# World Cup Antalya



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Dan McLaughlin opens with a 347 ?!? Holy cow.

670's are darn good. Conditions must have been outstanding as all three Koreans shot 680's.

Jake shoots a "reasonable" score and still qualifies 69th. Things are getting tough on the men's side. Geez!


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

Nice cut, 646 to get to top 104 which qualifies for matches...


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

I guess no one is interested in anything below 640.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Men's game is a solid 15 points ahead of where it was in '04. Maybe 20. It's to the point now where (like Vittorio has said) only full-time professionals can play. At least, in the recurve men's field. Possibly the compound men too.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Men's game is a solid 15 points ahead of where it was in '04. Maybe 20. It's to the point now where (like Vittorio has said) only full-time professionals can play. At least, in the recurve men's field. Possibly the compound men too.


I think that biggest difference is simply that field of potential high scorers is just so much wider these days. Compared to Atlanta where the current format was pretty much established, there top 3 were all over 680 (684, 682, 681) but with 646 you'd still place in comfortable place of ~40. That competition in Atlanta was really high scoring, though, and our still standing national record of 676 only put you fifth in ranking round. In Antalya that would have put you tenth.

These days there are dozens and dozens of archers from various countries and continents who can shoot 670+ scores. 17 managed in Antalya, with another 5 at 669. I'd expect even more in Brazil.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Good points.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

It's kind of disappointing to realize that if I put together my 2 best ever single 70m scores, it would still only put me around 75th place. And I used to be pretty good, a long time ago. Oh well.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> It's kind of disappointing to realize that if I put together my 2 best ever single 70m scores, it would still only put me around 75th place. And I used to be pretty good, a long time ago. Oh well.


LOL. Yea, I kinda did the same math and ended up with the same feeling. ha, ha.

I can point to about two periods in my short shooting career when I was shooting the kinds of scores the boys are shooting now. But they were fleeting. Fun though. I really don't see how a part-timer with a family and full time job would ever consistently shoot 340's.


----------



## dmacey (Mar 27, 2015)

theminoritydude said:


> I guess no one is interested in anything below 640.


Hah! I do. I can shoot further under a 640 than anyone on this thread... 

DM


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

one of our archers shot 647 to make it to the matches while the other--a gold medalist in the 2014 youth olympics mixed team competition--had a 627...

i am hoping for "flashes of brilliance" from our lone qualifier as i'm seen him shoot a 60 at 90M at least 2x in practice..


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

It's easy to see that it's Olympic year and there are quota places available. Everyone's raising their game. Our team scored quite well, shooting 669, 661, 659. In normal world cup event that would put you usually comfortably on top six as a team, this time it ranked to tenth.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

zal said:


> It's easy to see that it's Olympic year and there are quota places available. Everyone's raising their game. Our team scored quite well, shooting 669, 661, 659. In normal world cup event that would put you usually comfortably on top six as a team, this time it ranked to tenth.


And to point out John's point. That is pretty much the level three full-time working archers can manage (well 2 working, as principal software engineer and nationwide key account manager plus one who's studying to be a doctor...)

Countries like USA are really lucky that they can actually have a program for full-time archers, and it clearly shows in the results.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I don't really see much of a future for part-time amateur archers in Olympic or WC events going forward. Those days are over now that enough countries are throwing enough $ at the sport. This is one reason I've shifted my focus as a coach to the barebow discipline. Because someone in my position (working full time with a family) just isn't in a position to train full-time archers who can compete with today's professionals. Since there is no separation in USArchery events between amateurs and professionals, it really doesn't make a lot of sense to try and compete against them. Setting part-time amateur archers up to be throttled event after event by full time professionals is exhausting.

I will instead invest my time in amateur archers who shoot for the love of the game. Nothing against full-time professionals, but they require a great deal more care and feeding than most of us part-time coaches can provide.

Sorry for going off-topic.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Looking at the results from the women's qualification, I want to know who is coaching the Mexican women, and why we didn't hire them.


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

Looks like the coach is Lee Wong (senior / head coach), didn't see any coaches designated as "women's head coach".


----------



## Infinite Curve (Jan 7, 2013)

As if to emphasise all the above, the Korean women just beat their own team world record by seven points.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Small note about Italian Women Team. 1985 points is the new Italian team record, beating the previous one by 29 points "only"... but not enough to be on top in Europe, as Russia shot 1992 and Germany 1991. This game has definitely moved to another level ....


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Vittorio said:


> Small note about Italian Women Team. 1985 points is the new Italian team record, beating the previous one by 29 points "only"... but not enough to be on top in Europe, as Russia shot 1992 and Germany 1991. This game has definitely moved to another level ....


Indeed.

Vittorio, do you know which women on the top 8 teams are not full time archers? Any?


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

Just to stay on the interesting offtopic a bit more:

couple of years ago we invited Jari Lipponen to give a talk in a national coaching seminar. He's pretty much the last full-time archer Finland has had, back in late 90's and early 2000's when there were still institutional sponsors (the lottery fund, mainly). It was revealing to hear him talk about how much his training and scores were hindered by just moving into an own house, and all the things that came with it, like removing snow and gardening stuff.

There's a still a difference between "full-time" and people who can concentrate 100% on sport, like people living on sports campuses. IIRC he calculated that in the early 2000's yearly budged should be at least 40 000 euros to be able to compete internationally. Taking inflation etc. into account, you'd probably need to put couple of ten thousands on the top.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Indeed.
> 
> Vittorio, do you know which women on the top 8 teams are not full time archers? Any?


Kidding? 
Just looking to the list, I think that among the top 23 women teams may be there are 2 or 3 semi-professionals. And many other names in the list after the 23rd place are professionals too.
Then you wil have to count probably more than triple of that number home, apart from the estimated 600 Koreans professional girls.

Just to give you an idea, Italian new team made of 4, has another 4 to 6 at same or may be better level home, including Natalia Valeeva, still shooting. All full time archers. 

As I mentioned already long time ago, situation is easier with women than with men. Women are easier to coach and get instruction during training, so if you get a bunch of good level gilrs, if they accept the discipline needed, after a two or 3 years you can get out a good team from them. Of course, they should have the talent to start with, but then is just a matter of good continuous training, regardless from the specific shooting technique. And good continuous training for 3 or 4 years needs money, a lot of money. 

My daughter after many years of "pure amateur" activity, because of the Olympic Games is presently training (again) at semi-pro level, and her scores are already close to the 2005 ones when she was on top after winning the World Cadet target Championships in 2004. But, of course, we can't realistically imagine that 3 months of good training level can get her to be competititive against those that have a minimum of 3 years of heavy trianing on their shoulders and have had a monthly salary to support their training. Nope.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

From a guy's point of view, girls are easier to coach.

And vice versa.

It's a sexist world


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> situation is easier with women than with men. Women are easier to coach and get instruction during training, so if you get a bunch of good level gilrs, if they accept the discipline needed, after a two or 3 years you can get out a good team from them.


I completely agree, which is probably why I've worked with more and higher level young ladies than young men in my coaching career.

It's also why I continue to question our current coaching program in the U.S..


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

theminoritydude said:


> From a guy's point of view, girls are easier to coach.
> 
> And vice versa.
> 
> It's a sexist world


From 43 years in archery and 32 in coaching, I can tell you it's not a sexist opinion, but based on direct experience, opinion from many top coaches in the world as well as simple observation of the archery world. Also numbers from your beloved Korean archery world tell the same, as "productivity" in making top level ladies in Korea is much higher than in making top level men, among the years.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

The numbers where I come from suggests otherwise.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

It's sexist in a neutral sort of way; from a male coach's perspective the ladies are easier to coach (namely, yours). From a female coach's perspective, more success was made with male archers (my wife), year after year.

In fact, that thought never crossed my mind until you mentioned how it was easier coaching females.

Perspectives, Vittorio.


----------



## julle (Mar 1, 2009)

zal said:


> And to point out John's point. That is pretty much the level three full-time working archers can manage (well 2 working, as principal software engineer and nationwide key account manager plus one who's studying to be a doctor...)
> 
> Countries like USA are really lucky that they can actually have a program for full-time archers, and it clearly shows in the results.


Luckily you Finns can just throw a target out at 70m anywhere you want without worrying about stupid bureaucratic issues such as here in the Netherlands and practice till past midnight in bright sunlight ;-)


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

So, men's recurve team is in the Semi's against Mexico. Well done boys.

Ladies fell to Korea in the 2nd round (which is why you don't qualify in the 8th spot under any circumstances). 

The best I can tell, there is another team event beginning tomorrow, for just the teams that are still trying to qualify spots for Rio. US women were ranked 4th among those teams, so that will help their chances. They will start vs. Mongolia (ranked 13th) in the first round, then face either Ukraine or Denmark in the 2nd round. Good news is they just beat Ukraine today, so that will help their confidence I think, and put the burden on Ukraine. 

Why is it always Ukraine? LOL.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Still alive on the individual recurve side - 

Men's team in the semi's vs. Mexico,

Khatuna, Brady, Jake and Zach all advance to the 3rd round individually. Unfortunately Zach and Jake have to shoot against each other.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

julle said:


> Luckily you Finns can just throw a target out at 70m anywhere you want without worrying about stupid bureaucratic issues such as here in the Netherlands and practice till past midnight in bright sunlight ;-)


Hardly that bright, back in the day we had to practice in the bright headlights of a Citroen DX


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Recurve men fall to Mexico in Semi's - up against 13th ranked Brazil in bronze medal match.


----------



## Montalaar (Jan 26, 2008)

zal said:


> Hardly that bright, back in the day we had to practice in the bright headlights of a Citroen DX


Still you can do. I am with julle on that matter, unfortunately..


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

Montalaar said:


> Still you can do. I am with julle on that matter, unfortunately..


We were within a whisker of bows being classified to require gun license, which would more or less killed whole sport in the country. Luckily we could put a representative to the preparing committee, and he managed to put an idea in their heads that the cheap crossbows that people keep using to rob banks and stores are not same as bows we use for the sport.

Gun license isn't that hard to get if you have clean papers, but it requires you to be 15+ in this country, so youth archery would have suffered greatly.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Off topic much? 

Anyone getting the live results now? Website appears to be down.


----------



## wesel (Sep 6, 2013)

@lw,

USA women team lost to Ukraine.

SF Men Malaysia vs. Indonesia (0:2), and Germany vs. France (0:2)
SF Women Estonia vs Ukraine (0:2), Chinese Taipei vs Italy (2:0)

And here is link for live coverage: https://youtu.be/6BzzXGqapZE


----------



## wesel (Sep 6, 2013)

And one more - usually on this link one can check for live results for WA events: http://info.ianseo.net/


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Why is it always Ukraine? Ugh.

Well, I'm sure they fought hard. Very sorry for them, and very disappointed in USArchery for once again failing our women. If not for a miracle in Ogden 4 years ago, this current head coach would have never qualified a full women's team in three straight Olympics. Not sure what more proof someone needs that a change is long overdue.


----------



## RMBX10 (Jun 20, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Why is it always Ukraine? Ugh.
> 
> Well, I'm sure they fought hard. Very sorry for them, and very disappointed in USArchery for once again failing our women. If not for a miracle in Ogden 4 years ago, this current head coach would have never qualified a full women's team in three straight Olympics. Not sure what more proof someone needs that a change is long overdue.


Some will point out that the top qualifying woman used his system as proof that more need to follow it. I'd argue that #2 and #3 women don't use his system and beat out many others who did. It's telling that Hye Youn Park can come out of retirement and in short order qualify for the team. Similarly, Khatuna has qualified across three decades and three countries using something other than BEST (or whatever he's calling it now). The last US women's team that had a serious shot at reaching the podium at the games was probably the 2000 team with Denise, Karen, and Janet (who was decidedly weaker than the other two). None of those three used the methods currently being taught.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

If anyone is curious, I did not request for any comments to be deleted/censored. In fact I'd be very happy to hear the full story.


----------



## iArch (Apr 17, 2015)

Our RAs are supposed to be the best & most talented archers in the US right? They represent what using our best resources to train can produce, so I wonder if it's fair to point at coach when coaches don't shoot the bows...these RAs have many years of experience and I wonder how much influence the coaches have over them. Did USA fail our archers or did the archers fail USA? :/
Too bad we only have 1 spot this year, I wanted to see 3!


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Are Mexico RM better organized or funded than us? Brazil? I get the comparisons to Korea if the goal is to catch them, but we're in the bronze match not the final.

On RW it's telling that the top two qualifiers are not domestically developed and the second place Trialist and Antalya qualifier (who then bombed out of H2H fast, however) is not even from within our annualized senior team pipeline. The first of the domestic kids qualified 35th.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Anyone remembers Simon Fairweather?


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

wesel said:


> SF Women Estonia vs Ukraine (0:2),


Good effort by Estonian girls team, went in 16th and managed to knock out No1 Germany and then knocked out GB only to be beaten by Taipei.


----------



## RMBX10 (Jun 20, 2002)

theminoritydude said:


> Anyone remembers Simon Fairweather?


Yes. Why do you ask?


----------



## dmacey (Mar 27, 2015)

iArch said:


> Our RAs are supposed to be the best & most talented archers in the US right? They represent what using our best resources to train can produce, so I wonder if it's fair to point at coach when coaches don't shoot the bows...these RAs have many years of experience and I wonder how much influence the coaches have over them. Did USA fail our archers or did the archers fail USA? :/
> Too bad we only have 1 spot this year, I wanted to see 3!


Oh c'mon, we're just kidding here, right? Why would we be pointing fingers at anyone? Who 'failed' anybody? Sometimes you just lose - either you had a bad day or you got outclassed and that's just how it goes. 

I'd give my right arm - well ok I need my arms, how about my right leg - to be able to even dream about shooting like Khatuna L. or Mackenzie B. In my view, they were already champions a long time ago before now. 

I for one am just as proud of all of our shooters for accomplishing what they have, win or lose, so I at least ain't pointing at nobody . Course I'm still not worried yet about where my arrows go and am just trying to loose arrows at all, so my POV may be different . 

Viv La USA's archers all!

DM


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

RMBX10 said:


> Yes. Why do you ask?


He was a student of Kisik Lee, wasn't he? He did win the gold medal in 2000.


----------



## RMBX10 (Jun 20, 2002)

theminoritydude said:


> He was a student of Kisik Lee, wasn't he? He did win the gold medal in 2000.


Yes, but the discussion is about the women's team. No one is disputing that the men's team does well under Lee's direction. It should also be noted that Fairweather was a world champion in 1991 before Lee went to Australia.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Then it should also be mentioned that he was facing a period of medal 'drought', and he returned to be an Olympic champion while he was working with Kisik Lee.


----------



## Montalaar (Jan 26, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Off topic much?
> 
> Anyone getting the live results now? Website appears to be down.


Yeah sorry. But apart from the discussion over the USA Team, i found some of the results pretty impressive and surprising. In any case USA Archery posted a nice comment on their website!


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

RMBX10 said:


> Yes, but the discussion is about the women's team.


Yes, interestingly. About the Women's team. Two out of three were mentioned as "not domestically developed". So was it a problem with selection, or was it a problem with training?

If USAA had a policy of using only NTS training, then the inclusion of non-NTS techniques invariable disproves that notion. So what should the failure to secure top spot be blamed on?


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

dmacey said:


> Oh c'mon, we're just kidding here, right? Why would we be pointing fingers at anyone? Who 'failed' anybody? Sometimes you just lose - either you had a bad day or you got outclassed and that's just how it goes.
> 
> I'd give my right arm - well ok I need my arms, how about my right leg - to be able to even dream about shooting like Khatuna L. or Mackenzie B. In my view, they were already champions a long time ago before now.
> 
> ...


In the U23 era (1992-present), the US U23 men's soccer team made the first 3 Olympics and peaked at 4th in 2000. Since then the only Olympics they made was 2008. Since we routinely qualify out of the same region, it begs the question why. It's a big discussion in US Soccer circles because that's the step right below the World Cup team. Personally I think we're propped up by all the veteran dual nationals German-Americans Klinsmann has brought in. Otherwise you'd see domestic development has dropped off in quality. Not unlike Lorig and Park making this team look better in qualifying than it should have based on domestic development.

You look at RM and they have 3 guys qualified going back as far as I looked, won some team and individual medals, including one as recent as 2012. You look at RW and the last medal was 1988 (correct me if I am wrong) and in 2008 (2) and 2016 (1) we didn't even qualify a full team. That doesn't say to me, tough luck, that says the programs aren't even performing or qualifying at the same level. Rough luck is the RW are internationally competitive and go to the Olympics with a full team and don't bring anything back. A more systemic problem is when you only fill 2/3 your potential quota over 3 cycles.

They have the same USAT process, same travel schedule, same facilities, different results. It is an interesting question why one team is better. Not just bad day better. Better most events. If we're not engaged with the reasons why we're not trying hard enough. I readily admit they are way way way better than me and all pretty darned good, and that deserves and earns my respect, but relative to their elite peers one team is more competitive than the other, and you wonder why.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

theminoritydude said:


> He was a student of Kisik Lee, wasn't he? He did win the gold medal in 2000.


But he wasn't student of him when he won World Championships, so he was pretty much established top level competitor even before. From the outside looking in the worry seems to be in grassroots development. Seems like in USA, like in Australia before that he concentrated the work on very small group of full time athletes.

If there are not hundreds of high class female archers, there won't be the small peak that can win internationally. We have pretty much the similar problem in our country.

On the other hand, countries like Mexico seem to use the same model, throwing all eggs in one basket and concentrate on very small group of full time professionals.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

zal said:


> But he wasn't student of him when he won World Championships.


But he was, in 2000. And I reiterate, his performance wasn't as spectacular in between 1991 and 2000.
The fact of the matter is, he won an Olympic gold, while training under Kisik Lee.


----------



## straat (Jan 22, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> Not sure what more proof someone needs that a change is long overdue.


Long overdue? I thought the women's head coach has been in function for just over 1 year? You really expected instant results?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

theminoritydude said:


> He was a student of Kisik Lee, wasn't he? He did win the gold medal in 2000.


Last time I talked to Simon, I'm pretty sure he was a dude.



> The last US women's team that had a serious shot at reaching the podium at the games was


The last US women's team that had a serious shot was the London team. They were very, very talented and experienced, and the "youngster" (Miranda) was routinely shooting world class scores and outpacing the two veterans. There is a root cause behind this pattern. If the leadership gets the praise when the men do well, they should also take the criticism when the women don't. That's only fair.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

straat said:


> Long overdue? I thought the women's head coach has been in function for just over 1 year? You really expected instant results?


You believe this women's head coach has only been in place for 1 year? You need to study up on the history of the program a little more. Might want to ask who was "tapped" for that role before him, and under what circumstances he was ousted. Lots of people in USArchery keep their mouth shut because they don't want to rock the boat and don't want to be uninvited to international trips and camps. But plenty know what happened and have been pointing out the shortcomings of this administration on the women's side for years. 

I cannot conceive how anyone could look at the track record of this head coach with the Aus and US women and still defend him.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

I see. I guess after his departure, the Australian ladies team must have done exceptionally well.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Much simpler reality is that some shooting techniques are less applicable to women than to men, specifically all those related to heavy phisical training and overdraw, as they are strictly related to personal form and body shape. Sometime you may find a lady that can work with one or both of them, more often they can't, so a more traditional way of shooting may give better results with them starting from same talent level. 
Same is true with men. Just look to the Korean team today,were men since around 8 years have increased dramatically the average poundage , while top poundages for women have remained the same, and were the slim KU Bo Chan is also using a bit of overdraw, while KIM Woojing, as of his body shape, is shoooting traditional way .... 

Simon was surely a body culturist from 1989 to 1991 when he won the World Target championships in Crakow. You can see him shooting in my movie on Youtube about 1991 WC. Then he kept reasonable shooting level till the end of the 90's, including Atlanta 96, but clearly his physical training was much less. But, he worked as professional archer to get back to the > 54# with very heavy bow in 2000 for the Sidney Games, then relaxed again for 2 years but was called back to complete the team with Cuddy and Barnes in 2004. The Australian team in Athens was made by 3 heavy physically trained men with culturist body, were the slimmest was Simon and the strongest was Cuddy, that got the individual Bronze. They all 3 quitted archery after 2004; I was told tha the boys did not want to face other 4 years of heavy training only, and for Simon simply was the last training cycle.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

So is this a problem with the training, or a problem with the athletes' unwillingness to undergo such training, or the administration's fault for adopting these methods?

Which one?

Or does the US in general want to do the same things other competing nations are doing, but expect to win these nations?


----------



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

theminoritydude said:


> I see. I guess after his departure, the Australian ladies team must have done exceptionally well.


Good point


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Our girl Laura Nurmsalu just qualified for Rio. :thumbs_up


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

theminoritydude said:


> I see. I guess after his departure, the Australian ladies team must have done exceptionally well.


IIRC that coincided with funding being slashed to almost nothing, but I'm sure our Australian comrades can elaborate more.

And to stay on topic: our women got a quota place, so that's two individual places for Finland for a first time after Sydney (after those games the funding has been a sliver of what it was before).


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

"I see. I guess after his departure, the Australian ladies team must have done exceptionally well."

and "Good point " 



So, "they weren't very good then, but they're still not very good now" is somehow a ringing endorsement of their previous coach? Not exactly high praise...


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

I have no vested interest in promoting anyone in O.R., all I'm trying to do, is justify the vitriol.

I can't.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Very heavily recruited and compensated head coaches are hired to create successful programs that are sustainable. This is how they are "sold" to the consumer (Archery Aus and USArchery) and this is what they are expected to do. In neither case - AUS or the US, has the women's program seen sustainable improvement. 

Vittorio's points above need to be carefully read and understood. Because that is what this coach, and his method, is all about. There are far too many facts to support this to argue otherwise.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

So the issue is with the executive/management level? The candidate sold his system, your executives bought it. Has he been negligent or dishonest about anything?


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

steve morley said:


> Our girl Laura Nurmsalu just qualified for Rio. :thumbs_up


It is noted.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

theminoritydude said:


> So the issue is with the executive/management level? The candidate sold his system, your executives bought it. Has he been negligent or dishonest about anything?


I guess that depends on who you ask.

But let's just talk about what we know about this coach's track record with women's programs in AUS and the US. We can speculate all we want, but the results are very easy for everyone to see for themselves. 

Meanwhile, Mexico and other countries with far fewer resources seem to have no trouble finding a women's coach who has taken their programs to a very competitive level in short order.


----------



## StarDog (Feb 17, 2007)

So either the system isn't working, or enough women who can benefit from the system aren't coming into the fold for various reasons (no one knows they're out there because they can't make it to the big shoots where they are noticed or whatever). Because there isn't a systematic approach to "scout" for the talent? Or say I was one of Chris Hill's young ladies doing Koean Linear draw and beating the bejesus out of everyone but because I'm not using NTS that won't fly even though I just trashed every other NTS shooter. 

And trying to get me to use NTS with lousy results and not letting me go back to what I know how to do is not acceptable. Because someone's ego would rather see me use the "system" rather than just say, "go get 'em, Tiger"


Does it sound as if being an RA under the current coaching staff may not be our best approach.

Would a sane an reasonable organization not be looking at who is winning and qualifying and how and not want to explore that? 

Do I have that about right?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I have been asking for years what the problem is, and when I got a response, it was "we aren't getting the "right" women to work with." To which I say, BS. Why? Because are you telling me that Mexico has been blessed with an abundance of archery talent in the women's ranks compared to the US? 

That excuse doesn't hold water. You don't get to use it for a decade. And if you truly believe this, then it is up to YOU to go find the "right" women and bring them into the program. What other job is there than to recruit and train the "right" women to be the best in the world??? Sitting around hoping volunteer JOAD coaches are going to find them and send them to you is wishful thinking.

Another thing that really needs to be examined is why archers like Miranda are no longer shooting. What about that program (how it was managed, how they were supported, the specific training techniques, the environment created) led to her throwing in the towel so soon when she had proved to be the best talent we've seen in decades with a work ethic that was second to none. Why aren't the women staying with the program the way so many of our young men have? 

There is a handful of ladies out there who have many of these answers if anyone is willing to ask and actually listen to them, and not just hear what they want so they can keep crafting excuses to protect the head coach and in many cases keep themselves from looking foolish for hiring him and making excuses for him for the last decade.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

The one I really feel sorry for in all this is Khatuna. 

She works her ... off to maintain a level of proficiency at twice the age of her competitors to earn the single Olympic berth for the U.S., then will have to sit on the sidelines and watch what would have been her sixth consecutive Olympic games. That is very hard to swallow.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Why do you feel sorry for her? She's been to 5 Olympics. I don't see NTS preventing her from working towards her 6th Olympic.

About Miranda and the women who aren't staying with the program. Until one of them steps forward to give some answers, your claims that they have been treated unfairly remains unsubstantiated.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

StarDog said:


> Or say I was one of Chris Hill's young ladies doing Koean Linear draw and beating the bejesus out of everyone but because I'm not using NTS that won't fly even though I just trashed every other NTS shooter.


The linear draw is not an exclusive Korean technique. But anyway......

Are you saying you've been beating every other NTS trained opponent?


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

http://worldarchery.org/news/140947/viktor-sidoruk-celebrating-40-years-olympic-coach

Now, this is a coach. One who can take anybody and make them champions. It is a form of tough love. Just ask Juan Carlos Holgado who was part of the 1992 Spanish Gold Medal team. Victor's efforts over the years have gone a bit under the radar, but this guy has worked with men and women successfully. 1973 World Champion helps with his respect but also he has been there and understands what it takes. 

As for what it takes for our US women. I think they are on the right track. The amount of good shooters who are working their way up the system are deeper than I have seen in years. Plus, you have to recognize that the world is getting smaller, the knowledge is deeper and readily available to everyone, thanks to John, Vittorio and others (yes, including myself  ). Teams that were not even able to qualify for World Championships, now shoot some of the highest of scores. As for RA's versus the rest of the archers. The RA program is not for everyone. Brady and Jake are the first two archers who have been able to make it work. There are others that are starting to benefit from their efforts. Butch, Justin, and Rod were at the Center for only a couple of months. The RA requires a full time commitment and I am not sure there are many people that can be satisfied with their life with just being an RA. It doesn't mean that you cannot be the best unless you become an RA. Even now, Brady has moved on and has a home, a wife and probably enjoys his life a lot better and you can see his scores have climbed to some unprecedented levels. I have seen many potential women shooters go into the program and quit soon after. Others who hung in there for a longer period but eventually quit because it was not fun/enjoyable. It doesn't mean they cannot do it outside of the RA program. This mental thinking that if you are not an RA you might as well quit shows me that our culture is a "give me" culture instead of "take" culture. Khatuna is a taker. She goes in and tells them how it will be. If it isn't she is more than happy to pack her bags and move on without the program. She will find a way to win. Although she will not be going to the Games, I could not be more proud of her. She works hard and gives 100% at all times. She will be back and is already getting prepared for the 2020 Games. THAT is what we want more of. Our women are growing and with a bit more encouragement and patience, I can see them being a major force in four more years.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Well stated Rick.


----------



## StarDog (Feb 17, 2007)

theminoritydude said:


> The linear draw is not an exclusive Korean technique. But anyway......
> 
> Are you saying you've been beating every other NTS trained opponent?


That is not what I said.

it's a hypothetical question. I use Korean linear because that is what Chris says he teaches.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Was Park part of RA? At least one question her ascendancy raises is whether the USAT approach, to the extent it informs who is in RA, is capturing our best archers. John has talked about scouting athletes from other sports, and another avenue would be approaching "retired" archers who live in the country and have sufficient citizenship to compete for us. I don't know who is out there but at least the abstract sense I get is we use USAT to do the work for RA and then hope that RA builds Olympians. But maybe you might want RA to include not just proven domestic sorts who prove themselves through USAT, but also some fast tracking into the team of people like Park (and Lorig) who have competed for other countries; some intensive training before proof positive of some "laterals" from other sports; and perhaps also some inclusion of archers who don't make USAT but show raw promise (and not just ones with bankroll to afford it).

Are there more Parks to be had who are here but simply needed to be prodded to compete for us? Converted athletes? People who don't make USAT but could maybe take off with that degree of intense training? I half wonder whether the USAT concept kind of boxes you in to a set of proven athletes already running at high gear and puts blinders on in terms of other options a more holistic approach might put in front of you. If you weren't thinking like I coach USAT and instead like I am gathering the best team and developing the best future, you might stray outside the pipeline and look more at people like dual nationals not doing USAT, etc.

I mean, domestic development is a problem in soccer somewhat, but one way it's been papered over is they go out and compete for dual nationals, research people's backgrounds, find people who already have passports, help people start immigration processes. They can do that because they pick the team as opposed to running out the team chosen for them. Does USAT encourage us to be somewhat status quo oriented to the people who qualify ("they earned it") and not work harder at actively developing the next generation who might have more promise, or looking at what all is out there?

You could do this and still have aspects of the USAT and the whole of the Trials be strictly merit-based.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

StarDog said:


> That is not what I said.
> 
> it's a hypothetical question. I use Korean linear because that is what Chris says he teaches.


Ah.

Hahahahah ok.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

theminoritydude said:


> *Why do you feel sorry for her? She's been to 5 Olympics. I don't see NTS preventing her from working towards her 6th Olympic.*


If you don't know why, you're not paying attention.



> About Miranda and the women who aren't staying with the program. Until one of them steps forward to give some answers, your claims that they have been treated unfairly remains unsubstantiated.


How do you know they haven't? Just maybe not publicly.

And how do you explain the success Mexico has had with their women's program? (Can't wait for that one)


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

It seems you know the answers. Why don't you just say it?


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

You can't expect everyone around you to take what you say for granted with no way of verifying. When you make a claim, the onus is on you to verify the authenticity of that claim. If for some reason(s) the claim cannot (should not) be verified, then it is up to the listener to believe you, or not to believe you.

You're a coach, surely you understand this principle, don't you?


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

As for Khatuna, I really don't feel sorry for her. Her bow has taken her to many places, and they both have had plenty of good times together, and met some really great people. She's just begun her journey to 2020.

If sports should be about feeling sorry for not qualifying for the Olympics, then sports itself is just not worth it.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

There is a reason i have theminoritydude on ignore. 


Chris


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

theminoritydude said:


> The linear draw is not an exclusive Korean technique. But anyway......
> 
> Are you saying you've been beating every other NTS trained opponent?


She is refering to my joad kids that yes, are beating other joad kids nationally that use the NTS system. And my JOAD kids arent the only one. Many non NTS coaches are training kids that are winning regionally and nationally. 

The national system here is founded around NTS. My kids are not interested in the dream teams or OTC because of the pressure to shoot NTS. 

And that's a good thing. And i have theee or four young ladies that are shooting with the goal of Tokyo 2020, so i expect they will give many a run for their money, including Katuna. 


Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

chrstphr said:


> There is a reason i have theminoritydude on ignore.
> 
> 
> Chris


LOL. I do too, but occasionally give them the benefit of the doubt (usually to be proven wrong, and resume the ignore list).


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Interspersed 

-Steve



Azzurri said:


> Was Park part of RA?


No, she wasn't. 



> At least one question her ascendancy raises is whether the USAT approach, to the extent it informs who is in RA, is capturing our best archers.


At the risk of sounding slightly sacrilegious, I've always said that USAT is one of those things where you get rewarded for being a consistent shooter and being able to go to a minimum of a certain amount of USAT's plus Outdoor Nationals. In return, you get a T-Shirt with your name on it.

Is it going to capture the best archers? Possibly, because those are the archers that can dedicate the time to take things on a national level. But is it truly capturing the best? Likely not.



> John has talked about scouting athletes from other sports, and another avenue would be approaching "retired" archers who live in the country and have sufficient citizenship to compete for us. I don't know who is out there but at least the abstract sense I get is we use USAT to do the work for RA and then hope that RA builds Olympians. But maybe you might want RA to include not just proven domestic sorts who prove themselves through USAT, but also some fast tracking into the team of people like Park (and Lorig) who have competed for other countries; some intensive training before proof positive of some "laterals" from other sports; and perhaps also some inclusion of archers who don't make USAT but show raw promise (and not just ones with bankroll to afford it).


The issue with finding "retired" archers is that there's a reason why they retired in the first place. Dragging them kicking and screaming into the US system may not be the best approach, either.

With the international flavor of archery, one can say that you could marry into the system. I daresay that both Linda Anderson and Toja Ellison will end up on the US Team at some point in time. I do say that in all seriousness, and not because they are wanting into the US system because of anything other than they happened to marry archers that are part of Team USA. 



> Are there more Parks to be had who are here but simply needed to be prodded to compete for us? Converted athletes? People who don't make USAT but could maybe take off with that degree of intense training? I half wonder whether the USAT concept kind of boxes you in to a set of proven athletes already running at high gear and puts blinders on in terms of other options a more holistic approach might put in front of you. If you weren't thinking like I coach USAT and instead like I am gathering the best team and developing the best future, you might stray outside the pipeline and look more at people like dual nationals not doing USAT, etc.


I'm sure there are. But who tracks archers who came from other countries that emigrate to the United States?

And if an athlete has gone through the life-changing aspect of attempting to go and compete at a high level in one sport, do you really think that athlete will want to undergo that same level of life-changing training to go with another sport?



> (snip)Does USAT encourage us to be somewhat status quo oriented to the people who qualify ("they earned it") and not work harder at actively developing the next generation who might have more promise, or looking at what all is out there?


Within USA Archery, I think there is an attempt to try and expand the possibility of finding diamonds in the rough at this time. The Regional Dream Team concept is something that expands the coaching staff, the camps, and the current methodology of RDT (from what I have personally seen) is quite different from the turn and burn concept of years past.

The current theoretical plan for youth development goes from getting local clubs to do JOAD camps (including going back to the abandoned advanced camps), to RDT, to JDT, to RA/USAT.



> You could do this and still have aspects of the USAT and the whole of the Trials be strictly merit-based.


Stage 1 trials are currently set up to where if you make the top 16, you go to stage 2 trials to get winnowed down to 8. Stage 3 trials reduce the pool down to the top 4 (3 plus alternate).

USAT has nothing to do with it. If you make the score and get into the top 16 at Stage 1, and you make the MQS, you go onward. 

Trials (based on the current published selection criteria) are all about winning your qualifications, winning your head to heads, and keeping up your 3 arrow average. Accomplish those three, and you go to the Olympics.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

So the question is this: Does the NTS present an obstacle to the development of a female olympic recurve team, and is the Head Coach responsible for its perceived decline by certain individuals?


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

theminoritydude said:


> So the question is this: Does the NTS present an obstacle to the development of a female olympic recurve team, and is the Head Coach responsible for its perceived decline by certain individuals?


I'll separate this into two parts because it seems that there are really two questions in one.

1) Does the National Training System present an obstacle to the development of a Female Olympic Recurve Team? I can't say that it is an obstacle. The NTS has been modified over the years to be less rigid and more of a recommendation. There are a lot of people who shoot more of a hybrid rather than pure NTS. This is why, over time, Coach Lee has said that the most important thing to any archery success is alignment and hold.

Alignment and hold is pretty accurate. Look at Coach Frank Pearson's view that if you keep your hands in line (alignment) and can hold the string back for any length of time (hold), you will have success. Other systems have similar though processes.

I really truly feel that the RA system in general is not conducive to how women operate. You have the forced sorority blending combined with the gladiatorial type maneuvering that is seen. In other words, you're making the women RA's compete against each other while also wanting to team together at the same time. It's not a natural situation, so it's something that has a tendency to be a "doomed to fail" situation.

Khatuna and Hye Youn are somewhat isolated from that situation, especially Hye Youn. So it's no wonder that Khatuna (using her as an example) is seeing a bit more general success because she's not subjected to the day in-day out garbage.

In contrast - the US Women's Compound team are not subjected to a similar RA style environment. Different environment, different discipline, and different results overall.

2) Is the Head Coach responsible for the decline of the women's team? It's on his watch, so one can say that he is responsible. But let's look at the system and the psychological differences in how men and women handle things.

We've had the RA style system for a long while now. We've seen general consistent success with the men's side of the program, even across different head coaches. We can't say we've seen the same level of consistency with the women's side.

So something has to be done to revamp the women's side of the RA system in order to see success. It's not the technical side of the training system, it's the emotional/mental side of the world that we don't have a training system for.

I truly feel that replacing the head coach isn't the issue. It's changing how we handle women archers vs. male archers.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Is it time for a female coordinator/liaison position to be created? Would that be considered viable or justified? Suppose Kisik Lee chooses to step down, with the revelation that women's team should be treated differently from men at tge psychological level, would a female head coach be one of the solutions, or would it then reverse the situation, thus putting the men's team at a supposed disadvantage?


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

theminoritydude said:


> Is it time for a female coordinator/liaison position to be created? Would that be considered viable or justified? Suppose Kisik Lee chooses to step down, with the revelation that women's team should be treated differently from men at tge psychological level, would a female head coach be one of the solutions, or would it then reverse the situation, thus putting the men's team at a supposed disadvantage?


Something has to change. And ironically, I don't feel it has to be the head coach. If you look at (from a 30,000 foot overview level), the RA system has never changed since 72-76 or whenever we had RA's. This is through all the various head coaches up to Coach Lee.

Each of the head coaches have pretty much taken the same status quo for the RA system in general - regardless of if it's a man or woman.

Using the quote "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results", I do realize that changing the head coach is theoretically a change. Yet, if you look at it, it really isn't. The environment overall hasn't changed. The system of how female archer RA's are being handled haven't changed. We have changed the head coach, we've changed venues (Colorado Springs to Chula Vista to the new Easton Center at Chula Vista), but we still haven't truly changed the RA system in general.

If we hired a women's head coach, and that women's head coach had the ability to change the way the RA's are handled, including how they live and work together, only then will you see any level of success in the female archer RA program.

It won't necessarily put the men at a disadvantage. A change in the female RA system will put the women on the same level playing field. I truly feel that the mental and emotional environment is the issue, not the training, nor the training regimen, or any of the technical aspects of archery. It's all the mental side that needs to be revamped.


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

Beastmaster said:


> Something has to change. And ironically, I don't feel it has to be the head coach. If you look at (from a 30,000 foot overview level), the RA system has never changed since 72-76 or whenever we had RA's. This is through all the various head coaches up to Coach Lee.
> 
> Each of the head coaches have pretty much taken the same status quo for the RA system in general - regardless of if it's a man or woman.
> 
> ...


I would really like to hear you expound on that last paragraph.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Cephas said:


> I would really like to hear you expound on that last paragraph.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


Sure. Women bond differently than men.

A recent study by the Social Issues Research Center in the UK shows the inherent differences in how men vs. women bond and react. It's a very cool study that, while somewhat seems trivial on the surface, actually is pretty serious when it comes to getting a women's team to bond and gel. This study really gives a good insight to that.

You're seeing this more and more in a woman-centric workplace. It's time for the RA program to start going along these lines as well.

http://www.sirc.org/publik/girl_talk.pdf


----------



## RickBac (Sep 18, 2011)

Ever since the first husband brought home the nights kill to the wife to be cooked people have been trying to understand the difference between men and women. 
It is a huge market for books. 

The above remark was not meant to be sexist. It is meant to describe the differences of how men and women think, feel, react,etc to life. If you are a parent of a boy and a girl you know you can not raise them the same. If you are a teacher you know male and female students learn differently. If you are a manager, motivation for men and women are different. Period. 

Our current system obviously fits male motivation better than female 

Our female archers are just as good as our male archers in comparison to the rest of the world. I truly believe that.

We need to COACH our female athletes in a manner that benefits them, that motivates them.

We have female Olympic teams (and world cup teams) that perform at the top of the world stage. How are those teams run. Bring those team leaders, coaches, athletes, trainers in and learn from them. 

Our current coaching staff is excellent, lets give them all the tools to coach both men and women to be their best in competition.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

> I really truly feel that the RA system in general is not conducive to how women operate. You have the forced sorority blending combined with the gladiatorial type maneuvering that is seen. In other words, you're making the women RA's compete against each other while also wanting to team together at the same time. It's not a natural situation, so it's something that has a tendency to be a "doomed to fail" situation.


This is a crucial perspective to the issue. The "zero sum" current philosophy that has been employed for the last decade is a cancer on the effort. When told you must shoot this score in this tournament or you will go home just doesn't work. Until this is figured out and corrected, it will not get better.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I truly feel that replacing the head coach isn't the issue. It's changing how we handle women archers vs. male archers.





> If we hired a women's head coach, and that women's head coach had the ability to change the way the RA's are handled, including how they live and work together, only then will you see any level of success in the female archer RA program.


Some brilliant insight and assessment of the situation IMO. I've been saying for years that I won't be convinced that USArchery is serious about developing an elite women's program until the women have their OWN head coach that is on the SAME STANDING as the men's head coach.

Clearly, by now the results of our men's program have proven, once again, that Lee's method works for strong athletic men. He proved that in Australia with the three there (Barnes, Cuddihy and Fairweather) and has proven it here with Brady, Jake, Collin, the McLaughlin boys, Fanchin and others. I have been encouraged to see the success of archers under his watch who have had success with slighter builds like Wukie and Garrett, which tells me for the first time that his method can work even for an archer of average stature, if they are willing to train enough.

But nobody can argue that his track record with women, whether here in the US or in Australia, is elite head coach material. So what do we do? We finally admit that and like Steve says, approach the program in a new way, with a new women's head coach. One that has a track record of success and who has a truly new approach. Because I agree 100% with Steve that the RA program is a disaster for our women. It is an environment set up to succeed with competitive athletic men, not for women.

It would be interesting (and very responsible on the part of the women's coach) to investigate trends and compare women's programs across sports to see if they have had similar issues with female RA's, and if so, how they addressed them. We should be spending time with the most successful women's Olympic programs and trying to learn from them. And I still believe it takes a woman's touch or at least someone who truly understands how to work with women (and very, very few men do) to put together a program that will work.

We owe it to our daughters and our students to have an elite women's Olympic archery program for them, ESPECIALLY at a time when more girls than boys are taking up this sport. We should not be satisfied until we have a program that not only helps them reach their full potential individually, but also promotes a team atmosphere AND a love of the game that keeps them in the sport for more than one or two cycles.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

In soccer US Soccer seems to have a sharp eye on all the dual nationals out there, including people who actually don't even live here. The US MNT pool currently has people from Norway, Iceland, Germany, and Mexico. Yarborough, a GK, is the kid of US missionaries in Mexico, has never played here professionally. Johannson was born here but moved to Iceland as a kid. The US team now has a pile of servicemen's kids uncovered in Germany by the German head coach.

"Who is going to keep track of that?" Well, archers know other archers, they might know people from other countries and it comes up in conversation, oh, I was born in the US, they'd qualify for a passport. The Icelandic guy I think was found because he played on a team in Holland that signed another American. In conversation it comes up he's born in Alabama. Iceland at that point had never played in a major tournament so it's like, we're going to the World Cup, want to play for us? Next thing you know he's scoring the goal that knocks out Panama and qualifies Mexico for a playoff.

Also, I would think that would be part of the administrative apparatus. Keeping track somewhere of people we figure out are living here or have a passport, who started out elsewhere. Granted, they would have to volunteer for duty, but 2/3 the Trials winners and half the Antalya team were people who didn't start out here and decided to compete for us. So there is some precedent, it's not nuts.

FWIW, one use of the fact other teams can only send so many people is that you can look for people left out in those processes. One thing the US Soccer team benefitted from on the dual national Germans is the stiff competition to make the German team. So we can get world class players from there who either got cut, didn't progress past youth level, would prefer lower risk, or simply have an affection for here.

It wouldn't solve all our problems and it might only turn up one person a cycle, but we should be looking at all our options, and like I said, one idea I got was that the RA/USAT might be a little passive of cherry picking, oh I will just take the 8 top scorers from a series that are handed to me, that you might want to go out and hunt for people too, dual nationals, raw talents, people from other sports, give them the same energy and maybe even some international tournaments. Many of the guys abroad playing for the US for soccer do not play here or did not until they joined our team at least. They would have never showed up on some domestic scouting radar or qualified under a domestic performance matrix. It might be to our benefit to make a slot or two on USAT more of coach's choice where he can chose who he thinks has promise alongside people who perform in the series.

You're saying USAT is different but that is status quo think. We know it is x number of best plus certain tournament winners, so that's what it is. It could be changed to x-2 of the best and then 2 wild cards of coach's choice. You could make that change and still leave Trials as strictly merit on score etc. You could broaden RA. One of the key things to me based on the length of time since a RW medal would be not necessarily coloring within the same lines over and over like it's working "because that's how it's done."

What if we bent the rules on the team so mothers could train at their home towns?


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Bear with me here in why I feel this way.

I admit I am a bit of an amateur historian. Frankly, if I could make any money at it, I would have been a historian. But, I can't make money at it, so I work in the archery industry instead.

Ancient Greek and Roman history is my favorite. I greedily snag whatever I can on the subject matter. One such interesting fascination was the era of the Third Great Servile war, otherwise known as the time of Spartacus.

During that time, you had Gladiators, and Gladiatrix. Gladiatrix were women arena fighters.

Unlike men, who trained in the Ludi, women trained elsewhere. They trained differently, in different locations, were taught in a different environment, pretty much everything was different (save for their diet and medical care) from the men.

The difference worked. If one believes in genetic programming, men can fight against each other and band together for a common cause...all at the same time. If you look at almost any military structure from its cruelest, basic component - you have men pitting themselves against each other (getting your rank) but still fighting for a common element for teamwork. 

That methodology didn't work for the Romans and female gladiators back in the era of Caesar. Why would it work in today's era? It won't, by the way. 

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. 

The Romans knew that to have successful Gladiatrix programs, it had to be different. The women trained in their martial arts with the nobility, they were not lumped together in a communal bunkhouse like the men were, they were somewhat pampered versus other women in the same class level of servitude.

So, here's where my own part kind of falls short. I hate being critical without providing a solution, but I really can't. I don't know enough of the political wranglings that occurs behind the scenes to allow a modification of the program to happen and happen successfully. 

In other words, I can't provide a solution so I'm adding to the problem.

Yes, identifying the problem is one part. But another crucial and necessary part is to provide a solution.

So, I will provide one minor opinion. Do we need a dedicated women's head coach? Not really. We aren't big enough for that...yet. I do feel that if we have some sort of coach assigned to the women on a permanent basis reporting to the National Head Coach.

And no, I don't want the job. I'm happy living in Phoenix and coaching our higher performance youth and heading up one of the larger JOAD clubs in the state. I don't want to move to Chula Vista and uproot my family. But I do know there are members of the BOD who lurk or are active here. If this gets brought up as a board topic, I damned well better get credit for the idea of change.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Interspersed,

-Steve



limbwalker said:


> Some brilliant insight and assessment of the situation IMO. I've been saying for years that I won't be convinced that USArchery is serious about developing an elite women's program until the women have their OWN head coach that is on the SAME STANDING as the men's head coach.


As I mentioned in the other post, I don't feel we are big enough to get to that point yet. Plus, imagine the boondoggle of budget and other stuff.

Picking on Soccer - the USMNT and USWNT have different coaches, budgets (much to the USWNT's dismay), logos, and branding. They have the funding to do so. We (as USA Archery) don't have that.



> Clearly, by now the results of our men's program have proven, once again, that Lee's method works for strong athletic men. He proved that in Australia with the three there (Barnes, Cuddihy and Fairweather) and has proven it here with Brady, Jake, Collin, the McLaughlin boys, Fanchin and others. I have been encouraged to see the success of archers under his watch who have had success with slighter builds like Wukie and Garrett, which tells me for the first time that his method can work even for an archer of average stature, if they are willing to train enough.


I think what you're seeing here is the evolution of the training system. You've been through LEO training, so you'll understand where I'm coming from on this...

LEO training (Law Enforcement Officer training, for those unfamiliar with the acronym) is designed around common denominators and large muscle groups. The drawing of the sidearm, the use of common verbiage (POLICE, DON'T MOVE - even though you're in the Sheriff's or Marshal's office), whatnot.

The training system was likely designed around your athletic person. However, as author Todd Rose has said in his 2016 book "The End of Average", finding out that there is not an "average" person is somewhat of a shell shock.

So the NTS had to evolve.



> But nobody can argue that his track record with women, whether here in the US or in Australia, is elite head coach material. So what do we do? We finally admit that and like Steve says, approach the program in a new way, with a new women's head coach. One that has a track record of success and who has a truly new approach. Because I agree 100% with Steve that the RA program is a disaster for our women. It is an environment set up to succeed with competitive athletic men, not for women.


A counter argument can be this - everyone has constraints. We've gone through a bunch of different head coaches and we've seen no change, with Coach Lee and whoever was Denise's coach (who's name escapes me due to lack of caffeine at this time) seeing the most or closest level of success.

Why is that? If one looks at it from a top level view again, every head coach seems to have accepted the system as is. Is that a flaw from the head coach, or is the head coach being forced to accept the current system because the powers that be above him (read, the USOC) isn't allowing the change to occur?

Like I said, I don't know enough about the political wrangling in the background to know who's muzzling whom.



> It would be interesting (and very responsible on the part of the women's coach) to investigate trends and compare women's programs across sports to see if they have had similar issues with female RA's, and if so, how they addressed them. We should be spending time with the most successful women's Olympic programs and trying to learn from them. And I still believe it takes a woman's touch or at least someone who truly understands how to work with women (and very, very few men do) to put together a program that will work.


The issue gets narrowed down even further. What sports do you see that has a similar style, feel, and routine that archery has? Very few - just other shooting sports.

I'll pick on Kim Rhode. She pretty much trains by herself. She has a coach (dad), she has and reports to a National Head Coach (Todd Graves), and there isn't a split between men and women. Todd Graves is the National Shotgun Coach for USA Shooting, and he has both men and women athletes under him.



> We owe it to our daughters and our students to have an elite women's Olympic archery program for them, ESPECIALLY at a time when more girls than boys are taking up this sport. We should not be satisfied until we have a program that not only helps them reach their full potential individually, but also promotes a team atmosphere AND a love of the game that keeps them in the sport for more than one or two cycles.


I feel that the clubs are the biggest place to foster that. That, along with having coaches that understand women more than men. I have a very *slight* advantage - I coached Junior High School Girls Volleyball as my first coaching job. Even though that was over 20 years ago, I still use the insights that I gained at that time in my current position now.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

TomB said:


> This is a crucial perspective to the issue. The "zero sum" current philosophy that has been employed for the last decade is a cancer on the effort. When told you must shoot this score in this tournament or you will go home just doesn't work. Until this is figured out and corrected, it will not get better.


As I've mentioned, we don't have the whole picture. There's an element that we don't know about - who's pulling the strings on the National Head Coaches?


----------



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

Some of you are pretty quick to forget that it was Ki Sik coaching the Korean women's team in Barcelona, when they took individual and team gold. But that would be very inconvenient for the narrative, for some here.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

>--gt--> said:


> Some of you are pretty quick to forget that it was Ki Sik coaching the Korean women's team in Barcelona, when they took individual and team gold. But that would be very inconvenient for the narrative, for some here.


Thank you! I forgot about that...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> men can fight against each other and band together for a common cause...all at the same time. If you look at almost any military structure from its cruelest, basic component - you have men pitting themselves against each other (getting your rank) but still fighting for a common element for teamwork.





> That methodology didn't work for the Romans and female gladiators back in the era of Caesar. Why would it work in today's era? It won't, by the way.


Bingo.

A number of us who have been shooting with, and coaching female archers for years understand this important difference. Whenever I forget, I am usually reminded by one of my female students either politely or sometimes not so politely.



> In other words, I can't provide a solution so I'm adding to the problem.
> 
> Yes, identifying the problem is one part. But another crucial and necessary part is to provide a solution.
> 
> So, I will provide one minor opinion. Do we need a dedicated women's head coach? Not really. We aren't big enough for that...yet. I do feel that if we have some sort of coach assigned to the women on a permanent basis reporting to the National Head Coach.


I agree that providing a solution is critical and IMO the solution is a separate but equal women's head coach with the qualifications and experience to be effective. 

I don't accept that we aren't "big enough" for that. I refuse to accept that and here's why: Look at who is coming into the sport of Olympic archery - it is overwhelmingly girls - probably 2:1 over boys. So if we consider our future which isn't that far off, and consider the success we've already had in the past with the men's program, my view is that NOW is the time to shift resources to the women's program. If that means taking some from the men's program, then so be it because we now have an established group of men who know how to be competitive and have proven to be very self-sufficient (ala compounders?  ). So we need to see a shift in how the resources are applied to both meet the upcoming demand and to address the weakest link in our overall team.

I will also add (and I've said this many times before) that so long as the women's head coach "reports" to the men's head coach, the message the women receive is that women are 2nd class athletes. There is no other way to interpret this. It is a problem and has been for over a decade now.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

>--gt--> said:


> Some of you are pretty quick to forget that it was Ki Sik coaching the Korean women's team in Barcelona, when they took individual and team gold. But that would be very inconvenient for the narrative, for some here.


Are you sure you really want to go there George? Reviewing this coach's track record and personal history with female archers? Hmm?

Let's talk about this coach's track record with female archers since leaving the fertile fields of Korea. Assuming that his customers in the U.S. should still be satisfied with the results of a Korean team he worked with 24 years ago is more than generous. That's like saying we should all give Jerry Jones the benefit of the doubt because he had success with the Cowboys in the early 90's, and after losing his star talent (coach) he has suffered from mediocrity, but hey, that's okay... LOL.

If you are brave enough to comment (but you won't) on this coach's results with the women in Australia and the fact that if not for a miracle in Utah, he would have failed to field a full women's team in three consecutive Olympics, I'm sure we're all ears. I'd love to hear how you spin that one. But that won't fit your narrative either.

And why am I so shocked that a high profile employee from Hoyt/Easton would race to this coach's defense? (I'm not).


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Interspersed

-Steve



Azzurri said:


> In soccer US Soccer seems to have a sharp eye on all the dual nationals out there, including people who actually don't even live here. The US MNT pool currently has people from Norway, Iceland, Germany, and Mexico. Yarborough, a GK, is the kid of US missionaries in Mexico, has never played here professionally. Johannson was born here but moved to Iceland as a kid. The US team now has a pile of servicemen's kids uncovered in Germany by the German head coach.
> 
> "Who is going to keep track of that?" Well, archers know other archers, they might know people from other countries and it comes up in conversation, oh, I was born in the US, they'd qualify for a passport. The Icelandic guy I think was found because he played on a team in Holland that signed another American. In conversation it comes up he's born in Alabama. Iceland at that point had never played in a major tournament so it's like, we're going to the World Cup, want to play for us? Next thing you know he's scoring the goal that knocks out Panama and qualifies Mexico for a playoff.


Ahh...herein lies the biggest problem within archery. Coach training and inter-coach cooperation.

We are slowly building up the coaching ranks. What we aren't doing is training the coaches and having them work towards the greater good itself.

USA Shooting actually has a coaching academy. It fosters cooperation between coaches. It fosters common training. It also fosters coach development as a whole.

It's taken me over 20 years, across coaching Volleyball, Baseball, Pistol and Rifle to generate what I currently do in Archery. Having spent time coaching youth and knowing I will have to pass them onto another coach after a while, you learn how to coach successfully but also with some level of responsibility knowing that your job is to ensure that the kids you pass on will be successful at the next stage of the game.

It's different in Archery. Coaches are sooooo insistent on keeping their kids proprietary and corralled in, even at their athlete's detriment. I know of at least 4 archers in the Phoenix area in which they would improve a ton if they migrated to another coach - ANY coach - because that current coach got tapped out and is at risk of burning the athlete out.



> Also, I would think that would be part of the administrative apparatus. Keeping track somewhere of people we figure out are living here or have a passport, who started out elsewhere. Granted, they would have to volunteer for duty, but 2/3 the Trials winners and half the Antalya team were people who didn't start out here and decided to compete for us. So there is some precedent, it's not nuts.


It isn't nuts, but again, the current Archery coaching environment isn't one for sharing...at least not at this time.

If it wasn't for social media, I'd have no idea who some of our dual citizens are.



> FWIW, one use of the fact other teams can only send so many people is that you can look for people left out in those processes. One thing the US Soccer team benefitted from on the dual national Germans is the stiff competition to make the German team. So we can get world class players from there who either got cut, didn't progress past youth level, would prefer lower risk, or simply have an affection for here.
> 
> It wouldn't solve all our problems and it might only turn up one person a cycle, but we should be looking at all our options, and like I said, one idea I got was that the RA/USAT might be a little passive of cherry picking, oh I will just take the 8 top scorers from a series that are handed to me, that you might want to go out and hunt for people too, dual nationals, raw talents, people from other sports, give them the same energy and maybe even some international tournaments. Many of the guys abroad playing for the US for soccer do not play here or did not until they joined our team at least. They would have never showed up on some domestic scouting radar or qualified under a domestic performance matrix. It might be to our benefit to make a slot or two on USAT more of coach's choice where he can chose who he thinks has promise alongside people who perform in the series.


I'll hit this on two fronts.

One - if you look at the scores, and to the untrained observer, is it worth the risk taking those who just fell short? Or taking an unknown?

I will say that its worth it, if nothing else but for experience. 

Two - if you look at potential athletes from other countries - how easy is it to bring them on board? It's not. Dual citizenship makes it easier, but then you run the risks of kids like Jean-Luc Espinet, who competed for Trinidad and Tobago because of the oddities of the US System.

Dual citizenships are a two way street. We can lose kids and athletes as easily as you can gain.



> You're saying USAT is different but that is status quo think. We know it is x number of best plus certain tournament winners, so that's what it is. It could be changed to x-2 of the best and then 2 wild cards of coach's choice. You could make that change and still leave Trials as strictly merit on score etc. You could broaden RA. One of the key things to me based on the length of time since a RW medal would be not necessarily coloring within the same lines over and over like it's working "because that's how it's done."


I really feel that Senior USAT rewards people on consistent performance in general. Trials rewards on a totally different way - you have to be consistent across head to heads in a round robin scenario, your three arrow average, your score in simulated team rounds, and your score in a ranking round. You have to be even more well rounded (in a semi odd way) to get on the Olympic team based on the current selection criteria.



> What if we bent the rules on the team so mothers could train at their home towns?


I'll drag USA Shooting into the mix again. They have a bunchaton of shooting centers nationwide that are designated as training centers. You don't have to subject yourself to the USA Shooting RA Program at Colorado Springs to be successful. A lot of your current USA Shooting Olympians bound for Rio plus past Olympians weren't part of the RA program. They did get training or train at an official training center, however.

Kim Rhode is one exception. She travels *everywhere* to get as much experience in different shooting conditions as possible. Between that and video games (no joke), her training is quite a bit outside the USA Shooting norm. And she's got the hardware to prove it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Between that and video games (no joke)


Dammit, where did I put that Wii Archery game?


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> (snip)
> I don't accept that we aren't "big enough" for that. I refuse to accept that and here's why: Look at who is coming into the sport of Olympic archery - it is overwhelmingly girls - probably 2:1 over boys.


Yes, and unfortunately, how many of these female archers are being coached by either women or by men who understand the female psyche (no jokes, please...)?



> So if we consider our future which isn't that far off, and consider the success we've already had in the past with the men's program, my view is that NOW is the time to shift resources to the women's program. If that means taking some from the men's program, then so be it because we now have an established group of men who know how to be competitive and have proven to be very self-sufficient (ala compounders?  ). So we need to see a shift in how the resources are applied to both meet the upcoming demand and to address the weakest link in our overall team.


I'll pick on both US Mens and Women's Compound. They both see success. Why? For the compound women - they train separately, they are removed from the day to day stress (and I do mean stress) of living together and training together. In talking with past and current Women's Compound Senior USAT members - this is the common theme I get from them.

For the men - they are just (in general) a powerhouse. The rest of the world has caught up to us, but they still are a force to reckon with.



> I will also add (and I've said this many times before) that so long as the women's head coach "reports" to the men's head coach, the message the women receive is that women are 2nd class athletes. There is no other way to interpret this. It is a problem and has been for over a decade now.


You have a decentralized coaching setup with USA Table Tennis. A primary director that manages the coaches (head coach, really) with a bunch of national coaches underneath that director.

USA Shooting has three head coaches. One for pistol, one for rifle, one for shotgun. They don't report up to anyone other than the board.

Then you have the other extreme - USA Basketball. The US Men's staff has 3 times the coaches and support staff compared to the women. 

In USA Soccer, you have a USMNT and USWNT head coach. The USMNT has a personal team chef. Women don't. You still have inequality despite the fact that you have a dedicated head coach for that gender.

It all differs depending on the organization.


----------



## Ohriahn (Apr 22, 2016)

Where does Coach Guy fit into all of this? If I understand it correctly, he is the head coach of the women's team and present at the Olympic Training enter in Chula Vista. I had heard that he attempted to implement some changes to the program but faced resistance from the RAs because he came in so close to the end of the Olympic cycle. It would be interesting to know to what extent he has the jurisdiction to tailor the women's program, and what he might intend to do with it now that a new Olympic cycle is beginning.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Ohriahn said:


> Where does Coach Guy fit into all of this? If I understand it correctly, he is the head coach of the women's team and present at the Olympic Training enter in Chula Vista. I had heard that he attempted to implement some changes to the program but faced resistance from the RAs because he came in so close to the end of the Olympic cycle. It would be interesting to know to what extent he has the jurisdiction to tailor the women's program, and what he might intend to do with it now that a new Olympic cycle is beginning.


He's also the assistant head coach. Meaning he also has some responsibilities to the men's side of the world as well.

Regarding changes. Again, I'm not close enough to know the entirety of the political side of the world. There is a lot of stuff going on. We don't see a lot of it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Ohriahn said:


> Where does Coach Guy fit into all of this? If I understand it correctly, he is the head coach of the women's team and present at the Olympic Training enter in Chula Vista. I had heard that he attempted to implement some changes to the program but faced resistance from the RAs because he came in so close to the end of the Olympic cycle. It would be interesting to know to what extent he has the jurisdiction to tailor the women's program, and what he might intend to do with it now that a new Olympic cycle is beginning.


Guy was named, very unexpectedly and without explanation, to the "women's head coach" position shortly after USArchery named Mel Nichols to that very same position - a fact that few seem to recall and even fewer question. There was never an explanation as to why, even though Mel could very well be credited with pulling together our women's team before London and helping them earn a full team slot to those games. Good 'ol USArchery politics at their best... No good deed goes unpunished.

Like Steve says, there are a lot of politics in play that most of us will never see. It is one of the most disappointing aspects of USArchery that I have come to know and is the reason that myself and many other experienced archers and coaches no longer fully participate to the extent we once did. It's also the reason that some of the most intelligent and capable potential volunteers choose to stay away from the organization.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Seems we've been having this discussion for some time. 

A interesting read from 2012 with good input from Miranda's dad. Posts #4, 6 and 11 are like dejavu.

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1781033


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Taking a break from Recurve, anyone would like to comment about what's happening in Compound? It looks like rest of the world is growing very rapidly in men even more in women ...


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Vittorio said:


> Taking a break from Recurve, anyone would like to comment about what's happening in Compound? It looks like rest of the world is growing very rapidly in men even more in women ...


Compound is going insane....in a good way. From a Team USA perspective, I like what I am seeing.

If one looks at the potential/theoretical add-ons with Linda Anderson and Toja Ellison, the US Women's Compound team will be really a formidable group.

-Steve


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

I guess the boys are taking a break from all this talking. Ladies?


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Don't be shy. You can't always have the men deciding everything.


----------



## iArch (Apr 17, 2015)

theminoritydude said:


> I guess the boys are taking a break from all this talking. Ladies?





theminoritydude said:


> Don't be shy. You can't always have the men deciding everything.


Usually it's the ladies that do the talking. :wink:
I think most of the women reading this thread are either amused or speechless.


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

I wonder if it isn't something as simple as that archery isn't attractive as a full time job for women.

Men can barely afford to make this a full time job. Add in pressure to raise a family and the fact that the women's side appears to be under funded and under appreciated, makes sense to me that women vanish. If I was in that position, a college degree and a stable income would be preferrable. 

To make the ranks stronger, it has to be an attractive career. Once the Hollywood factor is gone, there has to be a reason to continue when the realities of life set in.


----------



## Ohriahn (Apr 22, 2016)

kshet26 said:


> I wonder if it isn't something as simple as that archery isn't attractive as a full time job for women.


This. As archery grows, it will be more possible for a professional athlete to make a living in the sport. However, it is becoming possible for the men far faster than it is becoming possible for the women. Yes it's about the money, yes it's about the women's program being based on the men's program. I am interested to see what Coach Guy can or will do with the new batch of recruits at the training center. That said, it is my humble opinion that nothing much will change on the financial front until strong female shooters and the coaching support behind them demand that it change. Some are certainly ready to try.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> nothing much will change on the financial front until strong female shooters and the coaching support behind them demand that it change. Some are certainly ready to try.


It's hard for the minority (in this case) to effect change because they don't have much power over the majority or those in power. I mean, what are the women going to do, threaten a boycott? Of whom? It won't work because such a high % of the archery economy revolves around the men's game. So some powerful advocates will have to intervene on their behalf if change is to occur.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> It's hard for the minority (in this case) to effect change because they don't have much power over the majority or those in power. I mean, what are the women going to do, threaten a boycott? Of whom? It won't work because such a high % of the archery economy revolves around the men's game. So some powerful advocates will have to intervene on their behalf if change is to occur.


look at soccer. Womens US team brings in more revenue and fans than the men. Yet get paid 1/2 as much. They tried to boycott and discovered in their contract they are not allowed to. 

I remember a few years ago, the Japanese Soccer team flew to the world champs. The men all flew first class, the women's team in coach. 

At the tournament, the Japanese men lost. The Japanese women WON!. On the return flight, the MEN sat in first class, the women sat in coach. Someone made a stink about that at the time, but nothing changed. 

Chris


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Erm. Archery, ladies and gents.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Women in sports have gotten the short stick for a long time. Not just archery. 

But to change it for archery, it has to be changed for sports in general.

Erm, you're back to the ignore list. 


Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Erm, you're back to the ignore list.


LOL. Like I said.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

So the ones who fly in coach class won.

I guess coach class (you know, the class we all fly) is indeed good enough.

So if you want to win, you know what to do.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Thank you Chris for that revelation.


----------



## StarDog (Feb 17, 2007)

It has to sell advertising dollars. Money talks. That's what drives the boat, unfortunately.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

StarDog said:


> It has to sell advertising dollars. Money talks. That's what drives the boat, unfortunately.


Perhaps what is needed is an archery company that focuses on women and designs equipment specifically for them. I would think the timing would be right for that, and they would need archers to promote their products. 

Teresa, if you're out there, get with Nikki and Elite archery and create a subsidiary that exclusively designs and sells women's gear.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Why? Is the current line of equipment not suitable for the female archer? Didn't know that bows are gender specific.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> Perhaps what is needed is an archery company that focuses on women and designs equipment specifically for them. I would think the timing would be right for that, and they would need archers to promote their products.
> 
> Teresa, if you're out there, get with Nikki and Elite archery and create a subsidiary that exclusively designs and sells women's gear.


Hehe. It took me two years for Hoyt to seriously start looking at short draw target compounds, starting in 2012. I wonder if Skinny Dave at Elite will do stuff like that...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Beastmaster said:


> Hehe. It took me two years for Hoyt to seriously start looking at short draw target compounds, starting in 2012. I wonder if Skinny Dave at Elite will do stuff like that...


:dontknow: But I suspect it will take an up-and-coming, progressive manufacturer like Elite to see the opportunity and move on it. The established brands haven't seen this as a market worth their time, so...


----------



## Jezza (Oct 21, 2013)

Just wondering, if there is anyone without a coach that have shot record scores?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I don't know of too many archers who have ever made an international team without ever having a coach. I can think of just one.


----------

