for just over a year. That proves to me the value of being surrounded by competitive shooters.

John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

I agree John-my club tends to dominate the recurve division for two reasons-we have more kids and the other clubs don't tend to stress recurve. We also have more coaches as well which means we don't lose kids due to personality conflicts. several of my kids-especially my top junior boy (who finished 5th in both cadet outdoor nationals in 03) has always been somewhat lazy but now that the other clubs don't have anyone to challenge him, he has become even more slothful  on the other hand, I have two very good girls (one has olympian, the other has missed it by a couple points several times) in the junior division and a really talented cadet as well and all three practice extensively.

its a vicious cycle-we used to be weak and when Darrell and I started running the club we really tried to improve the level-now that we have won something like 90% of the JOAD recurve titles individually and team, it seems as if some of the other clubs have decreased in size and don't come to the tournaments to lose to our kids which causes some of our kids to slack off


----------



## hkim823 (Oct 6, 2004)

I agree, a club that has a high level of competition seems to just output great archers. I hate to put them on the spot, but when I lived in NYC, I shot at two clubs. One club was where I started and I only got so far with my shooting and I couldn't find anyone to help me, while the other (Proline Archery which is an AT sponser) helped me leaps and bounds in my shooting and it was solely because of the members of the club and their extremely high level of skill and knowledge about the sport and their willingness to share that with others.


----------



## farms100 (Jan 16, 2003)

Is it the job of the joad coach to push the kids so hard that they quit and give up archery? or is it the job of the joad coach to prod them and teach them techiques to become excellent archers?

I had the pleasure have been around several potential, as well as truly great athletes. (not just archery) the bottom line is the it the athlete who makes the decision from inside. Mom and dad can't force them to win consistanly. it is the Fire inside that make the person want to win. 

a kid a year younger than me in high school, was really smart, think he was 3 or 4 points from scoring perfect SAT's. just got full scholarship to his choice of cal tech, MIT and few others, a week later he killed himself. his parent drove him unmercifully, and look what it did.

For me leaving a path of broken children to get a gold medal is not worth it. I will push and prod my kids to become good and sucessful at what they do. I will not push them so hard they need therapy or far worse.

I guess the bottom line is you can't force your Joad kids to excel, all you can do is give him or her the skills needed to succeed.


----------



## hkim823 (Oct 6, 2004)

But at the same time I don't think that most clubs are giving the tools to let kids or adults excel as much as they can. I think it's mostly time though. And time is money. It's hard to run a sucessful JOAD program because of the time and money invovled to make it happen, both from the JOAD side and from the archer side.


----------



## Reo (May 23, 2002)

The system or the what ever you whant to call it will have a hard time working here. I know that in Aus. they kicked Jackson Fear off the team for not following the new coachs system. You think that if we get a good shooter like Butch that said he didn't like the coach. He would be kicked off no. I will go back to the example I gave of a US shooter that on a countrys national tv used the F word and bad mouthed that countrys shooters nothing was done and he has done a ton more with still nothing done. Loyd was another example they didn't like the coach the NAA picked for the 1996 team and they had to have Loyd come in. Were they all removed from the team I think not. 

I also think that in no terms did I say that a compound shooter could make a living in archery. I just said make them work harder and earn what they get plus get exposure for your dollar. I will also tell you that I know that the top shooters in anything have a love for it or they would never have the drive to put in the work they do. I know that a ton of people think money will fix everything but I will tell you that a drive or a love will far out way that. If they had more than one to two shoots a year that a recurver here in the US might get excited to win then that will help there drive and there practice habits. To only start to realy work hard every four year is our problem. If great shooters would put the work in every year that they do that last year it would make them shoot better on that 4th year. 

Reo Wilde


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

> That proves to me the value of being surrounded by competitive shooters.


That is exactly the point I was trying to make in my earlier post. I was involved in Practical Pistol Competition during my law enforcement career. I was always interested to note that most cops wouldn't participate in this. I found the reason was they didn't like being out shot by civilians. The civilians motivation was simply the fun of competition and winning. I was a match director for a number of years and two of the top shooters in the world (Rob Leatham and Brian Enos) used to come to the matches I put on. They didn't have coaches or systems, but they did have an incredible desire to win. They learned by doing, both in practice and (this is my point) in shooting matches most every weekend. Not every two or three months but nearly every weekend. They practiced during the week and shot in competition on the weekends and became the best in the world.

Even small local matches, like John was talking about, drive that will to improve and give you experience in what works and what doesn't. So many of you are arguing about coaching and systems. That doesn't produce anything (at least in our society) without the drive to win. That comes from within and is born and nurtured by competition.

There needs to be a lot more shooting gong on in my opinion, for target archery to grow and improve. My $.02 worth.

Dave


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Reo,
As the following two links show, Jackson Fear might not be the best example to make your point of not fitting into a system. It appears he has had trouble fitting into the legal system.

tom


http://www.olympics.com.au/default.asp?pg=home&spg=display&articleid=1001

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/22/1090464789958.html?from=storylhs


----------



## huggybear (Sep 30, 2004)

George,

I'm not "spinning" off Lloyd's accomplishments. I was simply responding to someone's statement saying that our national team was the best during the last 10 years. I'm sure that you agree we no longer have the edge we did in the 80's. And other than the bronze team at the WC in 99, when was the last time we had a medal at the world championships? The point is, the fact that we were able to hold on to the Olympics for 96 and 2000 doesn't mean we had a successful program. We lacked consistency and depth and we still do.

Another thing, I was trying to explain to those people that think Lloyd is getting picked on by the NAA the possible reasoning behind the NAA's choice to search for a national coach. I believe I read that you said you hoped the rumours were true. Now that does not mean that you think Lloyd is a bad coach, and the same goes for me.

Any time you try to explain or express your opinion on one of these forums you get bashed for it, or others think you're bashing them. So, screw it, I'm off. The NAA's not reading this anyway and neither are my competitors. It has no effect on how I will do in a competition and that's what is important to me. I thought it would be nice for some people to get a point of view from someone that's gone from nothing to 1300 level consistently...

I'm sorry I gave you that impression, George. It was just my two cents worth.


----------



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

Guy,

No problem, we should take this up over a beer... or a diet Dr pepper...


----------



## TexARC (Mar 5, 2003)

huggybear said:


> ...The NAA's not reading this anyway and neither are my competitors. ...


Look at the number of VIEWS this message thread has so far, and I'd say that someone at least is reading it. I'd bet a few are in the BOG. 

Guy, if people can't talk about it in open venues like this, then it remains whispered behind closed doors and the membership is left in the dark and politicking, rumor profligation and gossiping have a field day. 

By members writing directly to their BOG reps, but more importantly by having some give and take, we should all, I pray, gain more of a perspective. It's not a win-lose situation unless someone makes it so. I'd give the content of this thread at least four stars, so far. In fact I just gave it FIVE!


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

*Do you think the NAA is reading this thread?*

Guy doesn't think anyone at the NAA is reading this thread. Do you? Do you think the views expressed in this thread *should* be read by the NAA? How 'bout the USOC? 

If your answer is 'yes', then to make sure that it gets read, send it to 'em! Send it to Brad Camp, Tom P., and Darrel Pace. Their e-mail addresses are all publicly available on the NAA website (at least until they read this!). And for sure, forward it to your BOG rep. Make sure that the views expressed - preferably all of them, pro and con (but maybe thats asking too much!) - are put in front of the people who make or influence decisions concerning the topic under discussion. 

Of course, we can put them in front of them, but we can't make'em read the thing. All they have to do is hit the delete button. But, any representative of the NAA who shows a disregard for, and an unwillingness to discuss the issues and opinions that are the topic of this thread should hear the words made famous by D. Trump: "You'r fired!" 

I have forwarded what I regarded as relevant bits of various threads to various NAA folks from time to time, and have rec'd a confirming reply on every occasion. If you haven't done so, try it. (Ok, so now I expect to get some 'How could you do that to me?' e-mail from certain parties! But if participants here will follow thru, it will be well worth it.)

To retreat to a somewhat more serious tone, permit me to sum up and paint the big picture (as I see it - flame on if you disagree, and the more the better): The NAA and indeed U.S. Olympic archery could well be at a major crossroads here and now. Tom P. has well documented how much of the rest of the archery world has not only caught up with but has surpassed the U.S. in Olympic archery proficiency. The USOC appears less than happy with the U.S. medal count given the amount of money being spent and appears to be mandating changes, changes designed to make U.S. Olympic archery not merely competitive again, but in a position to win. 

The USOC appears to have given the NAA certain performance parameters which Tom P. has worked into his plan(s). These parameters appear to leave the details of just exactly how the NAA will see that U.S. Olympic archery regains world-class competitiveness to the NAA. That is, a National Coach will be hired (the broad strategy); the details of the programs/policies to put into place will be largely determined by that National Coach, given his mandate (the specifics of tactics).

Ok, so what happens if the National Coach is hired, changes are implemented, and U.S. Olympic / World Champs medal performance does not improve, given a reasonable period of time for the changes to be effective? Remember the Golden Rule? No, not that one. The one that says that the USOC has the gold so the USOC makes the rules?


----------



## huggybear (Sep 30, 2004)

George,

let's make that half a Dr. Pepper Heck I'll even throw in a whole one for you! But only half a one for JB and Justin, and some milk for Shull, j/k...

Good points all. Never considered it that way. Maybe we could add a specific portion of the Archerytalk forum for concerns and topics to be presented to the BOG or NAA. Whenever there's a new topic or concern, the thread automatically gets sent to all those on the BOG, Brad Camp, and Tom P... Just an extension of your guys idea.


----------



## James Park (Jan 4, 2003)

I have been around archery long enough (1960) to be able to remember that the USA absolutely dominated recurve archery at times. We definitely expected the US archers to win most big events. At those times I think we also saw most new thoughts on technique and equipment also coming from the US, with other countries then struggling to keep up.
Perhaps it is a little different now? Certainly the US keeps doing well on equipment innovations, but I am not now seeing the technique innovations coming from the US but from countries such as Korea and Australia. I think this makes a difference.
Another observation is that at the time of the great dominance of the US, just about every big event was decided over two FITA rounds, and archers such as Pace and Mckinney were a major step ahead of anyone else. Now, of course, these events are decided over matchplay of very few arrows, and the statistics are such that even the top FITA shooters do lose quite frequently. This alone makes it very difficult for a single country to continually dominate.
To see the real state of recurve competence in a country I would not look to who wins the matchplay events, but what level of score they shoot in the ranking round. That is: how many from the country reliably shoot well into the 1300's for a FITA ranking round? If that number is not high, then the country's standard is low, and even fewer will get through a matchplay event.


----------



## farms100 (Jan 16, 2003)

well the NAA is at a crosroads for sure. this can be veiwed as great opportunity or as something to be feared. Is this about developing a solid training methodology? Or is it just about internal politics and who get the cherry on top of the sundae?

I will point out that several other olympic sports have been in this samespot, reorganized and not only survived but excelled, few that come to mind are usa gymnastics, and the commitee who runs bobsled/luge events. 

Just to toss few Ideas out. 

Figure out good format for smaller local tournements to have some sort of matchplay system. To help with learning to shoot an OR round. As it stands the only places you shoot an OR round are the ranking events. Are there any good ways to train for an OR round?

How about some methodology about best way to use a fitness program to help you're archery. Maybe tailor some of the general sports mental programs to be more archery specific.

The real tough part will be showing coaches how to teach them properly, and allowing for our top potential archers spread across the country to learn these techniques.


----------



## JoeM (Mar 31, 2003)

Guy, I'm reading it.


----------



## palmer (Sep 23, 2003)

I'm going to throw out another idea I've mentioned before. I got bashed for it before, so I don't know why I'm sharing it again; maybe I'm a glutton for punishment.  I wish there were more events like the Gold Cup that don't require a person to take 3-5 days of vacation from work in order to attend. If you're holding down a full-time job, it really makes it tough to juggle work, family, and archery. For example, the expense to travel to Colorado for the National Target Championships would not bother me, my problem is taking a full week off work when I only have two to begin with. That leaves me with 1 week to attend 2 other NAA events plus any family trips, kid's shoots, etc. Some of the shorter duration events, the Texas shootout for example, falls on my daughter's state JOAD championship, so I will not be able to attend Texas.  I don't expect the NAA shoots to evolve around my or anybody else's schedule. It's just a shame there aren't a larger quantity of ranking events that span Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, instead of 1/2 a week or a full week.

In this country, our popular sports' athletes have the luxury of making a living at doing what they love. How many people really have that opportunity in archery? I'm guessing very few. So, how many adults have the practice time available to evolve into an excellent archer but can't participate in the events because life gets in the way, namely a job to pay the bills? How do we pull that talent into the NAA? Can't when they don't have the time available through the week. Recruit young talent all you want...what happens after high school or college when they get married, have kids, "life" affects everyone. If you're a professional baseball player, no problem, you can still play and pay the bills. Not nearly as easy to do in archery.

Now, don't flame me too badly.  I just wonder sometimes how alot of our better archers in the NAA juggle it all and still pay the bills.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

good point Palmer!! now here is the the dilemna. When I was an olympic style skeet shooter-up to 1992 or so, the US team for the following year was selected at a 400 target four day trials. If it was an olympic year, that was the olympic trials. Like archery, skeet shooting was a sport that one could earn an olympic slot while actually having a real job-Bob Schuley made several US Pan Am and one Olympic team while working 50-60 hours a week running his own business for example and Winston Halcomb made a couple trap teams while practicing dentistry. 

somewhere along the line, the "professional" full time army shooters and those who supported them tired of civilians making the team (you would see some guy like Brad Simmons train hard for several months before the trials and beat out army guys who shot almost every day for years) and not "performing" at the Olympics. The procedure was then made into several week long selection matches. do the math, those of us who have 2-4 weeks of vacation couldn't really attend three selection matches, an overseas trip (required to get your personal qualifying score etc). 

with this change, there are now half or 1/3 as many people attending the US nationals and far less grass roots skeet competitors.

do we want a korean system where the only expenditures are to create gold medalists? or do we want a system where more people can participate and enjoy archery.

frankly I prefer the latter if that is the only choices


----------



## palmer (Sep 23, 2003)

Jim, maybe my choice is selfish, but I prefer that latter as well...not only for myself but my daughter as well. My daughter has an overwhelming amount of potential at only 10 yrs. old, I've had several knowledgable people tell me so. If she grows older and loses interest in archery, sobeit, that's her choice. This is for fun anyway. What I fear is that as she becomes an adult, she runs into the same dilemma, life happens, and she gives up on archery because her entire life cannot revolve around it. How many olympic caliber archers have we lost because of that?

Do the Korean archers receive a "salary" per se, and if so, how far down the pyramid of archery talent do those benefits go?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

from what I understand, the Korean system is a pyramid-if you aren't good enough to make the jump from junior to HS team, you are done, if you aren't good enough to go from HS team to University team, you are done and if you aren't good enough to be on a paid corporate archery position after college you are done.

At my shop, anyone with 8 bucks can walk in off the street, rent a decent bow, get some help and shoot. I don't believe there is such a system in Korea.

Korea archery is alot like the shooting sports in many communist countries-the olympic shooters are well trained but the average person can't even own a gun let alone shoot skeet or ISU small bore rifle or free pistol.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Guy, there are plenty reading your posts...  

I completely agree with Mr. Park. This again is why I say we only have a handfull of internationally competitive (I.C.) archers. And the match play format has allowed us to have a disproportionate amount of success, considering the level at which we "qualify". If you consider our qualifying scores in Athens, I think we had a disproportionate amount of success. At least, that's the way I see it.

Again, I think that in a country with as many archers as we have, there is no reason that we sholdn't have 10 or more men and women capable of shooting 1325+ on a regular basis. And wouldn't each of those 10 have to work just a little bit harder if they had that kind of competition? Just breaking 1300 isn't going to impress anyone any more. Why we have done so well in the match play format is something I really think we need to study, understand, and use to our advantage in the future.

Chris, nobody understands your situation better than I do. I am at a point where I will have to step back from competition for a while in order to build up my vacation time again. I will be allowing a #4 U.S. ranking to expire in the process, but I am long overdue at taking the kids on a vacation of their own. [And I'm sorry, but the family doesn't consider a trip to NAA Nationals a "vacation" for them like some would suggest. Besides, I wouldn't bring the family to an event that I was serious about competing in anyway...Too many distractions.] 

Jim, I prefer the latter choice as well. Hopefully we can keep that option, and produce a stable full of I.C. shooters too.

John.


----------



## Hollywood (Oct 24, 2002)

Guy, 

I'm reading it and so is Tom. We both think you're making a lot of sense! 

See you in Vegas.

-peace,
Hollywood


----------



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

As a matter of interest, I know the executive director of a large and important archery organization specifically forbids his employees from reading sites like this because of the often skewed, baseless and biased views represented. 

Anyone with a keyboard can say whatever they want on the 'net, and there's no reality filter- he would rather have people form perceptions and make decisions based on reality (which this organization makes some effort to quantify). Point is, his view is that it can be dangerous to put too much stock in opinions expressed in a place like this.

I'm not passing judgement one way or another on his point of view (though in fact I personally think it makes some sense), but it is interesting how "resources" like this are viewed by some of the more influential people in archery.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

interesting thought gt-can they read it on their "off time"  

I do note I tend to respect the positions taken by people I know-such as limbwalker, yourself and Joe M over some who don't even fill out their profile but sometimes even the blind pig stumbles on the golden acorn


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

*AT (not??) a "resource"????*

I would be very surprised if the 'executive director of a large and important archery organization' did *not* specifically prohibit valuable employee time being spent on reading 'net archery sites on 'company time'. Were that not the case, I would be somewhat annoyed that money was being paid to those folks for doing so. That is, I would be annoyed if I were a dues paying member of that particular 'large and important archery organization'. Which I suspect, but don't know for sure(!), that I am. 

Now, having said that, I also suspect that there are various people that act (mostly 'unofficially') as filters for people like the aforementioned 'executive director', and further, that items of interest and relevance do get passed along. Though it isn't often that one can find such things (interesting and relevant, that is) on the 'net archery sites. 

Ok, serious hat back on...Which makes it all the more important that you, if you feel strongly about the issues being raised and discussed, either pro or con, make your views known to the management of whichever 'large and important archery organization' to which you belong.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I know the executive director of a large and important archery organization specifically forbids his employees from reading sites like this because of the often skewed, baseless and biased views represented.


I agree that the opinions here are often skewed, baseless and biased and reading them could potentially do more harm than good. However, when I was in Athens, I will tell you that no fewer than two employees and the past president of a "large and important archery organization" made it a point to comment to me about the content of my posts both here and on another FITA-related discussion board. Those individuals are keenly aware of what is being written here, and do take notice.

But perhaps that was a different organization.  

John.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

Jim C said:


> At my shop, anyone with 8 bucks can walk in off the street, rent a decent bow, get some help and shoot. I don't believe there is such a system in Korea.
> 
> Korea archery is alot like the shooting sports in many communist countries-the olympic shooters are well trained but the average person can't even own a gun let alone shoot skeet or ISU small bore rifle or free pistol.


Good point JimC!! This is a concern that I share, I hope I never see it happen in America. I had a student take up archer then go spend a semester in Korea. He was very excited to go and shoot archery there. What he discovered is that you can't shoot recreationally there. We have stuff kinda like that in America, polo, crew, skeleton, etc. You are either great or never tried it. Why not encourage it to be like pool, basketball, bowling etc where alot of people play at all levels. Maybe this will not lead to us dominating the world but we would get more shooters?

What is our goal, to introduce more people to the sport and get them shooting or to have a few archers that are the best in the world? Is it possible that by getting the first goal we could more easily reach the second?


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

Hollywood said:


> Guy,
> 
> I'm reading it and so is Tom. We both think you're making a lot of sense!
> 
> ...


Um, is it the best idea to post that information here? Seems like Tom should not be taking sides. Guy is showing his bias against certain people and it looks like Tom then agrees and shares that bias. I would like to think that the those at the NAA would try to be unbias and openly listen to all points of view instead of flat out stating that they are taking sides, especially in such a forum such as this.


----------



## huggybear (Sep 30, 2004)

Jim C,

this is not intirely the case in Korea. I'm one of the few people that have been there, so I can account first hand what it is really like.

First off, you are correct there is no or very little recreational archery in Korea. When I was there, Mr. Park(Kyung Rae) said this is a problem and he is wanting to make it recreational there.

Number 2, Korea has more than just a one part system. Even though they are constantly cutting down the number of people in the program, they still have a couple thousand recurve archers! Which is pretty close to what we have. If a kid there is good enough to make a university team then they are good enough to make a company team(around 1320-1330 level for men, 1340-1350 level for women). Many high school kids(including Yun Mi Jin) pass up the opportunity to go to a company team to instead go to a university team. They can study whatever they like, and shoot in the morning and evenings. When they are done, if they aren't good enough to become a national team member and don't want to be a company team archer, they can become coaches. So basically they have a never ending supply of coaches. 

Of course, the part of the system we could not and definitely would not include is limiting who shoots. That is never an option here because we are AMERICANS!

Now the important stuff. Even if Korea let everyone shoot who wants to, they would still be at the same level, maybe higher. They would eventually have even a larger pool to select archers than they currently do. The remarkable thing about their system is the developement structure,the coaching structure, the support structure, the biomechanics that they teach, the training information they posses, etc. 

Now if we could alone take the biomechanics information, the training information, and build a coaching system(education and training, exchange of info, etc), and add that to the American attitude that "I can do anything" then we will be the best once again. But right now, we are lacking good biomechanical technique(and coaching it too) and information on training, and our coaching system in the past has been out of date as well.

The better we are at coaching, the more kids will stay in archery. Everyone likes to do well, and no one likes missing the target. I'm not saying we take their system. I'm saying we take the info(just like they did), look at their system and make a system for this country that will work for our CULTURE.


----------



## huggybear (Sep 30, 2004)

G33K or should I say Nikki,

I have not taken biases against anyone. Read the comments carefully. I've stated information, I've stated possible reasons, but have formulated no biases against anyone.

Hollywood saying that some of the things I've said has made sense doesn't imply anyone is taking sides. It just means they understand the logic behind SOME things that I wrote. There was no specific statement quoted, so you can't assume anyone is taking sides. When you assume something you make a ....

There are no sides because there is no fence.


----------



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

John and Wayne, yes, I am talking about another organization than the NAA, namely, the ATA.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

I just said that it seems like maybe it is not a wise idea for comments to be made that makes it *appear* that Tom is biased. I am sure that was not the impression that was meant to be given and I am also sure that Tom strives very hard to be unbiased. I am sorry that I did not make that more clear in my first post.


----------



## marty (Jun 4, 2002)

I had the most fun shooting when I was a teenager living in Southern California. At the time there were a lot of folks shooting in the area with club shoots (field, and target, pre-3D) every weekend througout the year. It was sunny SoCal so the season ran all year long. Additionally there were a couple of indoor ranges that had weekly competitions just for the fun of it.

That's where I learned to enjoy competition. You could get out and shoot and have a good time. I made lots of friends and the competition was pretty high. My father was willing and able to go out and attend these shoots and we were members of both the NAA and the NFAA.

So, it's 30 years later and I'm on the other coast. The last of the snow has melted but we may get another storm. The weather isn't as nice so you would expect that the season would be shorter, but for the most part it is non-existant. For the past few years there has been a single outdoor target tournament per year, the Bay State Games. In prior years there may have been a Massachusetts Outdoor Target tourney, maybe not. There is a FiTA shoot in Maine, maybe one in New Hampshire, and maybe one in Connecticut.

But look at the 3D guys. They have club shoots every weekend, even when there is a foot of fresh snow on the ground. They get out have a good time shooting arrows, make friends, and have a pretty good competitive season.

I don't know how to make the NAA more attractive to more people. Is there something magic about 3D? Maybe many 3D shooters start because of the hunting aspect, but they stay for other reasons, many of these guys are hard core.

I think that if you had more shoots in general, friendly club things, that you would attract more people into the sport. Those that are competitively minded would go to competitions and strive for excellance. Kids would be exposed in larger numbers with more shoots and that would lead to better archers in the long run.

One thing about coaches. I know of several very bad coaches. Actually, that's not fair, I should say that I know of very few good coaches. I think that in the past, don't know anything about the current efforts, that the NAA coaching certification merely established that you pass the certification exam and move on. I've seen several level 3 and level 4 coaches who were terrible once you got beyond the basics. Their kids bows were out of tune with mis-matched equipment. 

I was fortunate to have some pretty good coaches help me out as I was learning archery. My first coach/instructor was Chester Seay, he was 96 when I walked into his Saturday morning JOAD class. Clint Morehouse ran the range and helped a lot. My father pitched in and spent a lot of time with me, and Shig Honda helped me through a really bad case of target panic.

So, I think that the way to better performance at the highest levels is to get more people involved shooting and having them shoot well. The competitors will strive to get better and with an available pool of good coaches the students can demand better results and can push themselves and their coaches to do a better job.


----------



## Hollywood (Oct 24, 2002)

Hi Nikki – 

Guy got back to this more quickly than I did but he answered it in the same way that I would have. No one is “taking sides” and I certainly didn’t mean to imply that anyone was (least of all Tom or the NAA office!). Guy’s reply to your comment is “spot on.” By "making sense" I meant that he's making reasonable or logical statements. There are also others on this forum that are “making sense” – I simply stated in my post that Guy was making sense…I could have included other names but since I was replying to what Guy wrote, I only mentioned his name. Sorry if I offended anyone – that was not my intent at all!!

-peace,
Hollywood


----------



## huggybear (Sep 30, 2004)

Nikki,

it's ok, I see what you're getting at now. I wasn't blaming "the last 10 years" on 1 person. My God that wouldn't be right. I said(or at least expressed) it was the fault of the system we have had. Not all, but most of the coaches have been more "managerial" than anything else. I'm not saying these coaches are bad, I'm saying the way we've trained them isn't right or at least as good as it could be. We need to do research in biomechanics, training, etc.

I was just joking about the assuming

LETS ALL HAVE A GROUP HUG!


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

Hollywood said:


> Sorry if I offended anyone – that was not my intent at all!!


You certainly did not offend me, when I first read the comment it sounded biased but then I assumed that neither you nor Tom would have meant to give that impression. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and only mentioned it so that you could clarify (which you did). I know my first post was kind rude but I didn't catch that til I read it much later


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> But look at the 3D guys. They have club shoots every weekend, even when there is a foot of fresh snow on the ground. They get out have a good time shooting arrows, make friends, and have a pretty good competitive season.


Marty, the pendulum swings back and forth, and it is usually generational. Field archery used to be popular, then in the mid to late 80's 3-D became all the rage. At my local club's outdoor range in college, the first 3-D targets were set up right in front of the "old" field archery butts, and eventually the field range was taken down in favor of more lanes for 3-D targets. So for almost 20 years now, folks have been shooting 3-D tournaments nearly every weekend. I have to believe (and I've seen signs of this locally) that 3-D shooters will begin looking for new challenges, and that's where we come in. A whole generation of archers (yea, most of them are bowhunters) have never been introduced to "target archery". There are thousands of folks out there who have shot for years, are very talented archers, but have no idea what an NFAA or NAA round even looks like.

We have these discussions all the time on the Leatherwall and other traditional archery forums. Just 2 years ago, I was very much part of this group of bowhunting archers who have never been introduced to "target" archery. (Just go to the Leatherwall and do a search for the thread "shot a FITA bow today" if you want a real laugh). Burnt out on 3-D, I welcomed a new and challenging form of archery, and thanks to JOAD I found it. I have talked to hundreds of bowhunters since making the Oly. team that want to know more about Olympic style archery, but like me, had never been exposed to it. Many of those bowhunters I spoke with have taken up target archery, and are learning more about FITA and the NAA.

I consider the 3-D crowd (and they are a large one) to be our greatest source of untapped archery talent. I firmly believe that given the information and access (i.e. more accessible FITA tournaments), they will provide the pool of talent we need to grow our programs.

John.


----------



## oldbow (Aug 24, 2003)

John: How do you reach the 3D shooters? Here in west Kentucky we have an outstanding NFAA field corse and room for American and FITA rounds. If we get 12 shooters at a shoot we are lucky. 

I'm Hopeing that hosting some field days for the Archery in the Schools kids and there parents might help.


Ernie Boyd
Lakeland Archers 
Golden Pond, KY
Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> How do you reach the 3D shooters?


Well, I think that's the $25,000 question.  

Personally, I'd start by conducting a rather comprehensive survey of as many 3-D (and indoor league) shooters as I could reach. Find out from them why they do what they do, and what it would take to interest them in NAA tournaments. Surely this has already been done? 

I can see the draw to 3-D. Most of these guys hunt, the courses are always different and usually present new challenges, the level of competition is often good, and most of all, the tournaments are accessible (just do a search for your state's 3-D schedule, and you will find hundreds of tournaments each year). And for the range masters, it's just plain easier to set up and maintain a 3-D course than it is a Field course. All you gotta do is set out the targets and pick them all up when you're done. No measuring, no "officials" required, no timers or windsocks. Sure the targets are expensive, but they last a long time and are portable, and you can pile up a whole bunch of them in a shed  

Heck, I'm sure these ideas are nothing new. Surely all of this has been discussed and analyzed to death at meetings and over cool ones after a poorly attended event.  

John.


----------



## Levl4e (Feb 17, 2004)

I have often thought that we should promote a multi target National Archery Championship. Shoot whatever type of archery through-out the season and then gather to shoot targets of all types at a major event. Top 25 or 50(whatever) in each group would qualify for the event.Maybe include team events. Sponsorship would be nice but high entry fees would help build payoff. Just more food for thought. Something else to consider would be to get together with the Golf people and share portions of courses nationwide for archery. I drool every time I drive by a vacant driving range. Just dreaming!


----------



## hkim823 (Oct 6, 2004)

That's thinking outside of the box! The golf idea actually sounds reasonable (since I hit the links every so often, I often think how awesome it would be to make it into a target range)

What do you mean by multi target though?


----------



## Wes's Dad (Dec 22, 2003)

*Does Naa need to change??*

Yes and No.
I can tell you the way my son got involved with the NAA and target was through an organization that combined 3-D and Target in a Championship weekend. There were Money catagories to get the "Pro" shooters, tuition scholarships for "youth", Marked 3-D for "target" or "spotties". He shot the "target" because we were there and he loves to shoot.(got alot of trophies along the way to keep him intrested).  
This would be a great weekend!! (4days) and a great family time. 
The organization no longer exists  because of all the fractions w/in archery
I.E. other contests were moved to that weekend to "keep" their shooters. 
The last 2yrs he has shot a competition 1 to 2 times a month. This year with the NAA changes(joad in Fla, Nationals to Co,) he will only shoot indoor natl (and we are not making this a focus) and 2 FITA events in Pa. 
There are lots of events we could shoot but why when we will not make the "BIG" events.  
I would like to see more participation in the NAA.  The focus that is discussed alot is the "elite" and their needs HOWEVER without the kids and the coaching/promotion/ excitement at that level we will not have a base to draw new talent in from. Its easer to have him "play soccer" because "all his friends are"  
How do we keep it fun but provide the coaching? We have great coaches in this area that do (thanks Cindy,Bernie, and Julia)
I think if I were to have a student that was good I would send him/her on or up to better coaches as they developed both skill and desire... is that the attitude of most?? are the level 1 and 2 coaches feeding UP? What is done for the coach who spots talent? Do I even know how to spot talent?? I think so  
this is just some of the thoughts I had while reading Toms' plans/strageties
I know it costs alot of money...(as I sit here eating oatmeal to pay for my sons new bow) to produce GOLD MEDALS how do we get the "other organizations/cooperation. I have seen some phenom. shooters that are 10/11/12 and then they are gone or dont even want to be involved w/ NAA because compoud is better reconized in other groups. (how can I go to Harrisonburg on weekend and then to Louisville the next) 
I have seen what the archery in the schools program is producing... Is NAA helping this to grow??? 1500 kids in one place WHOA! What about having the olympic team have promotional responsibilties (at JOAD Natls) not being distracted from shooting a score like the JRS can be... Sounds like something else to PAY "reward" them for... 
this is 1 of my .02 
so I guss my real answer is YES


----------



## Levl4e (Feb 17, 2004)

*Multi target*

You know, shoot a bit of field, 3D, Fita, pop up targets and maybe throw in some sort of run archery where you have to run a timed course, orienteer and shoot. This would be a true archery festival. The high scoreer would be "King of the Archery world". Ok so I'm going a bit over the top.


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

*U S archery is changing...*

There have been several references throughout this thread to the need to expand youth archery, mostly with respect to JOAD. Given that, I'm a bit surprised that there hasn't been any mention thus far of the apparent tremendous success of the National Archery in the Schools Program.
If you're not up to speed on whats happening with this program, simply google on "archery in the schools program" and review a few of the links on the first page of results.

For example: 

> getting kids involved in archery as a part of their school PE programs: after starting in Kentucky, the program appears set to expand to Georgia, West Virginia, Iowa, Arizona, and Alabama and perhaps others.

> focus on target archery: the Kentucky DNR (sponsors of the program in KY) surveyed 1,600 participants. 60% said they want to be involved in target archery, 38% preferred bowhunting, 2% undecided.

> March 18, 2004: 1,437 kids participated in the 2nd NASP Champs.

> in Alabama, with only a pilot program this past year, 220 kids participated in first state champs.

> ATA support: and indeed it is a 'large and important archery organization', to wit: $225 thousand available in matching grants expected to go to programs in at least 15 states.

Now, my purpose in posting this is not to blow anybody's horn. But instead to point out that there is one organization that is out there doing something serious and constructive about promoting youth archery in the U.S. and presumably expanding the pool of future potential U.S. Olympic archers.

If this program is indeed getting the participation that it seems to be getting (btw: teachers report very good ancillary impacts on grades and attendance as well), then it deserves support and scrutiny. Support because it is doing what many are merely talking about. Scrutiny to determine what is making it successful so that it can be expanded and emulated and made to flourish even more.

Here are a couple of links:

http://www.fastestbows.com/press/2004/ATA_promote_youth.htm

http://espn.go.com/outdoors/general/columns/swan_james/1782474.html


----------



## TexARC (Mar 5, 2003)

oldreliable67 said:


> If you're not up to speed on whats happening with this program, simply google on "archery in the schools program" and review a few of the links on the first page of results.


Or, you could have been a subscriber to the TSAA newsletter, and gotten this a month back:
http://texasarchery.org/eletters/20041207.htm#article4



One thought on the schools program - I think it's shorter than the 4H indoor season - I don't think they get to do archery for the whole semester, do they? (It'd be great if they do, though)


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

TexArc,

Thanks Ron, that is a very good article!

There seems to be a natural tie-in here between the archery in the schools program and JOAD. JOAD reps in all the states that have or are starting NASP programs should be busy doing missionary work, coordinating with the NASP programs and local JOAD clubs to offer kids a logical place to continue shooting after their semester of archery or their school year is done or even to further their abilities during the school year while in the NASP program. 

Even better, how about NASP and school - tied JOAD clubs? Schools have clubs. JOAD clubs have blanket umbrella liability coverage. The school NASP programs have equipment. Potential teacher club sponsors have the necessary certification. Teachers are generally touting the beneficial effects of the archery program. Why could not every school with the an NASP program have a JOAD counterpart for the kids that want to go further with archery and that continues all year long, not just for the semester that they have archery in PE (for those that have it only one semester)?

Don't say it can't be done. Say instead, how can we do this?


----------



## Hoyt Dude (Jan 5, 2005)

We could start a whole other thread on this but your points are right on track that is exactly what we are trying to do with archery in schools. The problem is we have 1,000,000 kids which will have archery in school for a two week period this year and nothing after that. There are some JOADs few at best, some churches are starting there own programs this is all we need is another organization starting archery own there own, 4-h is not a lot better than the two week program most clubs meet once a month and have 1 state shoot per year. The NFAA has stepped in and helped the in schools program with a national tournament. If the NAA would now step in and try and get more JOAD programs involved with this program we would have something. The archery in schools was never designed to be a stand alone program. Also the NAA will not allow these kids to shoot there bows in any class other than the compound division on the NFAA field they shoot bare bow. I will get off my soap box now.


----------



## TexARC (Mar 5, 2003)

Hoyt Dude said:


> ... Also the NAA will not allow these kids to shoot there bows in any class other than the compound division on the NFAA field they shoot bare bow. I will get off my soap box now.


The kids are all using the Genesis compound bow. What division do you feel they should be in? (Or am I mis-understanding your message (sorry))


----------



## Wes's Dad (Dec 22, 2003)

*NASP Bows*

I belive the NADA offers a recurve set also. 
The Genisis (compound) is the more adaptable (for someone that doesnt have the tech  to adjust for individuals to shoot well) Let them get involved and see what recurve is about. NASP had "Pro" compound shooters doing "Publicity" work. How about the College teams, Natl Champs doing the same at Natls  
As to what they will shoot there is a compound div for every age group in joad...with higher requirements and a smaller 10 ring  
Cam Myers


----------



## Hoyt Dude (Jan 5, 2005)

I feel the kids shooting the genesis bow should be allowed to shoot in the fita bare bow class. They have no sight no stabilizer there is no let off and they are shooting fingers. I see no gained advantage over a recurve bare bow.


----------



## Hoyt Dude (Jan 5, 2005)

sorry in 7.3.2 fita calls it standard bow


----------



## Valkyrie (Dec 3, 2002)

*Put the effort in the dedicated people*

I'd like to introduce another point of view into this discussion.

JOAD is a great program, gets kids interested in archery. What is the attrition rate? - what percentage of those that start in JOAD continue to the next year, 5 years, 10 years, adult? 

I'd like to see some numbers because my feeling is that we are putting alot of effort into looking for the next great archer from a mass of JOAD, instead of looking for the next great archer from the dedicated few - whoever they are - JOAD, Collegiate, or Adult.

Where resources are limited, it doesn't make sense to put elite money towards those who won't be in the sport next year.

I think that our new national coach should look into retaining archers, and then funneling training resources to the dedicated, not just those already identified as elite, but those that have the drive to be elite.

Before the flame comes - I'm very much for JOAD, I run a club, train/coach kids and love it very much, but if we are trying to win medals - we need to focus on those who are in the sport for the long haul.


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

oldreliable67 said:


> TexArc,
> 
> Thanks Ron, that is a very good article!
> 
> ...


Can the NAA / NFAA work together on this? Sounds like a great agenda item for the upcoming NFAA director's meeting coinciding with Vegas.


----------



## hkim823 (Oct 6, 2004)

I 100 percent agree Val. I think the Sr Archery Training Program helps keeping archers past the age of 18 interested in archery past JOAD, but it's not enough. I know that other things got in the way when I was in high school and I had to be resourceful as a college student to try to get back into the sport on my own; I had to go out and find the people who could help me enjoy archery again. I lucked out and found the right people but too many times I think many people who do get interested loose their interest ....


----------



## TexARC (Mar 5, 2003)

*FITA World Rankings Published 12-1-2004*

Congratulations to the only American recurve archer to be ranked in the top 85 female archers of the world - Jennifer Nichols, at number 6. USA manages to have a total of FIVE female recurve archers in the top 100.
FITA Website 

Likewise, kudos to Butch Johnson, ranked 19th and Vic Wunderle, ranked 23rd, as well as the other EIGHT US recurve archers among the top 100 male recurve archers in the world. 

Dave Cousins at 7th and Braden Gellenthein at 11 lead the Compound Mens' world rankings. We really dominate compound ranking , with 4 in the top 100. Bonus points to mouthtabshooter who comes in at 75th; Reo comes in at 22nd! 

Mary Zorn at 2nd and Amber Dawson at 4th provide the only division (Female Compound) where there are TWO US archers in the top ten. Eleven US female compound archers are found among the top 100 in this division. 

Granted, this (FITA Published World Rankings) is only one parameter by which to judge any given country's eminence in competitive target archery on the world stage, and I note that the rankings do not necessarily reflect 2004 competition performances. Having 28 out of the top 400 is not exactly what many would expect, though.

Funny thing is how off my expectations were for men's compound rankings. Looking into the records for indoor and outdoor men and women compounders, the US does have a number of records being held by a couple of pre-eminent archers. 
Equally interesting is how far one must scroll down before finding KOR in the country column for male compounders (129) and female compounders (55). I wonder how long any Korean has been seriously competing with compound bow (and do they now?) I've heard that the Koreans are making a serious effort in the compound division. ?


----------



## Hoyt Dude (Jan 5, 2005)

Rumor has it Hugh Jung Kim of Korea is shooting a bow tec and ranked number 2 in her country.


----------



## TexARC (Mar 5, 2003)

For those unfamiliar, Hyo Jung Kim, a young female Korean archer, former world record holder, actually briefly taught some basic Korean techniques to a number of young archers in Texas. Then in an almost unbelievable turn of events, she got herself deported by going to Mexico with a number of US archers for a party after a tourney at ARCO. Her visa in the US had no provision for her doing that, and expecting to get back in to the US she was sadly mistaken, as were a number of people benefitting from her wisdom and experience. After a futile stay in Mexico trying to find a way to get back in legally, she had to return to Korea. I have discovered in the meantime that the US INS is essentially a financially driven system - pay enough money and you can get the red tape dealt with by lawyers, and since she didn't have the money she's not been able to return. 

I would guess that having "crossed over" by going to America for a time, teaching some young Texas archers, and incidentally having pretty much whupped up on most everyone she shot against in her brief US tourney tour, she found herself frozen out of the recurve job market when she had to return to Korea. Last pictures I saw of her were holding compound bows for bowtech, I think. 

A search of "Hyo Jung Results" on the TSAA's search function at the bottom of the main page will lead you to her finishes for some of the tourneys she competed in, such as the Texas Shootout 2002, if you are interested. Despite having little or no practice in the months leading up to the event, assembling a bow from scratch two days before the event, she soundly defeated every American female archer she ran up against. think of laying out for months, and then to shoot like that. I'm just sorry there were some US recurve women who would demonstrate a different level of sportsmanship with her.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

*World Ranking and the US Archers*

Ron,

If, and its a big if, World ranking is how we guage our archers, then more US archers need to take part in world ranking tournaments. 
Right now only those that take part in the WR PanAm games, a WR Grand Prixs or World Championships, as part of the NAA sanctioned US team, likely take part in more than one world ranking tournament per year.

Options:

1. Send more US archers to nearby, affordable, world ranking tournaments.
Mexico?
Puerta Rico?
Dominican Republic?
Cuba?

2. Host more world ranking tournaments in the USA/Canada.

3. Both

The result would be the ability to compare our archers with the rest of the world based on a significant amount of world ranking tournament competition. 

Is the best chance for US archers to rank highly to have the same well trained, coached and prepared, US archers take part in as many world ranking tournaments as possible? 
Is it a worthwhile goal?
Is rolling ranking ment to accomplish is task?

Hope to see you in Hillsboro and the AZ Cup...


----------



## TexARC (Mar 5, 2003)

Bob, you make a very good point. 

As I think you are suggesting, World Ranking is only one metier'. 

I fully agree that American archers need to participate in more events of that caliber, simply in order to get to the best level possible. 

Do you suppose that one reason that some of our best archers are in the 45-55 year age range is because they've gotten so much of that experience over the years, relative to younger archers?  

On another hand, look at how many such events the European archers get to shoot in, starting even as Juniors. jealous I would bet that being able to regularly or routinely enjoy those kinds of competitions actually stokes the fires and keeps more archers in the game. 

I do feel the US having MORE tournaments is a good idea, of course!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Ron,

While I certainly share your congratulatory remarks for the archers you mentioned, I struggle to find the world rankings anywhere close to useful. There are many talented U.S. archers who do not show up in the top 100 (or even 200), even though they are certainly capable of that. Likewise, there are probably enough talented Asian archers to fill 1/2 of that top 100 as well. But where are they?

I also see a strong European bias to the World rankings. I'm guessing that is due to the ease with which they can shoot "international" tournaments vs. our ability to attend? Not knowing any more than I do about the process by which they assign rankings, it is difficult to comment. However I think I know enough about the archers I do see on there (and their often questionable positions) to question the process.

John.


----------



## TexARC (Mar 5, 2003)

First, John, I refer you to my first message on these rankings where I said: 

"Granted, this (FITA Published World Rankings) is only one parameter by which to judge any given country's eminence in competitive target archery on the world stage, and I note that the rankings do not necessarily reflect 2004 competition performances. Having 28 out of the top 400 is not exactly what many would expect, though."

Still, if you got to shoot several times a year against a pool of the very best European archers, would you be the better for it? And is FITA not the tip of the pyramid, so to speak, about target archery in the world? 

Yes, absolutely yes, the grand prix events are tilted towards the Europeans - shewt fahr, last I heard, the US Open was a devalued Grand Prix event, hence few Eurpoeans bother to show up. 

But if they are where the competition is the strongest, then that's where we maybe oughta be.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

TexARC said:


> First, John, I refer you to my first message on these rankings where I said:
> 
> "Granted, this (FITA Published World Rankings) is only one parameter by which to judge any given country's eminence in competitive target archery on the world stage, and I note that the rankings do not necessarily reflect 2004 competition performances. Having 28 out of the top 400 is not exactly what many would expect, though."
> 
> ...



a year or two ago, the editor of the GLADE noted what a joke the FITA world rankings were given that in compound (especially) Dave Cousins wasn't in the top five and Sally Wunderle (who had set the world record in 99) and other top American ladies weren't in the top 20 due to a lack of GP shoots and our missing the world's in 01 due to the terrorist attack. This is even though there has been an American on the podium in EVERY compound FITA world event that we have attended


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Ron,

Not disagreeing with you at all, just giving my opinion. By "useful", I meant simply to determine who is "better" than whom.

Certainly attendance at these world ranking events would improve an archer's ability simply through experience gained. Shame we can't send more folks to more ranking events. We would have many more U.S. archers in the top 100 were we only to attend.

John.


----------



## TexARC (Mar 5, 2003)

John -thanks - we agree - the World Rankings are NOT the only, the sole, nor the best, way to track excellence, just one way that is "out there". If they are going to present these lists on the web then they should put the time in to make them accurate and much more current in content. Which is a horribly time-consuming thing  

Perhaps increasing the degree of attendance, the very presence, of US archers at more international events would indeed help, or else getting them to come to the US. That should be factored in to whatever changes might be made in the future, I hope.

The first problem that comes to my mind, after the costs of travel to venues abroad, is that due to our Imperialism, Americans are most definitely at a much higher personal risk abroad than at any time in recent decades. With our dollar (compared to the Euro) in the literal toilet, the Europeans will certainly have a cheaper time of it by coming here. I bet the AZ Cup and the Texas Shootout both have record international turnouts this year (as long as they don't boycott the U.S. altogether as payback for our environmental and foreign policies) 

Some places (France, GB, Italy) would be safer than others (Turkey, Bosnia), but I do think, and am sad to say, that personal safey is now a real factor to be considered by any American venturing outside of North America, especially since the majority of American people actually endorsed those policies on Nov. 2


----------



## hkim823 (Oct 6, 2004)

But that still shouldn't stop the US from trying to make some unique tournament like the AZ Cup (how many archery tournaments are in the desert?) into a Grand Prix world ranking event. Tennis and golf has it's grand slams, why can't archery besides the Olympics and World Championships? The sucess of the NYC WAC event in 2003 shows that the United States can hold a true international archery competition.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

ignoring Ron's anti current administration rants  I note that despite the world's alleged hatred for US it still hasn't put a damper on all those people trying to come here (legally or illegally) to live, work or go to our universities.

If archers didn't boycott China's World tournament in 01 for the clear abuse of human rights, enslavement of Tibet etc I doubt they would boycott the AZ Cup over something far less grievious such as the US not signing the idiotic screw our economy Kyoto whacko treaty


----------



## hkim823 (Oct 6, 2004)

It's okay, our administration seems not to care about our grandchildren's need to breathe clean air when shooting an outdoor FITA. But we won't turn this into the Soap Box Jim


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

that is funny coming from a guy who lives in a state run by dems for ages and has one of the most polluted bays going.

I wonder how long any target sports would exist if leftwing gun hating socialists ran this nation-including those who want to ban all hunting which would destroy most of our archery manufacturers


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Can we Puh-lease get this thread back on track?  

Ron, I must say I felt quite safe and very welcome in Turkey last year. I highly recommend that tournament. However, Antalya is probably safer in general than some of the places I lived while growing up  

Excellent point about the potential strong showing of Europeans at this year's U.S. tournaments. I hadn't thought of that, but I hope it happens.

Seems that no sooner than you share a target with one of those folks, the "mystery" and anxiety of "international competition" just goes right out the window. They're just mere mortals like us, and I'm pretty sure they put their pants (or skirts) on the same way we do 

At least, that's what I took away from the experience.

John.


----------



## Brad Rega (Oct 31, 2002)

hkim823 said:


> But that still shouldn't stop the US from trying to make some unique tournament like the AZ Cup (how many archery tournaments are in the desert?) into a Grand Prix world ranking event. Tennis and golf has it's grand slams, why can't archery besides the Olympics and World Championships? The sucess of the NYC WAC event in 2003 shows that the United States can hold a true international archery competition.


You call that a success? Compared to past world championships, that was not a true international competition. Yes it was very good compared to the normal tournaments here in the USA but the tournament couldn't hold a stick to the ones in europe. At the opening ceremonies the highlight was people singing Jesus music. What genious came up with that great idea? All these different competitors with different bliefs and they do that. IMO an event in NYC could have been MUCH better than it was especially with the NYC 2012 committee running the show. The europeans know how to run a tournament.


----------



## TexARC (Mar 5, 2003)

so much for civil discourse - Jim, I apologize for suggesting that Americans are not beloved the world over and that a factor in the considerations of any archer traveling abroad should be personal safety, or that we would need to consider anything remotely of the sort at any point... 
In fact: 
"All right, all right, I apologize. I'm really, really sorry. I apologize unreservedly. I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact and was in no way fair comment and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future." (I am upside down as I type this)

Thanks to Archie


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

Hmmm...

Are these the comments that GT was referring to when he said the 'net was full of stuff that was "biased, skewed, etc" ????

HSK: Actually, it isn't really up to the "US" (I'm assuming that you mean the NAA) as to whether or not a tournament in the US is a WR tournament, is it? Is it not the responsiblity of the tournament organizer(s)/promoter(s) as to whether or not they want to apply for/seek WR status? Anyone have a clue on the NAA position on assisting or encouraging tournament organizers in the US in this regard?

BTW, the methodology by which FITA determines WR is on the FITA web site. I recall that there was to be an effort to revise those procedures a while back, but don't know whether or not it was ever done.


----------



## Levl4e (Feb 17, 2004)

*World ranking events*

World ranking events are determined at the COPANARCO conference that is held annually. Since the US does not send archers to tournaments held in the southern countries of our FITA region, these countries have agreed amongst themselves that all world ranking events will be assigned to countries other than the US. It is up to the NAA to submit an application for world ranking events prior to the conference. The last conference was held in El Salvador last summer and I believe the next one will be in Mexico City. A representative of the NAA should attend.


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

You could have a dozen WRE in the US(FITA wouldn allow it...but we are being hypothetical here)...but if the rest of the world doesnt show up...those events will not be worth many points. The AZ Cup is(or has been) a FITA WRE, as have the US Nationals...but realistically....you can shoot 1440 in each of them, break every world record...but get less points for it than a top 5 finish in a European GP...as a 1340 shooter in 1999...I was ranked 14th in the world...now...as a 1380 shooter...World Championship Bronze medalist...I am no longer even on the list...it is the most irrelevant statistic in archery.
I also want to go on record in responce to Bradd and state that the FITA World Champs in NY in 2003 were the best of any I have been too(I have attended every one since 1999) The organisation was great, and the crowds for the medal round were more than the total crowds from the other 2 world Championships combined. The did a great job and set the bar for how and archery tournament should be run.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

*Wre*

Levl4e,

Thanks for the information.
I guess we should all learn looking at central and south America instead of Europe.
I know that many Arizonans like to take part in the Costa Rica Cup.
Jonathan Ohayon told me he had a great time competing in Columbia (or at least I think it was Columbia).

Is it cost prohibitive for central and south Americans to take part in tournaments in the USA?
Is cost one of the reasons the only World ranking tournament in north America is the US National Target Championship?
If so, we may just be out of luck unless the US and Canada could join the European and Mediterranean Archery Union (EMAU).

If it is unlikely for the US to host more World Ranking tournaments, then we need to find an alternative, especially if the world ranking skew to Europeans and Asians cannot be overcome.
Don’t get me wrong, I would like to have the AZ Cup as a WRE again.
Its wonderful see so many friendly faces from around the world each spring.
If the USA should be fortunate enough to have the world best archers, I would guess that many more would come to us for the competition.

So many questions, so little knowledge, and certainly no answers on my part!
My apologies for straying off topic.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

TexARC said:


> so much for civil discourse - Jim, I apologize for suggesting that Americans are not beloved the world over and that a factor in the considerations of any archer traveling abroad should be personal safety, or that we would need to consider anything remotely of the sort at any point...
> In fact:
> "All right, all right, I apologize. I'm really, really sorry. I apologize unreservedly. I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact and was in no way fair comment and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future." (I am upside down as I type this)
> 
> Thanks to Archie


cool-now I won't treat you like that poor fur seal that Kevin Kline practiced his knife throwing skills on


----------



## Levl4e (Feb 17, 2004)

*wre*

Yes it is very expensive for many of the central and south american countries to come to events in the states. When I was in Colombia I took nine people out for a wonderful lunch including drinks and the total bill did not reach $15. It is a bargin to travel south of the border and the people are great. Taking jr. teams to events would be great for us and them. Our Canadian friend is correct. World rankings are based on the level of competition to some degree and probably other criteria that I am not aware of. The more world ranked archers that attend a WRE the better chance one has of achieving a higher ranking. Also in a normal year there are only 4 WRE per region unless there is something like a continental qualifyer or Pan Am event where FITA will allow more WRE's per region. Strategic voting blocks are assembled prior to the conference and if you have not done the proper politicing(sp?) prior to the conference, the chance of getting a WRE is slim to none.

Brad, I would have to agree with our Canadian friend that the Worlds in NYC were by far the very best put on that I have attended and I have been a Coach at several of them. My suggestion to have our Men and Women's gold medal compound teams have a shootoff match after the awards ceremony was at best entertaining. GT was awesome as the announcer.


----------



## Levl4e (Feb 17, 2004)

*Brad*

By the way, in defense of the NYC organizers, the music you are refering to was not on the program. The group made the change themselves. Also FITA has made it very clear that they want ceremonies to be short and sweet. I don't know if you have ever been on a team but most of the athletes don't enjoy standing out on the hot field in full uniform for very long. Having the finals in Central Park was a stroke of genius in my opinion.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

GT was awesome as the announcer.
________________________

a point that is beyond dispute. gt did a great job running the Hoyt promotions and Easton "reality archery" taping sessions at the ATA show this weekend. I would be hard pressed to find a more intelligent person in the archery business than gt


----------



## mbu (Oct 22, 2003)

This thread was very busy for awhile but nothing was added lately. I thought I would bring it back to the top and solicit more comments.

Did anybody read the latest published information regarding the National Coach position in the last NAA official magazine?


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Frankly I don't see such a big-bad problem in US archery, at least from the ouside, and I talk about recurve, only.
Considering the number of NAA members, the NAA budget and the local spread of archers across the country, may be you don't feel satisfied, and this is natural, but surely you are not in a bad condition like other much bigger countries.
Compare with GB (30K archers), Germany (probably >50K), Italy (18K) and France (56 K), how do they feel in comparison to Korea, 2K archers?
How many archers do they list in the top 100 of the Fita WRL ?
OK, the WRL is simply ridiculous and surely has nothing to do with a real WRL. It only lists the archers participating to Eurpean Gran Prix, European Target cahamps and sometime Olympic games and Worl champs by their average result over 2 years. No value at all, apart for some local loud announcement when someone is on the top of it.
Let's count how many archers these countries have shooting >1300 with certain constance, men and women included.
Let say 6 in UK, 5 in Germany, 3 in France, 4 in Italy ... 
Chris Shull is right saying we (western world) do not have all toghether enough high level archers to be competitive against Korea and enough high level archery students to select more competitive archers.
The Canadian friend some posts before is right saying tha the hearth of the western system is from the Clubs, not from the federations or their structure, as we are all too much spreaded around, and only a good support at local club level can really generate top archers (it takes 5 to 7 years....usually)
Surely Lloyd did a great job with the 96 team (I was there, and we Lost against them), but also surely from trials in 95 to OG in 96 he had time to train the 3 guys toghether for long enough, while this year, for instance, your situation was quite different.
Gents, when I started archery in 73, John Williams and Luanne Ryon were the Olympic medals, and Korean archers were not even born, yet...
And in the subsequent years, Darrel, Rick form your side and Ferrari and Spigarelli from Italy were the 1300+ stars. The FITA WR in 1979 was 1318 from Ferrari, until Darrel shot his fantastic 1341 in Japan.
But we are ages from that time, with more than 130 FITA affiliated countries, countless >1300 shooters in the world and no technology edge in materials anymore. Numbers are definitely against us. 
Can we do better? Yes, as someone already said, by redesigning the system (not necessarily to be the same in all countries), not surely by using miracle men. But the stairs have definitely more steps nowdays to reach the top.


----------

