# Resources for learning NTS/BEST/KSL method



## jguardia (Aug 28, 2014)

Hey folks,

I'm new to these boards, although I've been a lurker for a bit, and also new to archery. Thanks for being a great resource.

I was wondering about the NTS/BEST/KSL technique (or whatever it's supposed to be called) and how to learn more about it through the books written on it. I know Kisik Lee has written two books with others (Total Archery and Inside the Archer), and USA Archery endorsed a more recent book in which Kisik Lee discusses his method. Then there's Kisik Lee's website.

My question for those of you with experience with all three is: is it worth it to get all three books? How much overlap is there among them? I've heard that the discussions in the USA Archery book are fairly detailed, so is there anything in Total Archery and Inside the Archer that you would be missing out on if you only read the USA Archery book or the website in terms of the technique itself?

Just to add some qualifiers, I know there is controversy about some of the claims made by Kisik Lee about his method, and I make it a point to take everything with a grain of salt. Also, I don't intend to learn the technique just through books. I have access to a coach to help me with this. So my question is not about the validity of the technique and my intent is not to learn from books only, but rather to decide how the books overlap or complement each other.

Thanks in advance folks and sorry for the long post!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Honestly, the books will probably confuse you more than help you at this point. However, they could be a valuable reference later.

I'd recommend you find a level 3 NTS qualified coach and pay the money to spend some time with them to get you started. If you want to dive into the books after you've been shooting a while, they will make a lot more sense to you then.

John


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> Honestly, the books will probably confuse you more than help you at this point. However, they could be a valuable reference later.
> 
> I'd recommend you find a level 3 NTS qualified coach and pay the money to spend some time with them to get you started. If you want to dive into the books after you've been shooting a while, they will make a lot more sense to you then.
> 
> John


I have to strongly agree with this response. MAKE SURE they are NTS qualified and if possible find a L4. I know a lot of the L3's that were at our L4 course were struggling with the terminology in the books and with the concepts. Even some of the L4's were struggling with only reading of the books. There's nothing like really working with someone that has shot for a long time and understands the concepts. 

After you begin to understand the how and WHY of a lot of the shooting process, then the books will begin to make sense.

For someone that doesn't understand the physics and biomechanics and movements required for BEST/NTS/KSL shooting, the least confusing is the USA Archery book and it does cover quite a bit..


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> For someone that doesn't understand the physics and biomechanics and movements required for BEST/NTS/KSL shooting, the least confusing is the USA Archery book and it does cover quite a bit..


I completely agree.

Of course, the least confusing book of all is Rick's "Simple art of Winning."  That's always where I recommend someone get started.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Agreed on Rick's book but it is pre-KSL and since that was the question, I went with the least confusing of his list..

Another great book for good fundamentals (even though it's not specifically target recurve focused) is "Shooting the Stick bow"


----------



## Drowsy (May 9, 2013)

I have purchased and read all of the books mentioned above, before and after I found a coach. 

*Before Finding Coach*: The books only made sense about 30 percent of the time... It was incredibly confusing. The subject matter was vast, and it was overwhelming. 

*After Finding Coach*: Have you ever read something twice, knowing you're reading the exact same words, but it has a completely different meaning the second time around? That's how I felt about the books. 

My only advice is to purchase the USA Archery book first, as I feel it's the one that's least overwhelming to beginners. Following that, find yourself a Level 3 coach or higher, preferably someone who is a current competitor, and shoots Olympic Recurve. (Something about being coached by a compound competitor just doesn't make sense to me.)


----------



## jguardia (Aug 28, 2014)

Thank you all for the helpful and constructive replies - sounds like there is good consensus on the topic, and I'll definitely follow the advice you gave me and go for the coaching by a qualified NTS-certified individual first so that the USA Archery book makes sense, rather than muddle through it on my own. Given that, do you think it would be worth it at a later stage (or during the coaching) to get the TA and ITA books? In other words, is there any added value to these over the USA Archery book, or would a NTS Level 3+ coach and the USA Archery be a entry into the world of NTS?

And thanks also for the recommendations on some other non- or pre-NTS books, I'll be sure to check them out as well.


----------



## Drowsy (May 9, 2013)

I would absolutely recommend Inside The Archer. I think the pictures and angles are really helpful, and every single time I read it, I glean some new information that I either forgot, or understand more clearly because of my coach. Some of it could be worded a little differently to aid in understanding, but for the most part, I think it's a good resource. 

Coming from a person who tried to learn exclusively from books and videos, i.e. Self Coaching, I can tell you that even though I have a coach now, there's still a ton of great information in that one book.


----------



## jguardia (Aug 28, 2014)

On the topic of coaching since it came up, this may be off topic based on my original post, but I was wondering how much it is reasonable to expect to pay for a NTS-3 or NTS-4 coach in California. And also, any advice on how often to see a coach (once a week, two weeks, once a month?) or how long to meet each session. I know this will vary by athlete and coach and what the goal is, but any ballpark suggestions or best practices based on the gamut of situations would be helpful.

Also just want to say thanks a bunch one more time to all of you for the previous responses.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Some Level 3-NTS coaches are worth $100/hour and charge $20 (or sometimes nothing) and other Level 3-NTS are worth $20/hour and charge $100. It pays to check a coach's references before you shell out your money. If they aren't comfortable giving you a list of archers they've worked with and what those archers have accomplished, then you should be suspicious. 

Most L4-NTS coaches I know are going to be worth every penny you spend however. There is a chasm between L3 and L4's right now in this country.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

jguardia when I was taking Sandy (wife) to Don Rabska at Woodley park it was $70.00 pr hour he is worth $150.00 but don't tell him lol we went twice a month. I would think once a week at first and then back off a little.


jguardia said:


> On the topic of coaching since it came up, this may be off topic based on my original post, but I was wondering how much it is reasonable to expect to pay for a NTS-3 or NTS-4 coach in California. And also, any advice on how often to see a coach (once a week, two weeks, once a month?) or how long to meet each session. I know this will vary by athlete and coach and what the goal is, but any ballpark suggestions or best practices based on the gamut of situations would be helpful.
> 
> Also just want to say thanks a bunch one more time to all of you for the previous responses.


----------



## williamskg6 (Dec 21, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Some Level 3-NTS coaches are worth $100/hour and charge $20 (or sometimes nothing) and other Level 3-NTS are worth $20/hour and charge $100. It pays to check a coach's references before you shell out your money. If they aren't comfortable giving you a list of archers they've worked with and what those archers have accomplished, then you should be suspicious.
> 
> Most L4-NTS coaches I know are going to be worth every penny you spend however. There is a chasm between L3 and L4's right now in this country.


As always, very, very true!


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Some Level 3-NTS coaches are worth $100/hour and charge $20 (or sometimes nothing) and other Level 3-NTS are worth $20/hour and charge $100. It pays to check a coach's references before you shell out your money. If they aren't comfortable giving you a list of archers they've worked with and what those archers have accomplished, then you should be suspicious.
> 
> Most L4-NTS coaches I know are going to be worth every penny you spend however. There is a chasm between L3 and L4's right now in this country.


I agree whole heartedly!

The Level III course introduces the steps for NTS but doesn't really cover it in depth. To be sure that your coach knows the system they should either be a Level IV or have taken the separate NTS module. The style is constantly evolving. I took the NTS module less than 2 years ago and just completed my Level IV training. There are significant differences between then and now, even more if you refer to the books. Coach Lee teaching style uses metaphor, it is sometimes hard to separate the science from the metaphor. 

NTS is basically a holding technique, if you can get to proper holding it doesn't really matter how you got there. The benefit to NTS is that there is a clear series of steps. That being said, each country has their own style, as long as you don't get caught up in the dogma there are several ways to get to holding.

TAO


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

I wonder if after KSL's contract is up and if he leaves for greener pastures will

1) USA decide to adopt a whole new "NTS" or "BEST"

2)will all those coaches who spent lots of hours, lots of time and having to recite back to the current gurus what NTS is be told they have to go through another series of "training" to prove they can coach kids even if some of them have been turning out good archers for ages

and will all of those in the "inner circle" remain the "favored elite" or will there be a changing of the guard or a outright house cleaning?

3) My wife was told she has to wait 2 years after getting the NTS module before she could go to level four. Well in about two years we may well have a new head coach. 

so many questions that are out there


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

TheAncientOne said:


> The Level III course introduces the steps for NTS but doesn't really cover it in depth.


To be fair, that is no longer the case. NTS is now introduced in the L1 and L2 courses. I found out the hard way when I held an L1 course early in the year to find that the questions now include having to list the 10 (not 13) NTS steps... with no key, in a L1 class! In order to be able to list them, you have to know them. Which means L1 and L2 instructors are learning the basics of NTS in the course - they are in my courses anyway.

There is now a dedicated NTS module for L3, so some coaches are listed as L3, but most are listed as L3 NTS.

Also, a good handful of L2s who were at the coach symposium this year were treated to a round robin of going through the NTS in _minute_ detail. While I was at full draw, Coach Lee touched my little finger to my neck. Can I officially say I've been coached by the National Head Coach?!? Lol. Anyway, that was a real treat for those of us who had yet to attend an NTS module, which I have since done.

To help my instructor students remember the steps, I give them the formula as follows... get them through the easy to remember steps... 
1. stance
2. nock
3. set
4. set up 

Then, this is where they get mixed up, so I tell them to use DATA.

5. *D*raw (& load)
6. *A*nchor
7. *T*ransfer
8. *A*im (& expand)

Then it's obvious to...

9. Release

Then remind them to use F to Finish...

10. Follow through.

HOWEVER, I might know and be able to teach NTS all day long, but do I have the podium experience? No! OTOH, my coach is, embarrassingly for me, the same level as me yet probably should be an L5! I also know at least one L4, who has never placed or coached to the podium.

So that goes back to what John was saying about checking the credentials. I'll gladly pass students on to a more experienced coach. Hopefully, any coach worth their salt would do the same if they really have the best interest of the athlete at heart.


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

Jim C said:


> I wonder if after KSL's contract is up and if he leaves for greener pastures will
> <snip>
> so many questions that are out there


Ugh. Leave us honeymoon period coaches in our warm and cosy little world will ya, lol!

Yes, a very real possibility of change.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Ms.Speedmaster said:


> To be fair, that is no longer the case. NTS is now introduced in the L1 and L2 courses. I found out the hard way when I held an L1 course early in the year to find that the questions now include having to list the 10 (not 13) NTS steps...


To really mess you up there are now 11 steps

Stance
Nock
Hook & Grip
Set position
Set-up
Draw/Load
Anchor
Transfer/Holding
Expansion/Aiming
Release/Follow-through
Relaxation/Feedback

They are using different terminology for Level 1 than for Levels 2,3 and 4 

Level 1:









Levels 2,3 and 4:









For those of us who weren't confused enough.

TAO


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

TheAncientOne said:


> To really mess you up there are now 11 steps











You have got to be kidding me? So the teaching materials are going to change... again? Maybe? Someday?

When were they planning on communicating that to the coaches?

I'm going to :zip:.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Ms.Speedmaster said:


> View attachment 2036755
> 
> 
> You have got to be kidding me? So the teaching materials are going to change... again? Maybe? Someday?
> ...


you can go back and spend more time and money getting re-certified every time the head gurus change their minds


Like BEST in 06 now NTS. and in two years-who knows, maybe Lloyd Brown is back!! and we will get the GNAS system:wink:


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

Jim C said:


> you can go back and spend more time and money getting re-certified every time the head gurus change their minds
> 
> 
> Like BEST in 06 now NTS. and in two years-who knows, maybe Lloyd Brown is back!! and we will get the GNAS system:wink:


Now I know how others have felt. That's a real punch in the gut.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Ms.Speedmaster said:


> Now I know how others have felt. That's a real punch in the gut.


yeah and people like me and John who have been coaching for years (me, well I became a NFAA Master coach (their level 4 in 97, Level III "HIGH PERFORMANCE" in 06) are told we are now inferior to someone who just got their level IV a week ago and my wife-was level III in 06 "HIGH PERFORMANCE BEST" that same year but didn't take the NTS component until April has to wait 2 years to get level IV despite having over 2000 hours of coaching experience while someone who got Level III NTS two years ago and has coached not a single kid to a podium can

she also is an active competitor and as a BB archer, I suspect she can beat several of the "elite coaches" even if they were shooting a full FITA recurve rig

so yeah, some of us who have been around for YEARS are a bit pissed off at a system that seems to be run by those who want to make money off of this sport at the expense of people who became coaches mainly to help kids achieve their dreams. I have nothing against professional coaches-I am talking about those who demand people like us have to spend more money and time getting "certified, recertified etc every time they change their minds

besides most of the change is nothing more than repackaging what we all have known or correcting the FLAWS most of us were noting years ago


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

I hear you, Jim. I'm not going to re-learn and alter what I've already gotten embedded in my head (unless my coach completely changes the way I shoot...). So unless the instructor materials get changed to reflect this and/or there is an official update, along with an explanation, I'm not going to acknowledge it. I can't pretend to understand why the change and then pass that teaching on. And I won't be paying $50 for the poster either.

In examining it closely (I can't help myself), I kinda understand the separation of hook/grip and set. But to combine release and follow through is a mistake, imho. The follow through is one of those things you have to keep on top of the most with new students. Tagging it on to the end of the release loses its importance.

Sorry, OP - you didn't ask for politics, did you!? Yes, go and find yourself a good coach and keep the board posted on your progress. 

Rooting for archers, regardless of the fluff.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TheAncientOne said:


> To really mess you up there are now 11 steps
> 
> Stance
> Nock
> ...


I wish simplifying meant **fewer steps** rather than re-naming stuff. Can anyone tell me why on earth **level one** instructors are taught "transfer"??? By the time newly minted L1s get to the summer camp program they are working at they only remember a fraction of what they were taught weeks or months ago - and "transfer" just doesn't enter in to it - 11 steps is too many steps to label separately and expect people to remember by rote at the L1 (and their students) level. I'd say they need to be grouped into larger chunks for better recall. Detail and nuance are great in the long run, but L1's need reliable simplicity, IMO.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TheAncientOne said:


> Coach Lee teaching style uses metaphor, it is sometimes hard to separate the science from the metaphor.


I think one of the challenges with the "metaphorical" approach is that I'm much more literal, and I expect analogies to be, well, analogous if they are to be useful rather than detrimental to aiding understanding. They should clarify, not confuse. The KSL/NTS "Barrel of the Gun" is in not like the barrel of a gun, it is the alignment of the *support* for the bow, and doesn't even point at the target like a gun barrel (more like a stock, or gun carriage than the barrel). The only analog is that it refers to the back and bow arm being in a straight line, and gun barrels are straight. As far as I can tell, that's the only thing. :dontknow:


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> The only analog is that it refers to the back and bow arm being in a straight line, and gun barrels are straight. As far as I can tell, that's the only thing. :dontknow:


It is also moved as a unit like a gun barrel.

That's the problem with analogies, not always a perfect fit. You should explain archery using archery terminology.

TAO


----------



## Moebow (Jul 8, 2010)

I do several L1 classes every year, for camp counselors and High school kids on the NASP team. I agree that transfer is too advanced for this level of instruction and also that "loading" probably is too. In an 8 or so hour class with mostly younger folks that have probably not shot before, it is just too advanced IMO. I will fess up here and say that even memorizing the list is too much when they are at this level. To be sure, we talk about every step in the sequence, but it is unrealistic to require them to memorize the full list, with every thing else they need to learn and do, too. I make sure they have access to the answer for that test question. SO! I "tailor" the shot sequence to what I think the new L1s really need and can assimilate during the class.

I do like the combination of the "release/follow through" step and generally teach that IF the steps before are done correctly, follow through is a result and not a thought out step.

My L2 students get the "full monty" of the NTS steps but again, it is their first exposure to it (for most) and expecting full understanding and competence in the steps is unrealistic during the basic class.

I think is is fair that students at this level need exposure, but just memorizing the steps without understanding or time to work on it is not very productive.

I also agree that the "analogies" issue is or can be a problem. I remember a few years ago the discussion about the "standing on the chair" analogy that is in the second book. To Coach Lee, as he explained it in my L4 class, standing on the chair is an analogy for committing to the shot. But even with him "standing on the chair," literally, in the class, it was an analogy that didn't make much sense to "us" western culture folks.

Arne


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

I'm going for my Level 3 NTS this weekend.
I've read the books and not too confused. Hoping to get a lot out of this class and be able to help my archers reach higher levels.
Question for you all: Is having a student podium a requirement to reach the higher levels of coaching?


----------



## Moebow (Jul 8, 2010)

Not at this time, only L5 has a "podium" requirement. There is (has been discussion) where some think that you should only get L3 or higher levels If you have had "podium results" which I think is pretty silly. At this time, it looks to me that achieving L4 is set up to insure that the coach has all the theory down (all the tools) and then can pursue the podiums for the L5. IF there was a podium requirement for L3/4, there wouldn't be many (if any) L3/4s. There just aren't many qualifying "podiums" available - IMO. (Firestorm to follow! :>)

Arne

PS. Have fun with the L3 class!


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

Thanks Arne,
I had a student podium at outdoor nationals. But I cannot take all the credit. She attended camp in Ohio this summer and some of the credit also goes to those coaches. lizard, Jim C and others who were there. 
Can we all share her glory? 
Just kidding of course.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

I have a personal view that as a JOAD instructor, you need to have a kid in the Red/Blue pin range as a minimum qualification to go for your level 3. I also have a personal view that a Level 4 candidate should have kids with their yellow pin or their Olympian pin.

At this time Level 5 has the requirement of two years at a Level 4, 3 separate kids reach the podium at Nationals or reach top 10 USAT or reach an international or Olympic team. It also requires that you teach JOAD camps or JDT camps with being reviewed, you do international travel as a team lead with peer review, and you take the USA Archery specific ASEP Coaching Principles class.

Oh, and you then go through peer review after that.

I see what Level 5's go through, and it's insane. Arizona has two Level 5's and the two of them don't have time to settle down and rest at some points in time.

Me? I was busy as a Level 3. As a Level 4, the work is increasing a lot. I don't see Level 5 being a goal until I see my own schedule settling down...if it does.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

XForce Girl said:


> Thanks Arne,
> I had a student podium at outdoor nationals. But I cannot take all the credit. She attended camp in Ohio this summer and some of the credit also goes to those coaches. lizard, Jim C and others who were there.
> Can we all share her glory?
> Just kidding of course.


of course you can. that is the goal-get the kid to where that archer wants to be. the people who give a champion archer a good start I credit as much or more than the people who get them when the kid is already able to win. But a good coach has to know sometimes the archer needs another look or another opinion or another perspective and the coach has to be able to accept that fact. I remember years ago, I had my first really good student. He was winning the state and regional events. But I was telling him one thing, and another coach-who shortly afterwards left our program was telling him another thing and it was causing problems. So, as a birthday present to him, I sent the boy to one of the best recognized and well respected top coaches in the country and told the student to listen to that coach. SO I get a call from the top coach and he said he was surprised I sent the boy to him. I said why? and this top coach said-most coaches won't send me a kid who is a national class archer and is about ready to win at the national level because they want to take all the credit when the archer does win. I told him I didn't care who took the credit, I wanted the boy to get to his absolute best level and the conflict at the club was impeding that. Well the kid did get on a couple national podiums probably because Terry Wunderle smoothed out a couple rough edges. 

too many times, it seems, coaches think archers exist to make the coach look good, when the reality is that the coach should be a resource for an archer to achieve


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Beastmaster said:


> I have a personal view that as a JOAD instructor, you need to have a kid in the Red/Blue pin range as a minimum qualification to go for your level 3. I also have a personal view that a Level 4 candidate should have kids with their yellow pin or their Olympian pin.


Not unreasonable. A couple of thoughts, though. Not all instructors or coaches are kids coaches and not all programs do the Pin awards. 

One of the issues wit the concept of requiring podium or other achievement for the coaching certs is that the coaching instruction consists of two separate things 1) a *learning* opportunity 2) a certification of competence 

My main issue with the call to restrict the coaching certs to podium qualifications isn't with restricting the cert but with restricting the learning that comes with the classes, and right now the learning and the certification are treated as being one thing. I don't think we should restrict who can learn how to teach NTS in more detail (as with the level three and four classes) in the same way as we might restrict who can be certified based on competition by students or what not.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Jim C said:


> too many times, it seems, coaches think archers exist to make the coach look good, when the reality is that the coach should be a resource for an archer to achieve


I totally agree here. Ego has no place in coaching.

For me and a personal perspective, I'm used to moving kids onward from one coach (myself) to another. When I was coaching 12U Baseball and Junior High Volleyball, it's my role as a coach to prepare the students for what they will be encountering with their NEW coach. In archery, I find that students tend to stick with a coach not because the student is aware that they need the change, but because the coach is unwilling to let that student go.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Warbow said:


> Not unreasonable. A couple of thoughts, though. Not all instructors or coaches are kids coaches and not all programs do the Pin awards.
> 
> One of the issues wit the concept of requiring podium or other achievement for the coaching certs is that the coaching instruction consists of two separate things 1) a *learning* opportunity 2) a certification of competence
> 
> My main issue with the call to restrict the coaching certs to podium qualifications isn't with restricting the cert but with restricting the learning that comes with the classes, and right now the learning and the certification are treated as being one thing. I don't think we should restrict who can learn how to teach NTS in more detail (as with the level three and four classes) in the same way as we might restrict who can be certified based on competition by students or what not.


I use the pins as a reference. It shows that the coach in question has the minimum competence to have their students achieve a minimum level score of some sort. I do feel you get what I'm trying to recommend, however.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

XForce Girl said:


> Thanks Arne,
> I had a student podium at outdoor nationals. But I cannot take all the credit. She attended camp in Ohio this summer and some of the credit also goes to those coaches. lizard, Jim C and others who were there.
> Can we all share her glory?
> Just kidding of course.


Yes, you can share in the glory.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Beastmaster said:


> I use the pins as a reference. It shows that the coach in question has the minimum competence to have their students achieve a minimum level score of some sort. I do feel you get what I'm trying to recommend, however.


Of course. The pins are a useful metric.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Warbow said:


> Of course. The pins are a useful metric.


we sort of got away from that over the years. we expect the kids in our program to compete in state regional and national tournaments and track their progress based on their tournament scores and placements. we do push kids who start with us and remain with us through their senior year in HS to graduate HS with at least one Olympian level badge. Since Liz and I started running the JOAD club with DP, we have always had at least a couple kids with silver olympian status. 

we generally try to get kids shooting at a 230- 250 level (60CM) target recurve after a year depending on age and other commitments , 250-270 after two years and Olympian in four years. and of course there are variations, we had one girl who shot all the time, beat the #2 seed one year at JOAD nationals, the #4 seed another year who shot 279 17 times on the 40CM indoor target and never got Olympian and we had another boy who in 5 months of basically shooting 4-6 days a week during the winter months, make Olympian but fell apart in tournaments. what is most interesting is that he joined one of the minor league golf tours after high school and apparently was making a decent living playing pro golf


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

I've had to let a couple kids go to other coaches. 
One was because I really think it was best for her, she's still part of our club though.

The other is because I was not getting the results the parents felt I should be getting, So I cut them loose (it was mutual) and made a few recommendations of other coaches in the area who may have more success.

I like using the pins because many of the kids are not able to travel to shoots due to family income or similar reasons. They really look forward to earning their pins and it keeps them motivated while others are out traveling to shoots.
I have had 1 Gold Olympian this year and another Silver. The gold winner is the one who went to be coached by Larry Wise.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

XForce Girl said:


> I've had to let a couple kids go to other coaches.
> One was because I really think it was best for her, she's still part of our club though.
> 
> The other is because I was not getting the results the parents felt I should be getting, So I cut them loose (it was mutual) and made a few recommendations of other coaches in the area who may have more success.
> ...


Larry Wise was one of the instructors in what was the first NFAA Master Coach camp about 17 years ago in Dayton (damn time flies in archery). he's as good as they get when it comes to compound archery especially. I'd be hard pressed to name anyone who knows more about how to set up a compound bow than him.


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

Warbow said:


> Not unreasonable. A couple of thoughts, though. Not all instructors or coaches are kids coaches and not all programs do the Pin awards.


That inspires a question for a new thread about how people are running their programs. This has been a very informative thread in many ways.

Still OT from the original post, but following the thought... Now that I've had time to mull this over, that is, the changing curriculum, I have decided to not have feelings of frustration because that tarnishes what has come to be a source of much enjoyment for me. Instead, I choose to see it this way: USA Archery being a morphing organization with the same purpose it has always had (the Olympic pipeline?), that has been thrown into a state of rapid growth. It is trying to keep up with this growth as best it can, resulting in some great new programs and resources, e.g. Explore Archery. Maybe there will also be a closer examination of what the broader picture could be?

Are the new shot process steps the best (pardon the pun)? Maybe not, idk. But it seems there is effort to accommodate all levels of archers, and that effort should be recognised. 

The human element, and $$$, will always come into play wherever we are involved. I recently quit my full-time gig at a church to become a full-time coach, and I was not sorry to leave the politics and bureaucracy behind. In a church! Now that I'm out, I can enjoy my Sunday mornings, where the purpose of church remains the same. I just don't get to see all that background mess. It's only natural for there to be background mess with archery organizations too, but it's a lot easier to stomach with something I'm really passionate about. Speaking personally, maybe a reframed viewpoint will help with solution seeking instead of being part of the problem? 

I can almost sense the rolling eyes, lol.

Just for good measure...


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

Ms.Speedmaster said:


> That inspires a question for a new thread about how people are running their programs. This has been a very informative thread in many ways.
> 
> Still OT from the original post, but following the thought... Now that I've had time to mull this over, that is, the changing curriculum, I have decided to not have feelings of frustration because that tarnishes what has come to be a source of much enjoyment for me. Instead, I choose to see it this way: USA Archery being a morphing organization with the same purpose it has always had (the Olympic pipeline?), that has been thrown into a state of rapid growth. It is trying to keep up with this growth as best it can, resulting in some great new programs and resources, e.g. Explore Archery. Maybe there will also be a closer examination of what the broader picture could be?
> 
> ...


Excellent post.
I started a thread where we can discuss this further called "let's talk about our clubs"
You bring up a great point, archery is growing so fast and I would love to hear about how other clubs have adapted and changed to meet these needs.
OP, I'm sorry your thread was taken off topic. I hope you found some useful information among all our chatter.


----------

