# U.S. Olympic Archery Trials - Stage 2 picks



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stage 2 of the US Olympic archery trials are underway. Who are your favorites to make the next cut?

Here's who I'm going with...

Men -

Brady
Jake
Sean
Zach
Vic
Thomas
Jacob
Matt

Women - 

Mackenzie
Lanola
Khatuna
Ariel
Erin
Lori
Lauren
Heather


----------



## Kim Jong Skill (Dec 19, 2014)

I'm just going to skip ahead and say... Zach, Brady, Sean 
Mackenzie, khatuna, lanola.
I'm hopping on that band wagon early


Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

I heard that Brady somehow hurt his hip recently, it's affected his drawing motion, and he's dropped his draw weight down about 3 lbs to compensate for it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Mackenzie, khatuna, lanola.


Pretty safe bet, but so far I think we have only qualified one spot for the women... 

On the men's side, ever since 2004 (and possibly before?) IIRC the top 3 after the first week went on to make the team.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Anyone know if we can expect live scoring through Rcherz today?


----------



## Wags02 (Jul 24, 2015)

Brady, Sean, Zach would be my prediction. I would like to see Vic and Jacob make it though but that is going to tough hill for either of them to climb. 

On the women's side I would have to go with Mackenzie for sure the rest will be a toss up. Lanola,Katuna and Ariel will be battling for the other spots. 

Should be interesting how they all fall into line. Good luck to all involved.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Anyone know if we can expect live scoring through Rcherz today?


That is what USA Archery said.

Chris


----------



## StarDog (Feb 17, 2007)

That would be nice. I had been hoping it would be on a weekend so I could go watch but it ain't!


----------



## Wobbley (Sep 26, 2014)

And we are off.
http://rcherz.com/en/competitions/allLiveResults/6339/US_Olympic_Team_Trials____2___Part1#


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Some incredible shooting there, and some real surprises too.

687 by Brady! Holy smokes.

Two ladies in the 650's. That's good.


----------



## collider (Nov 3, 2015)

How many arrows do they shoot, what's the max score? How many rounds are there? I'm rooting for Khatuna, any chance she can catch back up?
Thanks for posting this, it's very cool to see.


----------



## collider (Nov 3, 2015)

oh - 1 more dumb question - what do the women have to do to qualify 2 more spots?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I haven't studied up on the format (since I didn't make the cut this year and don't have any students who did) but it looks like they are shooting 144 arrows today, then will shoot head-to head matches tomorrow and I suspect again on Wed. - so basically the same format that we all shot back in September. From there, the top 8 may go on to shoot for two more days. That's what they did last time. 

I'm not sure what the women need to do to qualify the other two spots, or if they even can. I think I heard they can only qualify one more spot (basically what they did for China) but I don't know that for sure.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

my understanding is the women need to podium at Antalya. 

according to USA Archery 


"While the U.S. men have already qualified quota slots to send a full team of 3 to Rio, the women have only secured one slot so far.* They will have one final chance to earn the additional 2 slots at the Archery World Cup in Antalya, Turkey this June.* The pressure is on for the women to both earn that top position in the U.S. Trials, and to train harder as a team to make the Antalya podium and send a full team to Rio".

http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/...rials-Archery-Second-Nomination-Shoot-Preview


Chris


----------



## collider (Nov 3, 2015)

Wow, that's a pretty hard core schedule. Thanks for the info.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Thanks Chris. I knew I saw that somewhere but couldn't recall. So hopefully there are still two spots available, perhaps they will do what the women did for London, winning in Utah to secure the final two spots for the team.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

I thihnk Daniel is shooting well right now and Sean has had a good year for the most part so I see both of them in the top eight

Brady's record speaks for itself


----------



## collider (Nov 3, 2015)

Jim C said:


> I thihnk Daniel is shooting well right now and Sean has had a good year for the most part so I see both of them in the top eight
> 
> Brady's record speaks for itself


In round 2 they're currently in 8th and 9th place, thanks to alphabetical order  The shooting is insanely good at that level. Props to all 32!


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Vic made a strong run in the third lap - good for him!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Chris, has it been announced if the top three women from the trials series will be representing the US in Antalya? I certainly hope that's the case - that the girls who would get the spots, have a chance to earn the final two spots themselves.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

chrstphr said:


> my understanding is the women need to podium at Antalya.
> 
> according to USA Archery
> 
> ...


Not exactly. They will need the podium in the Olympic Qualification Tournament in Antalya , not in the World cup event. It will be a separate team tournament were teams already qualified wil not compete. 
So, the grid for this tounament will exclude for Women (in order of placement in Coopenhagen) Russia, India, Korea, Japan, Georgia, Colombia, China, Mexico and Brazil 
Top teams competing for the 3 places will be Germany, France, Poland, Ukraina, Indonesia, Denmark, Sweden, Netherland, Gret Britain, P.R.Korea, USA and ... Italy. But we wll have the entire rest of the world competing there, so some other unexpected strong teams may suddenly appear ... (I think to Vietnam, for instance... )


----------



## dmacey (Mar 27, 2015)

I wish they could all go.... I know that's non-contributive to the thread, but I like to watch all of these shooters shoot with the same level of like.... Oh well...

DM


----------



## kdts330 (Aug 14, 2015)

Good Stuff, new to this forum and wanted to know what are you guys looking to keep track of the scoring?


----------



## Sosius (Feb 5, 2014)

kdts330 said:


> Good Stuff, new to this forum and wanted to know what are you guys looking to keep track of the scoring?


rcherz.com


----------



## StarDog (Feb 17, 2007)

re: North Korea, and this is from Wikipedia:


_One North Korean archer qualified for the women's individual recurve by obtaining one of the three Olympic places available from the 2015 Asian Archery Championships in Bangkok, Thailand_
No name given


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

StarDog said:


> re: North Korea, and this is from Wikipedia:
> 
> 
> _One North Korean archer qualified for the women's individual recurve by obtaining one of the three Olympic places available from the 2015 Asian Archery Championships in Bangkok, Thailand_
> No name given


Yes, they have won an individual spot, but can still try to get the full team qualified in Antalya, as mentioned...


----------



## Casualfoto (Mar 10, 2009)

*Peaking for the Trials*

I can't watch the scoring for this event online and not think about the training cycle. We all know that the athletic should peak just before the big tournament. Clearly many of these folks have done just that and the scores seem to prove it. This is a pretty grueling tournament. Lots of arrows, lots of set matches, and lots of pressure. I'm sure they all felt it as this tournament approached. But can they do this again in May, then again in August? 

It seems to me that this sequence of trials events, might be counter productive. By time August rolls around, these guys are going to be, at lease emotionally, like yo-yo's. 

CP


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Casualfoto said:


> This is a pretty grueling tournament. Lots of arrows, lots of set matches, and lots of pressure. I'm sure they all felt it as this tournament approached. But can they do this again in May, then again in August?
> 
> CP


not grueling. To make South Korea Olympic team, 

one tournament open to all in Archery program, cut to 64. 
one tournament only top 64 cut to 32
one tournament only 32 cut to 16
five tournaments plus heads up matches only 16 to cut to 8
two weeks of tournaments (7 tournaments) and heads up matches to cut from 8 to 3

approx 15 tournaments to get from all to 3

toughest tournament series in archery

USA trials
one open tournament cut to 16
top 16 shoot two days of heads up

one tournament only 16 cut to 8
two days heads up matches

one tournament only top 8 
two days heads up matches cut to 3

3 tournaments to get from all to 3


Chris


----------



## Casualfoto (Mar 10, 2009)

Yep and that's a process that started many months ago. The point isn't the length of the process, the point is level of intensity and how long it can be maintained in the run-up to the Games. Even the Korean's will have their team selected some time this month. Our people are only 2/3's of the way thru the process, and still have another month of riding the peak. Very demanding and very exhausting.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> not grueling.


Correct. The vast majority of target archers do not know what grueling is. High school football players that ride the bench routinely put in more time, sweat and effort than even some of our best archers in the U.S.



> the point is level of intensity and how long it can be maintained in the run-up to the Games.


There is a good argument to be made for selecting the team close to the games, and not eliminating too many archers before then. Burn-out is entirely possible over a nine or ten-month process. I've seen it and we're seeing it at this event. Just look at some of the scores.

Go back and look at the top three after the first week of the trials process in the past. It might surprise everyone how little changes during the following two events.


----------



## Casualfoto (Mar 10, 2009)

Sorry, I just don't see it that way. Let's not forget that included here is ever present USAT series that is also very important to these folks. AZ Cup, Gator Cup and US Nationals. All require them to "peak". 

Yes I do see some of the burnout you mention, but I'd rather see the better shooters peaking, rather than being pushed to burnout. As stand alone trials events, I'd think a more friendly schedule would be beneficial and possibly help the athletes be better prepared for games.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Athletes need to be peaking at the games, not 10 months before. That is my argument. 10 months is a long, long time in an athlete's life.

I don't mind the three-event series, even for amateurs because at least then you don't have 70 amateurs wasting their time for 6 or 10 months - you only have 16. And those 16 can take the time to make adjustments after the first event.


----------



## Casualfoto (Mar 10, 2009)

Yeah, I get all of that. I agree 10 months is a long time, I wouldn't suggest that kind of time frame. I would think that the process should be concluded maybe one, two or even three months sooner.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

From my own experience, I wish the trials had ended less than a month before the games. I realized that by the time we were shooting in Athens, I had peaked sometime between the trials and the games. Any further out and you only increase the chance of someone making the team by peaking sooner than they need to.

I am concerned that a few of our top archers are peaking right now, four months before Rio. 

It's a tough thing to gauge for a team esp. because everyone has a different cycle.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Must have been some rough conditions today, based on the scores...


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Who is Hye Youn Park? She looks to be on a tear.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Casualfoto said:


> Yep and that's a process that started many months ago. The point isn't the length of the process, the point is level of intensity and how long it can be maintained in the run-up to the Games. Even the Korean's will have their team selected some time this month. Our people are only 2/3's of the way thru the process, and still have another month of riding the peak. Very demanding and very exhausting.


no, South Korea started in March. Its been two months. They dont start until the indoor season is over and then they form the new National team. 

15-20 tournaments in two months to name the 8 national team members and the 3 for Rio.

Their Olympic team will not shoot at Shanghai World cup. South Korea will send young archers to that shoot. 

They will instead train in and shoot the Medillin world cup to acclimate and be ready for Rio. 



Chris


----------



## BranduinS (May 29, 2013)

Azzurri said:


> Who is Hye Youn Park? She looks to be on a tear.


Hye Youn Park is a high performance coach up here in Northern California. She's a total badass! She has shot for the Korean national team with both the recurve and the compound, and iirc was at one time the world champion*. She used to coach at the training center down in CV but has come up here to raise her kids and run a JOAD. One of the nicest ladies you will ever meet, if a bit intimidating with her game face on.

*I stand corrected, she was an Asian Games gold medalist.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Just like women's golf, the Korean invasion is well underway...


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Kim Kyung Wook won the gold in 96 at Atlanta individual and team, been retired 20 years from competitive shooting, now teaches archery in Irvine, shot the National indoor this year at Tulare and finished third overall nationally. I think she won Tulare. 

She used a shop bow and shop arrows to compete. Shot in the high 280s. I didnt hear anyone comment that she was even shooting the national indoor. 

View attachment 4163841



Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Clearly, she shot Stage 1 of the trials in Sept. Making the top 16 must have given her the motivation to start shooting seriously again. This is what a 10-month process can do - bring someone in that might not have been competitive at a single week's event.


----------



## Kim Jong Skill (Dec 19, 2014)

chrstphr said:


> Kim Kyung Wook won the gold in 96 at Atlanta individual and team, been retired 20 years from competitive shooting, now teaches archery in Irvine, shot the National indoor this year at Tulare and finished third overall nationally. I think she won Tulare.
> 
> She used a shop bow and shop arrows to compete. Shot in the high 280s. I didnt hear anyone comment that she was even shooting the national indoor.
> 
> ...


I actually shot next to her during indoor nationals this year. I only found out after the tournament when I was talking to my coach about some Korean lady shooting next to me that was absolutely killing it. Hopefully I absorbed some of that Korean star power :wink:


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Kim Jong Skill said:


> I actually shot next to her during indoor nationals this year. I only found out after the tournament when I was talking to my coach about some Korean lady shooting next to me that was absolutely killing it. Hopefully I absorbed some of that Korean star power :wink:


Her children are probably your age.


Chris


----------



## Kim Jong Skill (Dec 19, 2014)

And here I was thinking to myself one of the joad kid's mother was shooting. How fun!

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

So, educate me here. 

The Stage #2 going on now will be cut to the top 8 in each division? 

How will be top 8 be determined? by the total number of points? or the total number of "phases" won? 

Also, it looks like Katuna is not doing very well. Is she already guaranteed a spot in the Olympics? Is this competition just for the team? or individuals? or are those two the same?

Sorry about all the questions, but thank you in advance for the answers!!~


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Nobody is guaranteed a spot in the Olympics. It is entirely possible that another woman will represent the US in Rio besides the one (Khatuna) who earned the berth. That's just how it is. Happened to Guy K. in 2004 - he was on the WC team with Vic and Butch that earned the three spots for the US Men for Athens, but did not make that Olympic team a year later. I'm sure it's happened many times. I can't recall which women earned the three spots for the women in 2004, but I'm sure Stephanie, Jenny and Janet weren't the three who did. 

The top 8 will move on after this competition, based on the points they have earned.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

You get points. 

Points for qualifying
Points for heads up match wins
Points for 3 arrow average. At end of first trials all 16 were assigned points to carry over based on tota finish 1-16th. 

This trials will be the same. They got points for the 144 qualifying, points based on 3 arrow average, and points for heads up matches.

Top 8 highest point total advance.

Katuna earned the USA one spot at the olympics, but she is not the owner of that spot. The trials determines the olympic archers.

Right now all 16 women are competing for one spot. If the USA gets a full team 3 spots qualified, then second and third in trials get to go.

If you like i can link the the trials point scoring process from USA archery.


Chris


----------



## Wobbley (Sep 26, 2014)

How do you earn "Bonus Points" that I see in the results?


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

chrstphr said:


> You get points.
> 
> Points for qualifying
> Points for heads up match wins
> ...


That's OK Chris, you explained it just fine. Thank you. 

Kinda surprised Katuna isn't doing very well, I bet she doesn't make it to the next round. Unless she had a bunch of points that carried over from Stage #1. (If I understood everyone correctly)


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Wobbley said:


> How do you earn "Bonus Points" that I see in the results?


Shooting over 680 3 points
shooting 670-679 2 points
shooting 660-669 1 point

http://www.teamusa.org/usa-archery/...nd-high-performance/team-selection-procedures

click athlete under 2016 Olympic games. Gives all the details. 


Chris


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Casualfoto said:


> Sorry, I just don't see it that way. Let's not forget that included here is ever present USAT series that is also very important to these folks. AZ Cup, Gator Cup and US Nationals. All require them to "peak".
> 
> Yes I do see some of the burnout you mention, but I'd rather see the better shooters peaking, rather than being pushed to burnout. As stand alone trials events, I'd think a more friendly schedule would be beneficial and possibly help the athletes be better prepared for games.


I think for you and I a USAT demands us to show up with our perfect setup, sharp, fresh. And then we hope to make the cut. If those are just another event and you are doing something higher level like Rio or the world cups later on, and you can shoot 300 in your sleep, you might have a different idea when you really want to be grooved and fit. Some of them could probably equipment-experiment and be in a fitness phase, and still beat us to the cut, then hopefully work their way into sharpness as something like Arizona progresses. So I assume their idea of peaking and what events demand it probably differs.

I think it would make more sense to have Texas Olympic years in March or April (when it would be cooler!), compact the trials events, get people who are hot this year. You can compare quali scores and see a couple people on each side have dropped off from last year and wouldn't have made the cut how they are shooting. And then some others who should be good like Klimitchek and Lorig are off the boil but fighting to make it. I assume the deal is that using Arizona for trials is complicated by it being a WRE whose field needs to get international archers in bulk, and whose mixed field would also make it a nightmare to extract the American results back out for qualification. So move Texas, I think they already do it sometimes.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Stage 2 of the US Olympic archery trials are underway. Who are your favorites to make the next cut?
> 
> Here's who I'm going with...
> 
> ...


Eh, missed it by a few...


----------



## EmraldArcher (Mar 29, 2016)

So hopefully this won't open a whole can of worms but is there a reason that the top women's score would only have been good enough for 9th in the men's bracket?

Were those 8 men just better this time around or is that a fairly consistent result at this level of competition?


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

EmraldArcher said:


> So hopefully this won't open a whole can of worms but is there a reason that the top women's score would only have been good enough for 9th in the men's bracket?
> 
> Were those 8 men just better this time around or is that a fairly consistent result at this level of competition?


In almost every world level/high level competition men are scoring higher then women with olympic recurve bow. Reason? More poundage/stronger archer.


----------



## EmraldArcher (Mar 29, 2016)

Ar-Pe-Lo said:


> In almost every world level/high level competition men are scoring higher then women with olympic recurve bow. Reason? More poundage/stronger archer.


Olympic level female archers aren't capable of shooting 40 pound bows?


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

EmraldArcher said:


> Olympic level female archers aren't capable of shooting 40 pound bows?


New Korean Olympic team is in the range of 40# to 43# for women and 50 to 53# for men ...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

EmraldArcher said:


> So hopefully this won't open a whole can of worms but is there a reason that the top women's score would only have been good enough for 9th in the men's bracket?
> 
> Were those 8 men just better this time around or is that a fairly consistent result at this level of competition?


Actually, not much has changed - at least here in the U.S. - on this front, maybe since ever. There have only been a handful of US women who could shoot scores that would put them in the top 10 in the men's division, and even fewer who could routinely crack the top 5. Khatuna (on occasion), Jenny, Miranda, Denise, and perhaps Mackenzie come to mind. Can't think of many others that I would know but I've heard about a few in the past who could hang with the men of their era.

Draw weight and physical strength is a difference outdoors, sure, but that doesn't explain the discrepancy indoors. I see no reason why women shouldn't be able to shoot the same scores as men at 18 meters. Perhaps Vittorio has some insight. The Korean women and a few other international women have been showing female archers worldwide what is possible for female archers, both indoors and out. And they are not large women. Someone like Jenny or Mackenzie would tower over most Korean women. So I don't accept size as an excuse. I know for a fact that Jenny was shooting over 40# and that Khatuna has shot much more than that as well. 

I think the problem here in the US is lack of support by the sponsors, by the head coach, and by - yes - USArchery. When the men's program dominates all the discussion, gets sponosored at a higher level, and is promoted disproportionately more than the women on social media, it has to be discouraging to the women. I know it is. I've heard many of them say this.

Of course, one could also make the counter argument that great shooting takes care of all these things too, so it very well could be a chicken-or-the-egg kind of problem. I am sure if we had a few U.S. Women shooting 660-670+ on 72-arrow round, they would get more support than they do now. So I'll be the first to admit some of this is on them to shoot better.

I've said for a decade or more that USArchery should be recruiting strong (mind and body) athletic women from other sports to shoot archery. If they are serious about creating balance between the two programs, they would have a women's head coach that doesn't report to the men's head coach, and they would offer enough financial support and incentives to make it worth the while of an already elite athlete from another sport to switch over. The title sponsors could fix this in six months if they really wanted to.


----------



## StarDog (Feb 17, 2007)

Khatuna Lorig supposedly is pulling 50#.


----------



## StarDog (Feb 17, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> I think the problem here in the US is lack of support by the sponsors, by the head coach, and by - yes - USArchery. When the men's program dominates all the discussion, gets sponosored at a higher level, and is promoted disproportionately more than the women on social media, it has to be discouraging to the women. I know it is. I've heard many of them say this.
> 
> Of course, one could also make the counter argument that great shooting takes care of all these things too, so it very well could be a chicken-or-the-egg kind of problem. I am sure if we had a few U.S. Women shooting 660-670+ on 72-arrow round, they would get more support than they do now. So I'll be the first to admit some of this is on them to shoot better.
> 
> I've said for a decade or more that USArchery should be recruiting strong (mind and body) athletic women from other sports to shoot archery. If they are serious about creating balance between the two programs, they would have a women's head coach that doesn't report to the men's head coach, and they would offer enough financial support and incentives to make it worth the while of an already elite athlete from another sport to switch over. The title sponsors could fix this in six months if they really wanted to.


No kidding . When the women's soccer team is on top and most people don't even know we have one......


----------



## Kim Jong Skill (Dec 19, 2014)

EmraldArcher said:


> So hopefully this won't open a whole can of worms but is there a reason that the top women's score would only have been good enough for 9th in the men's bracket?
> 
> Were those 8 men just better this time around or is that a fairly consistent result at this level of competition?


I'm just going to go out there and say it. The woman's team just isn't as strong as the men's team(no pun intended). Lets face it, archery isn't pushing any limits on mankind's physical physique. The strength thing might be a valid argument for amateur archers but if you're an RA and shooting ~1400 arrows a week, strength is probably not what's holding you back. 

Some people might argue that the women are shooting lighter bows that get affected by the wind more which is true but even in indoor scores, the mens averages are higher.


----------



## gary royce (Feb 5, 2009)

And USArchery should be promoting womens archery as hard as they can.That is what is going to grow this sport and put our women on the podium in the future..I get twice as many request for lessons at my club from young ladies as young men, and most of them want to shoot recurve or trad, not compound


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

While i generally think the top women archers at world level are better than the men, here is some sample data. 

to be fair, here is a random 70 meter round that i pulled from the South Korean Olympic team trials this past month.

Men 
View attachment 4171321


Women
View attachment 4171329


You will see that the top Korean female would be 9th on the men's list. However, using the same random women's score against USA women, Makenzie would have been 9th in the women with a 656, and USA ladies 3rd -16th would not have been competitive against the 16 South Korean ladies. 

View attachment 4171401



Chris


----------



## Sosius (Feb 5, 2014)

BranduinS said:


> Hye Youn Park is a high performance coach up here in Northern California. She's a total badass! She has shot for the Korean national team with both the recurve and the compound, and iirc was at one time the world champion*. She used to coach at the training center down in CV but has come up here to raise her kids and run a JOAD. One of the nicest ladies you will ever meet, if a bit intimidating with her game face on.
> 
> *I stand corrected, she was an Asian Games gold medalist.


She is leading the women so far in day 3. 
http://www.teamusa.org/usa-archery/events/national-events/olympic-trials-1


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

EmraldArcher said:


> Olympic level female archers aren't capable of shooting 40 pound bows?


Sure they are, but men are about #10 higher. Please just accept man and women are built differently, have a look at track & field records/results.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

StarDog said:


> Khatuna Lorig supposedly is pulling 50#.


That's a nice story.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

gary royce said:


> And USArchery should be promoting womens archery as hard as they can.That is what is going to grow this sport and put our women on the podium in the future..I get twice as many request for lessons at my club from young ladies as young men, and most of them want to shoot recurve or trad, not compound


BOOM!

Little truth bomb right there. I like it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Won't that be something when Ms. Park earns the one spot for the women's side. Talk about shaking things up. Might be just what we need. Who knows - maybe she's interviewing for a job right now? LOL.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> Actually, not much has changed - at least here in the U.S. - on this front, maybe since ever. There have only been a handful of US women who could shoot scores that would put them in the top 10 in the men's division, and even fewer who could routinely crack the top 5. Khatuna (on occasion), Jenny, Miranda, Denise, and perhaps Mackenzie come to mind. Can't think of many others that I would know but I've heard about a few in the past who could hang with the men of their era.
> 
> Draw weight and physical strength is a difference outdoors, sure, but that doesn't explain the discrepancy indoors. I see no reason why women shouldn't be able to shoot the same scores as men at 18 meters. Perhaps Vittorio has some insight. The Korean women and a few other international women have been showing female archers worldwide what is possible for female archers, both indoors and out. And they are not large women. Someone like Jenny or Mackenzie would tower over most Korean women. So I don't accept size as an excuse. I know for a fact that Jenny was shooting over 40# and that Khatuna has shot much more than that as well.
> 
> ...


Outside looking in here but I see a continuity and accumulation problem, the men how many of the top 30 or so were previous Olympians, you have several experienced hands, new talent coming in pushing them, layers on layers, not a bunch of people outright quitting. You compare that to the women, several retirements, including some of the previous team (not just the trials pool but the best), Lorig has been around but a lot of fresh blood. How many of the men vs. the women are RAs.

I mean, we're lamenting Wunderle missing the cut but wouldn't it be nice if more of the veteran women were around going out (or making it) n similar fashion.

Maybe the sponsors are sexist, maybe they favor the more successful team, maybe the men are more successful because they keep more of their good ones active, which pushes the bar up and up. Maybe society is sexist in that the women often have to give up the career and not the married men.

Funding must be a factor, look at Ankara, RM one guy on the podium, CM one top 16, CW one top 8, RW 32-34th qualifying, one advanced, out first round (no one still in the Trials). One side of the USAT seems to continue on through the international indoor season and the other side -- other than maybe one experienced archer -- kind of disappears. Maybe both sides need more of their seasons funded. Maybe the women could use some targeted funding to give that team in particular a boost.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I've seen scores from domestic and international stuff where the women have the highest qualifying scores of anyone there, Lorig, the Koreans, I think at the top end it's pretty evenly matched, if there are scoring disparities men vs. women across the pool of trialists I think that's more about the gender politics/funding stuff than really "why are men better."


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jay, you make some good points. If Jenny and Miranda and a few of our other top ladies were still shooting, then we would have seen a lot more 650's in that group. Conversely, as you suggest, if you look at the attendence in the men's division by current and former Olympians, World Championship and World Cup members, it was substantial. Attrition on the women's side is an added component to consider. So then the question becomes - is there anything that can be done about that, or are they going to have shorter shooting careers than the men no matter what we do?



> Maybe the women could use some targeted funding to give that team in particular a boost.


I've been saying this for years. The current model - meaning primary living wage being paid by sponsors - strongly favors the men (for a number of reasons described above). It's then the job of USArchery, the USOC or a sponsor who is sympathetic toward the women or simply concerned about fielding a fully qualified 6-person archery team - to step up and support the women who are willing to continue training.

In 2016, during a time of unprecedented political correctness, concern for equality, and overwhelming interest by young women in the sport, I simply cannot believe that the archery community, administration and sponsors are willing to stand by and do nothing to fix the same problem we've had in our sport for decades now. Hell, most are not even willing to talk about the problem! And it's been how long since Title 9?


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

gary royce said:


> And USArchery should be promoting womens archery as hard as they can.That is what is going to grow this sport and put our women on the podium in the future..I get twice as many request for lessons at my club from young ladies as young men, and most of them want to shoot recurve or trad, not compound


That's funny, I just looked at USAA's web page and I see photos of more women that men. 

Worldwide it appears women archers on average hold less weight and shoot lower scores than men. Somehow this gets translated into gender discrimination. Yesterday, Hoyt was accused of gender discrimination because more men shoot Hoyt than women on the USAT. The actual statistics only proved that the majority of both genders choose Hoyt and there is absolutely nothing that proves Hoyt wasn't chosen simply because those individuals thought Hoyt was an excellent product that would serve their needs. 

Only on Archery Talk.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Ah the apologist arrives again... 

Putting words in people's mouths because the best defense is a good offense. 

It's either naive or intentionally misleading to ignore the influence of sponsorships in equipment selection in the upper tier of this sport. Top archers choose specific brands because those are the ones that support them the most, period. In the case of a very few, they could receive equal support from multiple brands, and then in those rare cases, they choose the one they like the best or that works best for them. Any other narrative is a blatant lie. 

All anyone has to do is look at the women who have consistently been on top of the U.S. ranks and earned spots on recent Olympic teams (in other words, the ones who were most attractive to potential sponsors), and look at what they are shooting. Those are the statistics that matter. 

Frankly, you should be ashamed for trying to distract people from long standing and significant sexual inequality issue in our sport.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

Edit - actually, nevermind.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

So, who thinks Ms. Park will be our representative?


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

I think the odds are good it will be her


Chris


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Ah the apologist arrives again...
> 
> Putting words in people's mouths because the best defense is a good offense.
> 
> ...


Don't presume to be in a position to lecture me. If there is sexual inequality in this sport, you have been part of the problem:

"I don't know why, but it seems women have a harder time competing fairly and accepting losses than men." - limbwalker

Have a nice day.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

gary royce said:


> And USArchery should be promoting womens archery as hard as they can.That is what is going to grow this sport and put our women on the podium in the future..I get twice as many request for lessons at my club from young ladies as young men, and most of them want to shoot recurve or trad, not compound


true dat. I have coached for and (for 17 years run) the oldest JOAD club in the country starting in 1997 or so,-the one that was the experiment that started the entire program in the USA. for my first 18 or so years, we always had more boys than girls. we had more boys who traveled to major tournaments, more boys who wanted to compete and more boys who actually graduated from the program.

that is not true any more. I have three boys (recurve all) who shoot all the state events and shoot at least some of the USAT events. I have twice as many girls who do that this year. I have more girls who shoot just the local and state events then boys. For the first time, I have more than 2 girls shooting compounds. of my 25 or so regular archers 18 or so are girls. and that has been true the last few years

the one thing I note on the other side of this change is that I probably have lower proportion of girls stay through graduation. but that is changing. we have several coaches-our highest certified coach (my wife) is obviously female and we have another coach who is also a professional child counselor who is female and she is excellent in working with our female archers. other clubs have seen the same thing-the new JOAD club in our area has more girls attending tournaments than boys. I think this is a positive advancement and will make the increase in college archery more likely


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Seattlepop said:


> Don't presume to be in a position to lecture me. If there is sexual inequality in this sport, you have been part of the problem:
> 
> "I don't know why, but it seems women have a harder time competing fairly and accepting losses than men." - limbwalker
> 
> Have a nice day.


LOL. Again, the best defense...  So the same person who is making the argument that there is no bias, is trying to accuse me of being part of the problem.  That's rich.



> I have three boys (recurve all) who shoot all the state events and shoot at least some of the USAT events. I have twice as many girls who do that this year. I have more girls who shoot just the local and state events then boys. For the first time, I have more than 2 girls shooting compounds. of my 25 or so regular archers 18 or so are girls. and that has been true the last few years


This. 

Which is why the glaring bias by so many in the industry is unconscionable.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

chrstphr said:


> I think the odds are good it will be her
> 
> 
> Chris


I agree.

Why is it that so many of the Korean women can possess the shot that she has, and none of the American women have been taught how to do the same? Did we not hire a Korean head coach for this reason? Why aren't more people upset about this? It remains a great unspoken question in our sport.


----------



## Ohriahn (Apr 22, 2016)

I think the odds are good we will qualify a full women's team for Rio. How can we talk about how shameful it is that the women are not better supported, and in the same breath express such a lack of confidence in our women's team? These are great shooters. They did very well last year, and I believe they will do very well this year. We should assume we are sending three women to Rio until that possibility is 100% off the board. To do otherwise is to encourage the idea that the top four should be primarily fighting for that #1 spot rather than working together to earn the other two slots we still need for the Olympics...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

We need to distinguish between the lack of support our women have received, and the plain cold truth about the RESULT of that poor support.

Being honest with where our women's program is does not constitute a lack of support. Some would even say it's the first step in admitting we have a problem WITH the lack of support for the program. 

I don't know why this is so hard for some to connect. If we sit here and talk about how great things are, then why would anyone think that anything needs to change? We can search for the cause of the problem, and in the meantime wish our women the best of luck. The two are not mutually exclusive. We can praise the effort of the ladies we have, but still press to see them receive better support.

BTW, for those new to the sport, I have sat and listened firsthand to the frustration expressed by our top female archers for years. First as a teammate to the ladies in Athens, later as a coach for the women's teams in Antalya, and since then, as a personal coach for female world and USAT team members. There are some who want to suggest I don't know what I'm talking about or even (laughably) suggest I'm part of the problem, only to distract the uninitiated from the fact that I have been a vocal supporter of the women's program for over a decade now.

The odds are that we WON'T qualify a full women's team, but the HOPES are that we will. Let's not be delusional here. Their best chance was to have won their first match in the WC event. Esp. considering how highly they ranked in that event. The idea that earning two spots in Antalya is somehow more practical than winning that one match at the WC's against a lower ranked team is just silly.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

I am sure i will get a lot of hate for this post but....
The great thing about archery is there is NO subjectiveness. Scores talk all the way to the bank. There is nothing past it.

I already showed a comparision of women vs the men. And a comparison of the current top 8 USA trials ladies vs the top 16 South Korean trials archers. 

Only two of our ladies were even close, and one of those was a previous South Korean archer. The rest were not competitive. That is the nature of the USA women's side of things. Not internationally competitive as a group. Yes, Katuna has gone deep internationally, yes, Miranda also went deep. But going deep is not on a podium. Any who think the current USA program is turning out internationally competitive ladies is fooling themselves or afraid to admit the truth. 

Easy to see what the Koreans, China, India, even Mexico are producing. 

This not does mean i dont support our USA archers, particularly the ladies. I am in fact coaching kids as hard as i can to help turn this around. But it is what it is. And all the cheerleading in the world is not going to change it. Programs will change it. 

Chris


----------



## Ohriahn (Apr 22, 2016)

Yes, let's do both! Let's do both and more. But let's not do it by pondering who "the" representative to Rio will be while there is still a chance we will have three. Brown, Park, Pritchard, and Gibilaro are all outstanding shooters. Anything could happen in Florida to shake up the ranking. But I believe those four, whatever order they might be ranked in at the end, are our best shot at qualifying a full team. And the shot is good!

If we want to talk about the lack of support, or how it is that Park is able to do so well against RAs, or why there is so much more experience on the men's side, I think we should be asking: Why are so many of the women leaving the Training Center after Rio? Why did Mackenzie Brown receive less from Hoyt for her Bronze in Arizona than Crispin Duenas did for his? What are we conditioning our female shooters to feel is the end goal of their careers? These questions concern me very much, and I certainly believe the answers are part of the reason our female recurve team is held back from its full potential.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> This not does mean i dont support our USA archers, particularly the ladies. I am in fact coaching kids as hard as i can to help turn this around. But it is what it is. And all the cheerleading in the world is not going to change it. Programs will change it.


Truth.



> Yes, let's do both! Let's do both and more. But let's not do it by pondering who "the" representative to Rio will be while there is still a chance we will have three. Brown, Park, Pritchard, and Gibilaro are all outstanding shooters.


And then some. I can think of a dozen or more women who have put in the work and have the right mindset to succeed. They just have not had the right instruction and support IMO. 



> And the shot is good!


Uh, no, it isn't. And I think this is what Chris and I are trying to say. Let's not sugarcoat the position they are in. It took a miracle (something the US women had not previously done) for the three women to get to London. Are we just expecting lightning to strike twice? That's not realistic. As I said, the best chance is behind us. We can all hope and pray they qualify those final two spots, but the fact is that it won't be easy and it simply is not likely.



> If we want to talk about the lack of support, or how it is that Park is able to do so well against RAs, or why there is so much more experience on the men's side, I think we should be asking: Why are so many of the women leaving the Training Center after Rio? Why did Mackenzie Brown receive less from Hoyt for her Bronze in Arizona than Crispin Duenas did for his? What are we conditioning our female shooters to feel is the end goal of their careers? These questions concern me very much, and I certainly believe the answers are part of the reason our female recurve team is held back from its full potential.


Okay, now we're getting somewhere... And this is EXACTLY what I've been asking for over a decade now. I have an answer for the first question as I myself have done the same thing before. But the rest of the questions are harder to get an answer for because USArchery and their sponsors are still playing games and are still in denial.


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

chrstphr said:


> While i generally think the top women archers at world level are better than the men


Can I ask why? I read/hear it quite often but still don't understand it. As far as I know archery is no beauty contest, it's pure score based. So highest score always win and determine best archer on the day. Never heard some women's 100m sprinter is better then Usain Bolt because she have better style.

Now in "almost" every world event qualification men scoring higher then women - argument solved.

And please, we have to compare apples to apples = Korean women to Korean men, French women to French men etc. as every country have different "environment" for archery.

ps: don't get me wrong I admire form of Korean women, but I would never said they are better then OH or Kim


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I admire form of Korean women, but I would never said they are better then OH or Kim


After watching them in person for a few weeks, I would have put my $ on the '04 Korean women vs. the men in a team round. At least for those two teams. 

One thing is for sure though, a 30-something archer who "seemingly" comes out of nowhere and shakes up an entire Olympic selection process is a agent for change. Ask me how I know.  It was needed in '04, and on the women's side, it's needed again in '16. I'm sorry for the girls who have spent the past 4 years shooting full time and are getting their butts beat, but if she makes the team, it might be the best thing that's happened to women's Olympic archery in the U.S. since '88.


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> After watching them in person for a few weeks, I would have put my $ on the '04 Korean women vs. the men in a team round. At least for those two teams.


These teams, maybe.....as there was the "queen of release" Miss Park on women's team


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Ar-Pe-Lo said:


> These teams, maybe.....as there was the "queen of release" Miss Park on women's team


Yea, but it wasn't Ms. Park that I sat and watched shoot 9 or 10 consecutive 10's in a match. That was one heluva team and I believe they would have beaten the men's team straight up in a head-to-head match. In fact, I wished that year the women had been allowed to shoot against the men for gold in the team round. It would have been a match for the ages.


----------



## SHPoet (Nov 13, 2009)

Jim C said:


> true dat. * I have coached for and (for 17 years run) the oldest JOAD club in the country starting in 1997 or so,-the one that was the experiment that started the entire program in the USA. * for my first 18 or so years, we always had more boys than girls. we had more boys who traveled to major tournaments, more boys who wanted to compete and more boys who actually graduated from the program.
> 
> that is not true any more. I have three boys (recurve all) who shoot all the state events and shoot at least some of the USAT events. I have twice as many girls who do that this year. I have more girls who shoot just the local and state events then boys. For the first time, I have more than 2 girls shooting compounds. of my 25 or so regular archers 18 or so are girls. and that has been true the last few years
> 
> the one thing I note on the other side of this change is that I probably have lower proportion of girls stay through graduation. but that is changing. we have several coaches-our highest certified coach (my wife) is obviously female and we have another coach who is also a professional child counselor who is female and she is excellent in working with our female archers. other clubs have seen the same thing-the new JOAD club in our area has more girls attending tournaments than boys. I think this is a positive advancement and will make the increase in college archery more likely


I'm confused. I was involved with a JOAD club in the very early 1990s. They are still going strong.


----------



## iArch (Apr 17, 2015)

So we need a (retired?) korean olympian to represent the US? Korean archers are amazing!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Well, she hasn't earned the spot yet, and Mackenzie is really hitting her stride of late, taking down some pretty lofty competition at recent events, so I predict it could be an epic shootout in the end. If Ms Park smells blood, with her experience, talent and work ethic, she's going to be a real force to contend with though. Her success seems to be encouraging her to shoot better and better. I can relate. When you see archers around you who "should" be shooting better, but aren't, it sure makes you feel like you have a legitimate shot and it is very encouraging.


----------



## gitnbetr (Jan 17, 2007)

His statement says he started coaching for the club in 1997 or so, not that the club was started in 1997.


----------



## SHPoet (Nov 13, 2009)

gitnbetr said:


> His statement says he started coaching for the club in 1997 or so, not that the club was started in 1997.


 Ahhhh! Got it.


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> Yea, but it wasn't Ms. Park that I sat and watched shoot 9 or 10 consecutive 10's in a match. That was one heluva team and I believe they would have beaten the men's team straight up in a head-to-head match. In fact, I wished that year the women had been allowed to shoot against the men for gold in the team round. It would have been a match for the ages.


Yeah....it's why I write "almost" originally....you cannot deny that's true.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Ar-Pe-Lo said:


> Can I ask why? I read/hear it quite often but still don't understand it. As far as I know archery is no beauty contest, it's pure score based. So highest score always win and determine best archer on the day. Never heard some women's 100m sprinter is better then Usain Bolt because she have better style.
> 
> Now in "almost" every world event qualification men scoring higher then women - argument solved.
> 
> ...



They are better in my opinion for several reasons

1. They usually shoot 5-10 lbs lighter bow but have to shoot 70 in wind same as men
2. They are usually much smaller and shorter giving them another small disadvantage
3. They usually have a much shorter draw (26-27 inches) giving less of a power stroke

All this combined, usually the top ladies at world level shoot 650-679. Just incredible given the disadvantages. Beauty has nothing to do with it. Park Sung Hyun shot with a cheap JOAD sight on her bow. She couldnt handle the weight of a high end sight. She is still considered the best in the world. 

Why would i think the men are better at that level when they have every advantage in addition to brute strength for faster arrow, better trajectory? Its like competing against a compound archer in wind at 70.


Chris


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

chrstphr said:


> They are better in my opinion for several reasons
> 
> 1. They usually shoot 5-10 lbs lighter bow but have to shoot 70 in wind same as men
> 2. They are usually much smaller and shorter giving them another small disadvantage
> ...


And you forgot some advantages they have....like smaller fingers, so they can have cleaner release 

What? Park Sung Hyun cannot handle weight of sight? Common....Korean women can handle 40# recurve and handle it in their terms, mean they can dominate bow all day long.

I see she shooting normal Shibuya sight, top damper and some weights on long rod.....I'm sure she can handle it 

http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Park+Sung+Hyun/Olympics+Day+6+Archery/8DuccmbiJ_A

BUT this reasons are all irrelevant as sport of archery have just 1 criteria to choose winners (archers who are better) and that's score. Period.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Ar-Pe-Lo said:


> And you forgot some advantages they have....like smaller fingers, so they can have cleaner release :


i had no idea smaller fingers gave you a cleaner release. My JOAD 8-9 year olds must have the cleanest release on the planet. 


Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Coming from someone with baseball mitts for hands, I can promise you I'd take smaller/lighter fingers while I shoot - in a heartbeat. 

Chris makes a great analogy however - that recurve women shooting in the wind at 70 meters is akin to a male recurver shooting against a compounder. Just look at the energy in Brady's arrow vs. Any of the women. Esp. someone like Ariel. Joe Tapley has had a field day making these comparisons in the past.

Let's say Brady is shooting 50# and has a 400 grain arrow traveling 210 fps. That's 39 ft. lbs. of KE he's generating at the bow, and probably 25 ft. lbs. of KE retained downrange at 60 meters, where most of the drift occurs. 

If Ariel by comparison is shooting 40# and has a 285 grain arrow traveling 190 fps, that's a mere 23 ft. lbs. of KE at the bow, and probably less than 15 ft. lbs. of KE retained at 60 meters. 

Brady's bow is closer to compound numbers than it is most of the women's setups.

I think the draw weight-to-finger weight ratio probably cancel each other out, so I'm not ready to say the men have a distinct advantage in producing clean releases (from what I've seen, men are actually at a bit of a disadvantage here, and can only catch up to the women by shooting well over 40#). But simply from a drift and "aiming off" standpoint, the men seldom if ever have to aim outside of the red, while the women are routinely aiming 2 or 3 rings further off.

One datapoint that may help illustrate this. During the '04 trials Guy asked to see one of my arrows and held it up next to his. It was windy that week and he asked how far off I was having to aim. I told him that I was usually holding in the middle of the red. He shook his head and said "must be nice, I'm all the way out on the blue/black line..." Guy's setup was pretty close at the time to most of the Korean women's specs if that gives you any idea of their level of skill.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

There is a transiton occourring between two generations of archers at world top level. Transition started before London, and will end after Rio. 
In the time between Beijing to London, a lot of "old guns"were stil shooting at top level, and some few have been able to participate to the games. For italy for instance, while Ilario di Buo' retired before London, , Natalia Valeeva was stil able to make the team. Same happened in other countries, as in any case experience is weighting a lot when you move from the games to the Games. So, Natalia and Kathuna have participated to London 20 years exactly after they were members of the same team in Barcelona (with a Bronze medal). But now we are another 4 years later, Italian federation thinks better to try to get the spots with a younger team (while Natalia is still on top), and I see from scores that Katuna have faced some problems, shooting much lower than herr usual level (there should be some reaso, may be sick?). Anyhow, Natalia is 46 and Kathuna 42, no one can think thy will be still competitive for Tokyo, going to Rio or not going to Rio this year. 
Then there are still around the "boys" born in 1976. My son, Vic Wunderle, Larry Godfrey (and Magnus Petersson, born in 75 ) are still trying to qualify for Rio. But they will all be out of the games for 2020 Games, for sure. 
Experience can play a lot, as said, when we are in an Olympic year. Another great '76 boy, Jang Jong Ho, two years ago suddely re-ppeared in Berlin for the Berlin indoor Open and cleaned the field without any problem. Who can doubts that despite his age, he can qualify any moment in any team of the world apart from the Korean one? 
Nothing strange that a former top level Korean lady can make your team (or any other any team) in her late 30s if she wants to. 
There are very good archers, and there are champions. Do not mix up. 
Time is passing slowly for champions, faster for all others, but averge age for competitivity is becoming lower and lower. I have predicted that Rioe will be the last Olympic Games were the boys and girls of the 87/88 will stil be competitive, and may be for Tokyo this will happen for those born from 89 to 93 too. Those still in the game today being close to 40 deserve our respect and I wish all younger archers to be able to get on so long in our sport as they have done.

P.S. 
Tatiana Muntian was also playing the game; surely not a young archer, but also surely another great archer...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Father time is still undefeated...

But Butch took him to a one arrow shoot-off.


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

chrstphr said:


> i had no idea smaller fingers gave you a cleaner release. My JOAD 8-9 year olds must have the cleanest release on the planet.
> 
> 
> Chris


Well you learn every day....you are welcome


----------



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

chrstphr said:


> They are better in my opinion for several reasons
> Park Sung Hyun shot with a cheap JOAD sight on her bow. She couldnt handle the weight of a high end sight. She is still considered the best in the world.


A carbon Shibuya RX is a "cheap JOAD sight"?? Damn, what do you consider to be high end?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct...O72P4A-sAYL4nDA4mDF5yLOQ&ust=1461431720308338


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Ohriahn said:


> I think the odds are good we will qualify a full women's team for Rio. How can we talk about how shameful it is that the women are not better supported, and in the same breath express such a lack of confidence in our women's team? These are great shooters. They did very well last year, and I believe they will do very well this year. We should assume we are sending three women to Rio until that possibility is 100% off the board. To do otherwise is to encourage the idea that the top four should be primarily fighting for that #1 spot rather than working together to earn the other two slots we still need for the Olympics...


At Copenhagen which is probably as close an Olympic approximation as you can get at this stage, RM team qualified 4th finished 4th. RW team qualified 14th (10 points above cutline) finished T9 (lowest points of any team eliminated that round). Individually Lorig is in a similar league to Ellison but obviously something happens depthwise in a total score qualifying if the RM are way up the charts but the RW going 3 deep are one arrow from missing knockouts. And then that divergent result between the sexes is precisely why they are in the present predicament.

So yeah I think we all hope they get a full team in and that the trials are to pick the team, and not to set an individual pecking order, but the whole reason that's in play is they were 14th in the major outdoor world tournament and that from both an Olympic qualifying and general competitiveness POV that raises concerns. And begs the question why?

Far as the RA discussion goes, how many are there full time, how many are in school part of the time (in which case no offense to TAMU but you're leaning on them for most of the year to develop international archers in their off time from what is probably a full class load, and I doubt they fund trips to indoor world cups), how many can afford a full international schedule, how many basically disappear for the international indoor schedule save perhaps Vegas. [Which, heck, I got to Vegas this year.] And if half the season is unfunded, if you have college kids fighting their way in the mix through talent and attrition, good luck. If you have women prized or sponsored less than men who have to make the same trips, good luck.

I won't repeat all the theorized solutions from before, but funding the indoor teams would probably serve the Olympic mission even if that's not the Olympic event per se. I also wonder how much "R" there is in all the RAs with college and HS students involved, particularly on the women's side where attrition opens it up to younger archers. On a related note, not meaning to throw a stink bomb and run, but one could argue Klimitchek and Garrett have made a different level of career choice than someone simultaneously pursuing a college degree at TAMU. One thing MLS (the US pro soccer league) does is select an elite from each draft who go pro before college graduation (perhaps even from HS), and pledge post-career college tuition, to cover the athletes both ways. If it works out, pro soccer players. If they are soccer duds, college paid for. Maybe it might pay to grab the TAMU women and say, take off a couple years, be full RAs, we will run a year round season including indoors, and we will give you scholarship money to finish TAMU after. It's a risk and from a well rounded perspective one might prefer to pocket the degree. But if you are going to college where are you on the professionalism scale. When I played college soccer and track I routinely had to compromise this or that to make a coach or prof happy and eventually quit the team after junior season when I was ordered to show up for a weight lifting session instead of do midterm studying. I instead ran track as a senior because I was basically self-responsible for that. Mind you, archery is more like track but still, are you in CA or not, and how much time can you dedicate compared to some Korean archer paid to do it year round.


----------



## Casualfoto (Mar 10, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> One thing is for sure though, a 30-something archer who "seemingly" comes out of nowhere and shakes up an entire Olympic selection process is a agent for change. Ask me how I know.  It was needed in '04, and on the women's side, it's needed again in '16. I'm sorry for the girls who have spent the past 4 years shooting full time and are getting their butts beat, but if she makes the team, it might be the best thing that's happened to women's Olympic archery in the U.S. since '88.


Some would say that it would be the worst thing to happen to women's Olympic archery in the U.S. since...................ever. Complete destruction of the women's RA program.

Just an observation.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

>--gt--> said:


> A carbon Shibuya RX is a "cheap JOAD sight"?? Damn, what do you consider to be high end?
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct...O72P4A-sAYL4nDA4mDF5yLOQ&ust=1461431720308338


that info came from a Korean article on Park Sung Hyun about 6 years ago. She is the one who said it in the article. 

She also said she was not very good at archery until high school. 

It is unlikely as it is fairly old that i can find the article, but i will try to find it, to prove my source. 

Though she just said she used a beginner sight because of the weight of high end sights, she did not say JOAD. 




Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Some would say that it would be the worst thing to happen to women's Olympic archery in the U.S. since...................ever. Complete destruction of the women's RA program.


Sports programs are dismantled and rebuilt all the time. Look back to '04-'06.  

The current program has had a decade to produce results and for whatever reason, there is no statistical difference compared to the old program, by any measure. That's a lot longer than most professional coaches are given to produce results.


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

chrstphr said:


> that info came from a Korean article on Park Sung Hyun about 6 years ago. She is the one who said it in the article.
> 
> She also said she was not very good at archery until high school.
> 
> ...


Not very good at archery in korea probably mean she was just around 1300 level :-D


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> one could argue Klimitchek and Garrett have made a different level of career choice than someone simultaneously pursuing a college degree at TAMU. One thing MLS (the US pro soccer league) does is select an elite from each draft who go pro before college graduation (perhaps even from HS), and pledge post-career college tuition, to cover the athletes both ways. If it works out, pro soccer players. If they are soccer duds, college paid for. Maybe it might pay to grab the TAMU women and say, take off a couple years, be full RAs, we will run a year round season including indoors, and we will give you scholarship money to finish TAMU after. It's a risk and from a well rounded perspective one might prefer to pocket the degree.


A very good strategy because as we all know, women are smart and they have proven that they are not willing to give up college or a family for a shooting career, esp. when there is zero chance they will pocket as much as any of the men.

But that strategy will only succeed if there is a program in place that will reward full-time effort with world class results, and over the past 10 years, that has not been the case. So it's a bit of a chicken-or-egg problem.

I don't think there is any question that something is missing (maybe a few things) in the women's program. I'm just not sure why it's so taboo to talk about it. I mean it's the elephant in the room for pete's sake. And I think the better Ms. Park does, the bigger that elephant gets.


----------



## Casualfoto (Mar 10, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> The current program has had a decade to produce results and for whatever reason, there is no statistical difference compared to the old program, by any measure. That's a lot longer than most professional coaches are given to produce results.


I agree. My personal thoughts on the situation lean toward the position (standing) of Archery in the United States. Not until there is a path toward a middle class livelihood and lifestyle will be produce consistently strong groups of Team USA archers. Why the turnover of RA's? Look no further than the reality of life in the US.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I think there is some usefulness in comparing the increase in scores we've seen in the male RA's vs. the female RA's, and asking why that is. Maybe as you say, more of the men see a path to an income stream. If that's true, why is that? There are a lot of contributing factors, and some of them build on one another...

Higher scores = more success. More success = more attention. More attention = more sponsors and often, more time spent with coach. So there is somewhat of a snowball effect.

I hate to quote Tiger Woods again, but he famously said "winning takes care of everything" and he is absolutely right. The way this problem gets solved is that the women learn how to shoot better scores. There are plenty of theories as to why that hasn't happened, and what it would take, but that's really the bottom line. Look at the attention Jenny got when she was competitive. Look at the attention Khatuna got. Plenty. I have no idea whether the sponsor dollars were in line with what the top male archer was getting (I'm betting not) but I can tell you that if we had three or four or five women who were routinely shooting 660-670 and earning podium spots at world cups, WC's and Olympics, the sponsors would come. So it all starts with the shooting. The question really is, how does that happen? Or, why hasn't it happened, and what's it going to take for that TO happen?

It's really not fair to expect a young lady who has never been taught how to shoot 660+'s to continue fumbling along at the 2nd tier level. Not in this sport. There is no future for full-time 630-640 archers in this sport. So the smart play for most of them is to just go to college or start a family and I don't blame them one bit. But I thought back in '05 we hired a coach who knew how to teach women to shoot 660+'s So again, what's the problem? The one woman that program has (arguably) produced who could routinely shoot 660+ quit the sport. Was that the fault of the program, the coaches, the other archers, the sponsors, the organization, our culture? I've heard all of those things blamed by the other. Lots of finger pointing, but no real answers yet that I have seen.

I'm not saying I have the answers, but I sure wonder why more people aren't asking questions on behalf of our women.


----------



## RMBX10 (Jun 20, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Father time is still undefeated...
> 
> But Butch took him to a one arrow shoot-off.


That's the best line in this whole thread! :thumbs_up


----------



## iArch (Apr 17, 2015)

limbwalker said:


> So it all starts with the shooting. The question really is, how does that happen? Or, why hasn't it happened, and what's it going to take for that TO happen?


I'd think the tallest pyramids have the biggest base. More blocks, taller pyramid! :tongue:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

iArch said:


> I'd think the tallest pyramids have the biggest base.


Sounds logical, but not always true in archery. Look at Mexico. Look at Italy. Look at many countries that have far fewer women shooting Olympic style archery and who have had much more success. Pick any random 3rd world country that routinely kicks our butts, and ask how many and how well supported they are... 

Archery is not like other team sports. We only need three. Not 9 or 11 or 22 great athletes. Just three. And some could argue (as in the case of Italy) even one is enough to bring home medals. Our pyramid could look like the Washington Monument, and we'd still bring home medals. 

But I do hope you're right about the base because myself and many other grassroots coaches see the groundswell and we all hope these young ladies will meet a much more fertile environment when they are ready to start training than the one our women have seen in the past 25 years.


----------



## iArch (Apr 17, 2015)

Azzurri said:


> And if half the season is unfunded, if you have college kids fighting their way in the mix through talent and attrition, good luck. If you have women prized or sponsored less than men who have to make the same trips, good luck.
> 
> Mind you, archery is more like track but still, are you in CA or not, and how much time can you dedicate compared to some Korean archer paid to do it year round.


Funding is one 'problem', but then how about other countries where supposedly top athletes had to fund themselves in some tournaments? I don't know if funding is the biggest issue, but it would be interesting to see the NGB/RA-program budgets of different countries compared to the results.


----------



## RMBX10 (Jun 20, 2002)

>--gt--> said:


> A carbon Shibuya RX is a "cheap JOAD sight"?? Damn, what do you consider to be high end?
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct...O72P4A-sAYL4nDA4mDF5yLOQ&ust=1461431720308338


People who complain about the weight of a sight never experienced any of the Chek-Its or Toxonics sights of the 80's or the early iterations of the Sure-Loc. I've anchored boats with less weight than those things.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

Maybe after the Olympics Ms Park will take the ladies head coach position?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

bobnikon said:


> Maybe after the Olympics Ms Park will take the ladies head coach position?


I already suggested she may be interviewing for the job.  What better way to sell oneself than to demonstrate the right way to do it?


----------



## droy (Dec 21, 2012)

> The odds are that we WON'T qualify a full women's team, but the HOPES are that we will. Let's not be delusional here


Based on todays results in Shanghai, ranked at #12,25,64,72, I really hope they have a better result in Turkey. That said I'm sure the OT's were their recent focus, but then again Brady shot a 697!


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

droy said:


> Based on todays results in Shanghai, ranked at #12,*35*,64,72, I really hope they have a better result in Turkey. That said I'm sure the OT's were their recent focus, but then again Brady shot a 697!


yes, interestingly South Korean female cadets placed 2nd, 10th, 38th and 42. Not bad for a division or two down from Juniors or Seniors. 


Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

droy said:


> Based on todays results in Shanghai, ranked at #12,25,64,72, I really hope they have a better result in Turkey. That said I'm sure the OT's were their recent focus, but then again Brady shot a 697!


Abysmal. 

At what point are the coaches/program on the hook for this?

Clearly whatever this program has been doing for the last decade (yes, decade) was not the answer for our women. They deserve better.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Mackenzie, Gibilaro out, LaNola through to round two, Katuna has bye. 


Sean out, Jacob, Zack through to round two. Brady still has bye. 

Compound men all bye

Compound women all bye

Chris


----------



## cekkmt (Nov 29, 2013)

chrstphr said:


> yes, interestingly South Korean female cadets placed 2nd, 10th, 38th and 42. Not bad for a division or two down from Juniors or Seniors.
> 
> 
> Chris


World Archery lists their ages at 17-19, which is Junior not Cadet right?


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

cekkmt said:


> World Archery lists their ages at 17-19, which is Junior not Cadet right?


Speaking from direct personal experience with the World Archery database, people's date of births are sometimes wrong.

My son's DOB in the WA database, for example, puts him two years older than he actually is. I discovered this and other issues while working the scoring side of the Arizona Cup this year.

-Steve


----------



## droy (Dec 21, 2012)

From Chris Wells at World Archery



> There was heartbreak for the USA recurve team as Mackenzie Brown, Ariel Gibilaro and Sean McLaughlin fell in the first round, and not shooting to the level all did during national selections in past weeks, and Khatuna Lorig and Jacob Wukie in the second - leaving just top-eights Brady Ellison, Zach Garrett, and LaNola Pritchard, to carry US individual hopes from the third and on.
> 
> With the USA women only having a single women’s place qualified for Rio, this is not the confidence boost the team are looking for heading into the team rounds tomorrow and the final qualifier in Antalya next month.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

cekkmt said:


> World Archery lists their ages at 17-19, which is Junior not Cadet right?


Going off of people there at the shoot calling them cadets. World Archery lists the Koreans as a Junior and Cadet recurve squad. 

http://worldarchery.org/news/139198/shanghai-2016-10-things-you-need-know 


Also in Korea, the monment you are born, you are 1 year old. Then when the year changes, you are two. 

Not sure if their age is Korean age or USA age. We count birth as zero year.

Chris


----------

